 |
|
 |
|
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 14:59:24 GMT, "Freedom Fighter" <...@once.net
Take a look at what the top military leaders, intelligence
professionals, scientists, structural engineers, architects, members of
Congress, 9/11 Commissioners, legal scholars, heroic first responders,
family members of 9/11 victims and psychiatrists say before you make up
your mind about what the truth is regarding 9/11:
MILITARY LEADERS
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan
(Col. Ronald D. Ray) said that the official story of 9/11 is "the dog
that doesn't hunt" (bio)
Director of the U.S. "Star Wars" space defense program in both
Republican and Democratic administrations, who was a senior air force
colonel who flew 101 combat missions (Col. Robert Bowman) stated that
9/11 was an inside job. He also said:
"If our government had merely [done] nothing, and I say that as an
old interceptor pilot?I know the drill, I know what it takes, I know how
long it takes, I know what the procedures are, I know what they were,
and I know what they?ve changed them to?if our government had merely
done nothing, and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of
9/11, the Twin Towers would still be standing and thousands of dead
Americans would still be alive. [T]hat is treason!"
U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director, decorated with the
Purple Heart, the Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal (Capt. Daniel
Davis) stated:
"there is no way that an aircraft . . . would not be intercepted
when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders,
or stop communication with Air Traffic Control ... Attempts to obscure
facts by calling them a 'conspiracy Theory' does not change the truth.
It seems, 'Something is rotten in the State.' "
President of the U.S. Air Force Accident Investigation Board, who also
served as Pentagon Weapons Requirement Officer and as a member of the
Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review, and who was awarded Distinguished
Flying Crosses for Heroism, four Air Medals, four Meritorious Service
Medals, and nine Aerial Achievement Medals (Lt. Col. Jeff Latas) is a
member of a group which doubts the government's version of 9/11
U.S. General, Commanding General of U.S. European Command and Supreme
Allied Commander Europe, decorated with the Bronze Star, Silver Star,
and Purple Heart (General Wesley Clark) said "We've never finished the
investigation of 9/11 and whether the administration actually misused
the intelligence information it had. The evidence seems pretty clear to
me. I've seen that for a long time."
Air Force Colonel and key Pentagon official (Lt. Colonel Karen
Kwiatkowski) finds various aspects of 9/11 suspicious
Lieutenant colonel, 24-year Air Force career, Vice Chancellor for
Student Affairs at the Defense Language Institute (Lt. Colonel Steve
Butler) said "Of course Bush knew about the impending attacks on
America. He did nothing to warn the American people because he needed
this war on terrorism."
Two-Star general (Major General Albert Stubbelbine) questions the attack
on the Pentagon
U.S. Air Force fighter pilot, former instructor at the USAF Fighter
Weapons School and NATO?s Tactical Leadership Program, with a 20-year
Air Force career (Lt. Colonel Guy S. Razer) said the following:
"I am 100% convinced that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were
planned, organized, and committed by treasonous perpetrators that have
infiltrated the highest levels of our government ....
Those of us in the military took an oath to "support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic". Just because we have retired does not make that oath invalid,
so it is not just our responsibility, it is our duty to expose the real
perpetrators of 9/11 and bring them to justice, no matter how hard it
is, how long it takes, or how much we have to suffer to do it.
We owe it to those who have gone before us who executed that same
oath, and who are doing the same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan right
now. Those of us who joined the military and faithfully executed orders
that were given us had to trust our leaders. The violation and abuse of
that trust is not only heinous, but ultimately the most accurate
definition of treason!"
U.S. Marine Corps lieutenant colonel, a fighter pilot with over 300
combat missions flown and a 21-year Marine Corps career (Lt. Colonel
Shelton F. Lankford) believes that 9/11 was an inside job, and said:
"This isn't about party, it isn't about Bush Bashing. It's about
our country, our constitution, and our future. ...
Your countrymen have been murdered and the more you delve into it
the more it looks as though they were murdered by our government, who
used it as an excuse to murder other people thousands of miles away.
If you ridicule others who have sincere doubts and who know factual
information that directly contradicts the official report and who want
explanations from those who hold the keys to our government, and have
motive, means, and opportunity to pull off a 9/11, but you are too lazy
or fearful, or ... to check into the facts yourself, what does that make
you? ....
Are you afraid that you will learn the truth and you can't handle
it? ..."
U.S. Navy 'Top Gun' pilot (Commander Ralph Kolstad) who questions the
official account of 9/11 and is calling for a new investigation, says
"When one starts using his own mind, and not what one was told, there is
very little to believe in the official story".
The Group Director on matters of national security in the U.S.
Government Accountability Office said that President Bush did not
respond to unprecedented warnings of the 9/11 disaster and conducted a
massive cover-up instead of accepting responsibility
Additionally, numerous military leaders from allied governments have
questioned 9/11, such as:
Canadian Minister of Defense, the top military leader of Canada (Paul
Hellyer)
Assistant German Defense Minister (Andreas Von Bulow)
Commander-in-chief of the Russian Navy (Anatoli Kornukov)
Chief of staff of the Russian armed forces (General Leonid Ivashov)
INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONALS
Former military analyst and famed whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg recently
said that the case of a certain 9/11 whistleblower is "far more
explosive than the Pentagon Papers". He also said that the government is
ordering the media to cover up her allegations about 9/11. And he said
that some of the claims concerning government involvement in 9/11 are
credible, that "very serious questions have been raised about what they
[U.S. government officials] knew beforehand and how much involvement
there might have been", that engineering 9/11 would not be humanly or
psychologically beyond the scope of the current administration, and that
there's enough evidence to justify a new, "hard-hitting" investigation
into 9/11 with subpoenas and testimony taken under oath.
A 27-year CIA veteran, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates and
personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan
and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials
(Raymond McGovern) said ?I think at simplest terms, there?s a cover-up.
The 9/11 Report is a joke?, and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was
an inside job.
A 29-year CIA veteran, former National Intelligence Officer (NIO) and
former Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis
(William Bill Christison) said ?I now think there is persuasive evidence
that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration
and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. ... All three [buildings
that were destroyed in the World Trade Center] were most probably
destroyed by controlled demolition charges placed in the buildings
before 9/11." (and see this).
20-year Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer, the
second-ranking civilian in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence, and former
CIA clandestine services case officer (David Steele) stated that "9/11
was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war", and it was
probably an inside job (see Customer Review dated October 7, 2006).
A decorated 20-year CIA veteran, who Pulitzer-Prize winning
investigative reporter Seymour Hersh called "perhaps the best
on-the-ground field officer in the Middle East?, and whose astounding
career formed the script for the Academy Award winning motion picture
Syriana (Robert Baer) said that"the evidence points at" 9/11 having had
aspects of being an inside job .
The Division Chief of the CIA?s Office of Soviet Affairs, who served as
Senior Analyst from 1966 - 1990. He also served as Professor of
International Security at the National War College from 1986 - 2004
(Melvin Goodman) said "The final [9/11 Commission] report is ultimately
a coverup."
Professor of History and International Relations, University of
Maryland. Former Executive Assistant to the Director of the National
Security Agency. Former military attach in China. 21-year career in
U.S. Army Intelligence (Major John M. Newman, PhD, U.S. Army)
questions the government's version of the events of 9/11.
The head of all U.S. intelligence, the Director of National Intelligence
(Mike McConnel) said "9/11 should have and could have been prevented"
A number of intelligence officials, including a CIA Operations Officer
who co-chaired a CIA multi-agency task force coordinating intelligence
efforts among many intelligence and law enforcement agencies (Lynne
Larkin) sent a joint letter to Congress expressing their concerns about
?serious shortcomings,? ?omissions,? and ?major flaws? in the 9/11
Commission Report and offering their services for a new investigation
(they were ignored).
9/11 COMMISSIONERS
The 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials lied to the
Commission, and considered recommending criminal charges for such false
statements, yet didn't bother to tell the American people (free
subscription required).
Indeed, the co-chairs of the Commission (Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton)
now admit that the Commission largely operated based upon political
considerations.
9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says "I don't believe for a minute
we got everything right", that the Commission was set up to fail, that
people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate
should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only "the first
draft" of history.
9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that "There are ample reasons to
suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our
version . . . We didn't have access . . . ."
9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said "We were extremely frustrated with
the false statements we were getting"
Former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission,
stating: "It is a national scandal"; "This investigation is now
compromised"; and "One of these days we will have to get the full story
because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House
wants to cover it up".
The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) who led the 9/11
staff's inquiry, said "I was shocked at how different the truth was from
the way it was described .... The tapes told a radically different story
from what had been told to us and the public for two years.... This is
not spin. This is not true."
SCIENTISTS
A prominent physicist with 33 years of service for the Naval Research
Laboratory in Washington, DC (Dr. David L. Griscom) said that the
official theory for why the Twin Towers and world trade center building
7 collapsed "does not match the available facts" and supports the theory
that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition
A world-renowned scientist, recipient of the National Medal of Science,
America's highest honor for scientific achievement (Dr. Lynn Margulis) said:
"I suggest that those of us aware and concerned demand that the
glaringly erroneous official account of 9/11 be dismissed as a fraud and
a new, thorough, and impartial investigation be undertaken."
The former head of the Fire Science Division of the government agency
which claims that the World Trade Centers collapsed due to fire (the
National Institute of Standards and Technology), who is one of the
world?s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, a Ph.D.
in mechanical engineering (Dr. James Quintiere), called for an
independent review of the World Trade Center Twin Tower collapse
investigation. "I wish that there would be a peer review of this," he
said, referring to the NIST investigation. "I think all the records that
NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see
someone else take a look at what they've done; both structurally and
from a fire point of view. ... I think the official conclusion that NIST
arrived at is questionable."
Former Director for Research, Director for Aeronautical Projects, and
Flight Research Program Manager for NASA's Dryden Flight Research
Center, who holds masters degrees in both physics and engineering (Dwain
A. Deets) says:
"The many visual images (massive structural members being hurled
horizontally, huge pyroclastic clouds, etc.) leave no doubt in my mind
explosives were involved [in the destruction of the World Trade Centers
on 9/11].''
A prominent physicist, former U.S. professor of physics from a top
university, and a former principal investigator for the U.S. Department
of Energy, Division of Advanced Energy Projects (Dr. Steven E. Jones)
stated that the world trade centers were brought down by controlled
demolition
A U.S. physics professor who teaches at several universities (Dr.
Crockett Grabbe) believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down
by controlled demolition
An expert on demolition (Bent Lund) said that the trade centers were
brought down with explosives (in Danish)
A Dutch demolition expert (Danny Jowenko) stated that WTC 7 was imploded
A safety engineer and accident analyst for the Finnish National Safety
Technology Authority (Dr. Heikki Kurttila) stated regarding WTC 7 that
"The great speed of the collapse and the low value of the resistance
factor strongly suggest controlled demolition."
A 13-year professor of metallurgical engineering at a U.S. university,
with a PhD in materials engineering, a former Congressional Office of
Technology Assessment Senior Staff Member (Dr. Joel S. Hirschhorn), is
calling for a new investigation of 9/11
A Danish professor of chemistry (Dr. Niels Harrit) said, in a mainstream
Danish newspaper, "WTC7 collapsed exactly like a house of cards. If the
fires or damage in one corner had played a decisive role, the building
would have fallen in that direction. You don't have to be a woodcutter
to grasp this" (translated)
A former guidance systems engineer for Polaris and Trident missiles and
professor emeritus, mathematics and computer science at a university
concluded (Dr. Bruce R. Henry) that the Twin Towers "were brought down
by planted explosives."
A mechanical engineer with 20 years experience as a Fire Protection
Engineer for the U.S. Departments of Energy, Defense, and Veterans
Affairs, who is a contributing Subject Matter Expert to the U.S.
Department of Energy Fire Protection Engineering Functional Area
Qualification Standard for Nuclear Facilities, a board member of the
Northern California - Nevada Chapter of the Society of Fire Protection
Engineers, currently serving as Fire Protection Engineer for the city of
San Jose, California, the 10th largest city in the United States (Edward
S. Munyak) believes that the World Trade Center was destroyed by
controlled demolition.
The former Chief of the Strategic and Emergency Planning Branch, U.S.
Department of Energy, and former Director of the Office of Engineering
at the Public Service Commission in Washington, D.C., who is a
mechanical engineer (Enver Masud) , does not believe the official story,
and believes that there is a prima facie case for controlled demolition
of the World Trade Center.
A professor of mathematics (Gary Welz) said "The official explanation
that I've heard doesn't make sense because it doesn't explain why I
heard and felt an explosion before the South Tower fell and why the
concrete was pulverized"
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS
A prominent engineer with 55 years experience, in charge of the design
of hundreds of major building projects including high rise offices,
former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission and former
member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council
(Marx Ayres) believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down by
controlled demolition (see also this)
Two professors of structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss
university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo Bachmann) said that, on
9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition
(translation here)
Charles Pegelow, structural engineer, of Houston, Texas (and see this)
Dennis Kollar, structural engineer, of West Bend, Wisconsin
Doyle Winterton, structural engineer (retired)
Haluk Akol, Structural Engineer and architect (ret.)
Michael T. Donly, P.E., structural engineer
William Rice, P.E., structural engineer, former professor of Vermont
Technical College
An architect, member of the American Institute of Architects, who has
been a practicing architect for 20 years and has been responsible for
the production of construction documents for numerous steel-framed and
fire-protected buildings for uses in many different areas, including
education, civic, rapid transit and industrial use (Richard Gage)
disputes the claim that fire and airplane damage brought down the World
Trade Centers and believes there is strong evidence of controlled
demolition (many other architects who question 9/11 are listed here)
LEGAL SCHOLARS
Former Federal Prosecutor, Office of Special Investigations, U.S.
Department of Justice under Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan;
former U.S. Army Intelligence officer, and currently a widely-sought
media commentator on terrorism and intelligence services (John Loftus)
questions the government's version of 9/11.
Former Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation; former
Professor of Aviation, Dept. of Aerospace Engineering and Aviation and
Professor of Public Policy, Ohio State University (Mary Schiavo)
questions the government's version of 9/11.
Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois, Champaign;
a leading practitioner and advocate of international law; responsible
for drafting the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, the
American implementing legislation for the 1972 Biological Weapons
Convention; served on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International
(1988-1992), and represented Bosnia- Herzegovina at the World Court,
with a Doctor of Law Magna Cum Laude as well as a Ph.D. in Political
Science, both from Harvard University (Dr. Francis Boyle) questions the
government's version of 9/11.
Former prosecutor in the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section of the
U.S. Justice Department and a key member of Attorney General Bobby
Kennedy?s anti-corruption task force; former assistant U.S. Attorney for
the Northern District of Illinois (J. Terrence "Terry" Brunner)
questions the government's version of 9/11.
Professor Emeritus, International Law, Professor of Politics and
International Affairs, Princeton University; in 2001 served on the
three-person UN Commission on Human Rights for the Palestine
Territories, and previously, on the Independent International Commission
on Kosovo (Richard Falk) questions the government's version of 9/11.
Bessie Dutton Murray Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus and
Director, Center for Human Rights, University of Iowa; Fellow, World
Academy of Art and Science. Honorary Editor, Board of Editors, American
Journal of International Law (Burns H. Weston) questions the
government's version of 9/11.
Former president of the National Lawyers Guild (C. Peter Erlinder), who
signed a petition calling for a real investigation into 9/11. And see
petition.
Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice at Troy University; associate
General Counsel, National Association of Federal Agents; Retired Agent
in Charge, Internal Affairs, U.S. Customs, responsible for the internal
integrity and security for areas encompassing nine states and two
foreign locations; former Federal Sky Marshall; 27-year U.S. Customs
career (Mark Conrad) questions the government's version of 9/11.
Professor of Law, University of Freiburg; former Minister of Justice of
West Germany (Horst Ehmke) questions the government's version of 9/11.
Director of Academic Programs, Institute for Policy and Economic
Development, University of Texas, El Paso, specializing in executive
branch secrecy policy, governmental abuse, and law and bureaucracy;
former U.S. Army Signals Intelligence officer; author of several books
on law and political theory (Dr. William G. Weaver) questions the
government's version of 9/11.
Famed trial attorney (Gerry Spence) questions the government's version
of 9/11.
Former Instructor of Criminal Trial Practice, Boalt Hall School of Law,
University of California at Berkeley 11-year teaching career. Retired
Chief Assistant Public Defender, Contra Costa County, California 31-year
career (William Veale) said:
"When you grow up in the United States, there are some bedrock
principles that require concerted effort to discard. One is the
simplest: that our leaders are good and decent people whose efforts may
occasionally warrant criticism but never because of malice or
venality... But one grows up. ... And with the lawyer's training comes
the reliance on evidence and the facts that persuade... After a lot of
reading, thought, study, and commiseration, I have come to the
conclusion that the attacks of 9/11 were, in their essence, an inside
job perpetrated at the highest levels of the U S government."
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Current U.S. Senator (Patrick Leahy) states "The two questions that the
congress will not ask . . . is why did 9/11 happen on George Bush's
watch when he had clear warnings that it was going to happen? Why did
they allow it to happen?"
Current Republican Congressman (Ron Paul) states that "we see the [9/11]
investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and
no real explanation of what went on"
Current Democratic Congressman (Dennis Kucinich) hints that we aren't
being told the truth about 9/11
Former Democratic Senator (Mike Gravel) states that he supports a new
9/11 investigation and that we don't know the truth about 9/11
Former U.S. Republican Congressman and senior member of the House Armed
Services Committee, and who served six years as the Chairman of the
Military Research and Development Subcommittee (Curt Weldon) has shown
that the U.S. tracked hijackers before 9/11, is open to hearing
information about explosives in the Twin Towers, and is open to the
possibility that 9/11 was an inside job
FAMILY MEMBERS AND HEROIC FIRST RESPONDERS
A common criticism of those who question 9/11 is that they are being
"disrespectful to the victims and their families".
However, half of the victim's families believe that 9/11 was an inside
job (according to the head of the largest 9/11 family group, Bill Doyle)
(and listen to this interview). Many family and friends of victims not
only support the search for 9/11 truth, but they demand it (please
ignore the partisan tone). See also this interview.
Indeed, it has now become so clear that the 9/11 Commission was a
whitewash that the same 9/11 widows who called for the creation of the
9/11 Commission are now demanding a NEW investigation (see also this video).
And dying heroes, soon-to-be victims themselves, the first responders
who worked tirelessly to save lives on and after 9/11, say that
controlled demolition brought down the Twin Towers and that a real
investigation is necessary.
PSYCHIATRISTS AND PSYCHOLOGISTS
Finally, those who attack people who question the government's version
of 9/11 as "crazy" may wish to review the list of mental health
professionals who have concluded that the official version of 9/11 is false:
Psychiatrist Carol S. Wolman, MD
Psychiatrist E. Martin Schotz
Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke
University Medical Center, as well as Radiology, at Duke University
Medical Center D. Lawrence Burk, Jr., MD
Board of Governors Distinguished Service Professor of Psychology and
Associate Dean of the Graduate School at Ruters University Barry R.
Komisaruk
Professor of Psychology at University of New Hampshire William Woodward
Professor of Psychology at University of Essex Philip Cozzolino
Professor of Psychology at Goddard College Catherine Lowther
Professor Emeritus of Psychology at California Institute of Integral
Studies Ralph Metzner
Professor of Psychology at Rhodes University Mike Earl-Taylor
Retired Professor of Psychology at Oxford University Graham Harris
Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from the University of Nebraska and
licensed Psychologist Ronald Feintech
Ph.D. Clinical Neuropsychologist Richard Welser
THOUSANDS OF OTHERS
The roster above is only a sample. There are too many Ph.D. scientists
and engineers, architects, military and intelligence officials,
politicians, legal scholars and other highly-credible people who
question 9/11 -- literally thousands -- to list in one place. Here are a
few additional people to consider:
The former director of the FBI (Louis Freeh) says there was a cover up
by the 9/11 Commission
Former air traffic controller, who knows the flight corridor which the
two planes which hit the Twin Towers flew "like the back of my hand" and
who handled two actual hijackings (Robin Hordon) says that 9/11 could
not have occurred as the government says, and that planes can be tracked
on radar even when their transponders are turned off (also, listen to
this interview)
Perhaps "the premiere collapse expert in the country", who 9/11
Commissioner Timothy Roemer referred to as a "very, very respected
expert on building collapse", the head of the New York Fire Department's
Special Operations Command and the most highly decorated firefighter in
its NYFD history, who had previously "commanded rescue operations at
many difficult and complex disasters, including the Oklahoma City
Bombing, the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing, and many natural disasters
worldwide" thought that the collapse of the South Tower was caused by
bombs, because the collapse of the building was too even to have been
caused by anything else (pages 5-6).
Former Deputy Secretary for Intelligence and Warning under Nixon, Ford,
and Carter (Morton Goulder), former former Deputy Director to the White
House Task Force on Terrorism (Edward L. Peck), and former US Department
of State Foreign Service Officer (J. Michael Springmann), as well as a
who's who of liberals and independents) jointly call for a new
investigation into 9/11
Former FBI agent (Robert Wright) says "The FBI, rather than trying to
prevent a terrorist attack, was merely gathering intelligence so they
would know who to arrest when a terrorist attack occurred."
Former FBI translator, who the Department of Justice's Inspector General
and several senators have called extremely credible (free subscription
required) (Sibel Edmonds), said "If they were to do real investigations
we would see several significant high level criminal prosecutions in
this country. And that is something that they are not going to let out.
And, believe me; they will do everything to cover this up". She also is
leaning towards the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 14:59:04 GMT, "Freedom Fighter" <...@once.net
SIMPLE PHYSICS EXPOSES THE BIG 9/11 LIE -
GOVERNMENT BUILDING COLLAPSE
EXPLANATION FAILS REALITY CHECK
On September 11, 2001, the world watched in horror as the World Trade Center
(WTC) Twin Towers collapsed, killing thousands of innocent people. Videos of
the collapses were replayed ad nauseam on TV for days. About 5 hours after
the towers fell, WTC building 7 also collapsed suddenly, completely, and
straight down at near free-fall speed. This steel-framed building was not
touched by the planes that struck the towers, and had sustained relatively
minor debris damage and small fires. Nearby buildings far more heavily
damaged remained standing.
In June 2005, in an apparent response to an article by Morgan Reynolds,
former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated,
"The American people know what they saw with their own eyes on September 11,
2001. To suggest any kind of government conspiracy in the events of that day
goes beyond the pale."
We will prove here, with scientific rigor, that it's the government's tale
that's "beyond the pale"!
Did most of the American people really understand the unprecedented
phenomena they had witnessed? Could a lack of knowledge of physics, and the
emotional shock of this mass-murderous "terrorist attack" have stymied
objective thinking and led to the blind acceptance of authoritarian
assertions?
The government and the media TOLD US what we saw. The government told us
that we had witnessed a "gravitational" collapse; what is now referred to as
a "pancake collapse". According to the government claims, the plane crashes
and subsequent kerosene (like lamp oil - jet fuel is NOT exotic) fires
heated the UL-certified structural steel to the point where it was
significantly weakened, which is very difficult to believe, never mind
repeat in an experiment. Even with massive fires that incinerate everything
else, the steel frames of such buildings generally remain standing.
According to the "pancake theory", this purported (all physical evidence was
quickly and illegally destroyed) weakening supposedly caused part of the
tower to collapse downward onto the rest of the tower, which, we've been
repeatedly told, somehow resulted in a chain reaction of the lower floors
sequentially, one at a time, yielding to the weight falling from above.
There are some problems with that theory - it does not fit the observed
facts:
* It cannot account for the total failure of the immense vertical steel core
columns - as if they were there one moment and gone the next.
* The collapse times were near free-fall, far too rapid to be due to gravity
alone. This article focuses on the latter of these two discrepancies.
Those that concocted the "pancake theory" made a fatal error - they didn't
check their story against the inviolate laws of physics! This is easy to do,
even without any physical evidence to examine. We can test that incredible
pancake tale using basic high-school physics. Let's do that - use a simple,
unassailable, incontrovertible conservation-of-energy analysis to perform a
reality check that establishes once and for all that the government, and
such government story backers as PBS, Popular Mechanics, and Scientific
American have falsified the true nature of the 9/11 disaster.
How Gravity Acts:
Sir Isaac Newton noticed that apples fell from trees. Others had also
noticed this, but none had ever devised a theory of gravity from the
observation. Over the years, mankind has learned that the force of gravity
at and near Earth's surface produces an acceleration of known constant
magnitude. That doesn't mean we know HOW it works, or WHY, but we have
become able to predict its effects with a high degree of precision and
certainty - gravity has always had the same, predictable, effect.
Galileo Galilei used the leaning tower of Pisa to demonstrate that a large
ball and a small one (of lesser mass) fell (accelerated downward) at the
same rate. Prior to Galileo, people had just assumed that heavier objects
fall faster, much the way they had assumed the Earth was flat.
So while an object of greater mass will exert more force (its weight) upon
anything supporting it against gravity's pull, it does not experience any
greater acceleration when gravity's pull is not opposed - when it is
falling. Earth's gravity at and near the surface of the planet can only
accelerate objects downward at one known, constant rate: 32 feet per second
for each second of free fall. As Galileo demonstrated centuries ago, heavier
objects are not accelerated any quicker than are lighter objects.
So Earth's gravity produces a downward acceleration of 32 feet per second
per second. This means that an object, after falling one second, will be
falling at a speed of 32 ft/sec. After the 2nd second, it will be falling at
64 ft/sec. After the 3rd second, it will be falling at 96 ft/sec., and so
on.
Further, since gravity's acceleration is constant, and an object is falling
at 32 ft/sec after one second has elapsed, we know that it has averaged 16
ft/sec for the entire distance. Thus after one second, the object has fallen
16 feet.
Scientists have derived simple free-fall equations that can be used to
harness this knowledge mathematically. These equations can be found in any
high-school physics book:
* Falling velocity = acceleration of gravity x time. (V = G x T)
And
* Distance fallen = 1/2 x acceleration of gravity x time squared. (D = 1/2
x G x T x T)
So if we want to know how far an object has free-fallen after 3 seconds:
Distance = 1/2 x 32 x 9 = 144 feet
So after 3 seconds in Earth's gravity, an object will have fallen 144 feet
and will be falling at 96 ft/sec.
Checking Our Work:
We've just solved a simple physics problem. Now let's check our work, using
conservation of energy.
We know that energy can neither be created nor destroyed - it merely changes
form. If we take the potential (in this case chemical, molecular) energy in
a barrel of oil and burn it, it changes to heat energy. When we burn
gasoline in our car's engine, we get kinetic (motional) energy, plus some
heat, as an engine is not 100% efficient. When we use our car's brakes to
bleed off some of that kinetic energy (slow down), that energy is converted
into heat (the brakes get hot). Explosives convert potential energy
[molecular or atomic] to kinetic energy (explosive force) quickly enough to
shatter or even pulverize concrete.
In the case of the free-falling object, the two kinds of energy we are
concerned with are kinetic energy and potential energy. Examples of
potential (gravitational) energy are the energy available from water stored
up high in a water tower, or a boulder perched atop a hill. If whatever is
holding it up there is removed, it will fall under the influence of
gravity's pull. As it accelerates downward, the potential energy is
converted to the kinetic energy of the object's motion.
So, as an object falls, it changes its potential energy into kinetic energy.
The equation for potential energy is:
* Potential Energy = Mass (or weight) x Gravity x Height. (PE = M x G x H)
The equation for kinetic energy is:
* Kinetic Energy = 1/2 x Mass x Velocity squared. (KE = 1/2 x M x V x V)
So let's just say, for the sake of simplicity, that our falling object has a
mass of 1. (Remember, the object's mass will affect its energy, and its
momentum, but not its rate of free-fall.)
The potential energy given up by falling 3 seconds (144 ft) is: 1 x 32 x 144
= 4608
The kinetic energy gained after falling 3 secs is 1/2 x 1 x 96 squared = 1/2
x 9216 = 4608
So, the available potential energy was converted into kinetic energy. Seeing
that energy was, in fact, conserved is how we know that the answer in the
simple case above was correct. We've checked our work, using an independent
analysis, based upon the sound physical principle of conservation of energy.
Now, and only now, we can be certain that our answer was correct.
One Little Complication - the effect of air resistance:
The free-fall equations above reflect a perfect, frictionless world. They
perfectly predict the behavior of falling bodies in a vacuum. In fact, you
may have seen a science class demonstration in which the air is pumped out
of a tube and then a feather will fall, in that vacuum, just as fast as will
a solid metal ball.
That's how parachutes work: much of the falling object's potential energy
gets expended doing the work of pushing a lot of air out of the way in order
for the object to fall. As a result, not all of the gravitational potential
energy can go towards accelerating the object downward at gravity's rate of
32 ft/sec/sec.
In other words, only when there is zero frictional resistance can any
falling object's potential energy be completely converted into kinetic
energy. Anything that resists a falling object's downward velocity reduces
its acceleration from the maximum gravitational acceleration of 32 feet per
second per second, as some of gravity's potential energy is consumed in
overcoming frictional resistance.
This explains the phenomena of "terminal velocity". The free-fall equations
predict that a falling object's velocity will continue to increase without
limit. But in air, once a falling object reaches a certain speed, its
propensity to fall will be matched by the air's resistance to the fall. At
that point the object will continue to fall, but its speed will no longer
increase over time. Another way of looking at it is this: gravity's
incessant force produces a downward acceleration, but friction with the air
creates an upward force and thus an upward acceleration. When falling at
terminal velocity, the acceleration downward equals the acceleration upward,
they cancel each other out, and a constant downward velocity is maintained.
Thus the parachute, with its high air friction resistance, allows the person
attached to it to float to earth unharmed.
A Quick Recap:
Earth's gravity causes objects to fall, and they fall according to precise
physical equations. The equations assume no air or other resistance. Any
resistance at all will cause the object to fall less rapidly than it would
without that resistance. If a falling object is affected by air resistance
it falls slower than it would if free-falling, and it will take longer to
fall a given distance.
Free-fall From WTC Building Heights:
The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall; average = 1355 feet. Let's start by
using our free-fall equation to see how long it should take an object to
free-fall from the towers' height.
Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time squared. (D = 1/2 x G x T x T)
With a little basic algebra, we solve the equation for the fall time, T:
2 x Distance = Gravity x Time(squared) (2 x D = G x T x T)
Time squared = (2 x Distance) / Gravity (T x T = 2 x D / G)
Time squared = 2 x 1355 / 32 = 84.7 (T = square root of (2 x D / G))
Time = 9.2
So our equation tells us that it takes 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the
ground from the height of the WTC towers.
Using our simpler equation, V = G x T, we can see that at 9.2 seconds, the
free-falling object's velocity must be about 295 ft/sec, which is just over
200 mph.
But that can only occur IN A VACUUM.
Since the WTC was in Earth's atmosphere at sea level, you might be able to
imagine how much air resistance that represents. Think about putting your
arm out the window of a car moving even half that fast! Most free-falling
objects reach their terminal velocity long before they reach 200 mph. For
example, the terminal velocity of a free-falling human body is around 120
mph. The terminal velocity of a free-falling cat is around 60 mph.
Therefore, it is clear that air resistance alone will make it take longer
than 9.2 seconds for anything falling from the towers' height to reach the
ground.
Observations from 9/11:
On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government's
"complete and final report" on 9/11, that the South Tower collapsed in 10
seconds. Here is the exact quote:
"At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds". That's the
government's official number. With all the videos that show it, they could
not lie about this.
But as we've determined above, the FREE-FALL TIME IN A VACUUM is 9.2
seconds, and 10 seconds is an exceptionally short fall time through the air.
This "collapse" was not without far more physical resistance than from the
air alone. It proceeded through all the lower stories of the tower. Those
undamaged floors below the plane impact zone offered resistance thousands of
times greater than that of air. Those lower stories, and the central steel
core columns, had successfully supported the mass of the tower for 30 years
despite hurricane-force winds and tremors. Air cannot do that.
Can anyone possibly imagine undamaged lower floors getting out of the way of
the upper floors as gracefully and relatively frictionlessly as air would?
Can anyone possibly imagine the lower stories slowing the fall of the upper
floors less than would, say, a parachute?
It is beyond the scope of the simple but uncontested physics here to tell
you how long such a collapse should have taken. Would it have taken a
minute? Ten minutes? Hard to say, but certainly it would take far more than
10 seconds!
What is certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that the towers could not
have collapsed gravitationally, through their intact lower stories, as
rapidly as was observed on 9/11. Not even close. This is shown above to be
physically impossible!
Not only was tremendous energy expended in causing the observed massive
high-speed sideways debris ejections, but virtually all the concrete and
glass of the tower was pulverized - actually dissociated is a better word.
Never mind what happened to all the supporting steel core columns! The
energy requirements to do anything like that, alone, rival the total amount
of potential energy that the entire tower had to give. Gravity alone is
sufficient to cause some things to fall that far, even through air, in close
to the observed 10 second collapse time. But that is without the huge
expenditure of energy necessary to pulverize all of that concrete and glass,
eject debris, plus cause the steel core columns to effectively disappear.
The gravitational potential energy present was certainly not enough to have
done all these things at once.
Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; it only changes form. So WHERE
DID ALL THAT ADDITIONAL DESTRUCTIVE ENERGY COME FROM?
Conclusions:
In order for the towers to have collapsed "gravitationally" in the observed
duration, as we've been told over and over again, one or more of the
following zany-sounding conditions must have been met:
* The undamaged structure below the impact zone offered zero resistance to
the collapse.
* The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any expenditure
of energy.
* The massive vertical steel core columns simply vanished, as if by magic.
* On 9/11 alone, in that location alone, gravity was much stronger than
gravity.
* On 9/11 alone, in that location alone, energy was not conserved.
None of these laws-of-physics-violating, and thus impossible, conditions can
be accounted for by the official government theory of 9/11, nor by any of
the subsequent analyses and arguments designed to prop up this official myth
of 9/11.
The Bottom Line:
The government explanations for the WTC collapses fail the most basic
conservation-of-energy reality check. Therefore the government theory is
FALSE; it does not fit the observed facts, and the notion of a "pancake
collapse" cannot account for what happened. The "pancake collapse"
explanation is impossible, and thus absurd. It is A LIE.
It is utterly impossible for a gravitational collapse to proceed so
destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near
free-fall time. This fact debunks the preposterous contention that the WTC
collapses can be blamed solely upon damage resulting from the plane impacts.
The unnaturally short durations of the top-down collapses reveal that the
towers did not disintegrate because they were coming down, but rather they
came down because something else was causing them to disintegrate.
So, to the extent that people accept the ridiculous "pancake collapse"
story, former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Gates' other
premise, that people know what they saw, is also false. It is left to you to
decide if his conclusion, which was based upon clearly incorrect
presumptions, is also flawed.
The collapse of WTC building 7, which was NOT hit by any plane, and which
also collapsed within a second of free-fall time later that same day,
similarly fails the conservation-of-energy analysis. The 9/11 Commission
made no attempt to explain it.
Just how and why so many highly-accredited and credentialed people all so
miserably failed to check the "pancake collapse" theory, by giving it this
basic physics reality check, is beyond the scope of this analysis.
---------------------------------
FURTHER IRREFUTABLE PROOF BY PHYSICS OF THE 9/11 INSIDE JOB:
http://vehme.blogspot.com/2007/12/glaring-proof-of-something-hotter-than.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_law_of_black_body_radiation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 13:39:29 -0500, "Michelle" <B. Hussein@muslimsRus
"Freedom Fighter" <...@once.netnews:Y8PYl.67117$d36.11677@bgtnsc04-
KOOK KOOK KOOK KOOK KOOK
KOOK KOOK KOOK KOOK KOOK
KOOK KOOK KOOK KOOK KOOK
KOOK KOOK KOOK KOOK KOOK
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 17:46:40 -0500, JMD Morgan <...@email.non
You scream KOOK :) while you are an idiot.
The PNAC Neocons — Brainchild’s of 9/11
http://911exposed.org/PNAC.htm
“Unfortunately, at least for the near term, we think it’s going to be a
good situation. Er, a dangerous situation. Good for business, bad for
the people.”
— Blaine Ober, president of a company that makes armored vehicles
What is the Project for a New American Century (PNAC)?
Established in the spring of 1997, the Project for the New American
Century was founded among others by, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld to
promote the neoconservative agenda. Currently, Bill Kristol, of the
right-winger propagandist Weekly Standard, is chairman of the group.
Prominent throughout PNAC is Richard Perle, former chair of the powerful
Defense Policy Board and strong supporter of Israel. In Washington,
they call him “The Prince of Darkness”(even his friends).[1] Another
influential PNAC member is Elliott Abrams, of the National Security
Council. These prime movers, of this radical group, became the foreign
policy, military, and national security establishment of the United
States government. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz, Abrams, and
their accomplices are quite literally the men running America. Some
other PNAC high-profile players are; former presidential candidate Gary
Bauer, Govenor Jeb Bush, and former director of the CIA Robert James
Woolsey.
The Project’s founding Statement of Principles:
Being consistent with neoconservative philosophy their doctrine states
(excerpts):
Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable
to American principles and interests? … “[What we require is] a
military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future
challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes
American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the
United States’ global responsibilities. … The history of the 20th
century should have taught us that it is important to shape
circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they
become dire...[2]
In a nutshell, it is organization that promotes a doctrine of world
exploitation in order to further American interests. Among the PNAC’s
“fundamental propositions” is the belief that “American leadership is
good both for America and for the world.” “Does the U.S. have the
resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and
interests?” asks the PNAC. Their policy would be achieved through
imperialism and preemptive attacks. In order to become capable of
achieving this “global responsibility”, they have contended that it is
necessary to have a large modern military. They openly advocate for
substantial increases in military spending on arms and research. In
essence, their plan dramatically expands the
military-industrial-complex.[2] [3]
Because of the PNAC founders’ strong pro-Israel bias, we can see another
predominate principle — that what is good for Israel is good for
America. Even though the PNAC statements are using the “America”
vernacular, it appears by their actions, their true hidden agenda is
“Israeli-American interests”.
The PNAC is the nemesis of what President Dwight D. Eisenhower had
warned us about. This sinister “brain center” of the
military-industrial-complex is composed of top elitist from many
different sectors, but predominately it is headed by right wing
politicians, military strategists and defense contractors. These
neoconservatives want nothing short of total world domination though
military and financial supremacy.
Bush puts PNAC members into political positions.
After the 2000 election sham of George W. Bush, many of the PNAC’s
members were appointed to key positions within the new President’s
administration:
Elliott Abrams – National Security Council, pled guilty to the charge of
lying to Congress in the Iran/Contra scandal, later pardoned by George
Bush Sr.
Richard Armitage – Deputy Secretary of State.
John R. Bolton – served as Undersecretary for Arms Control and
International Security in the Bush administration, then U.S. Ambassador
to the United Nations.
Richard Cheney – Vice President, PNAC Founder, and ex-CEO of
Halliburton. Previously served as Secretary of Defense.
Seth Cropsey – Director of the International Broadcasting Bureau.
Paula Dobriansky – Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs.
Francis Fukuyama – White House Council Member.
Bruce Jackson – President U.S. Committee on NATO.
Zalmay Khalilzad – U.S.Ambassador to Iraq. Previously served as U.S.
Ambassador to Afghanistan from November 2003 to June 2005.
Lewis “Scooter” Libby – National Security advisor for the Vice
President. Indicted by Grand Jury on charges of Obstruction of Justice,
False Statements and Perjury and resigned October 28, 2005.
Richard Perle – PNAC founder, Chairman of the Defense Policy Board,
Director of the Jerusalem Post. Had been accused of spying for Israel.
Peter W. Rodman – Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security.
Donald Rumsfeld – Secretary of Defense, and a PNAC founder. He served
as Secretary of Defense (1975-1977) and as Chief of Staff of the White
House (1974-1975).
Randy Scheunemann – U.S. Committee on NATO, Project on Transitional
Democracies, International Republican Institute, founded the Committee
for the Liberation of Iraq.
Paul Wolfowitz – Deputy Secretary of Defense, 2001-2005, considered the
ideological father of the group. Currently, President of World Bank.
Dov S. Zakheim – Comptroller Department of Defense Former CEO of System
Planning Corp. (See below), he served as Senior Foreign Policy advisor
for George Bush Jr. in 2000.
Robert B. Zoellick – Deputy Secretary of State.
The neocon dream — your hellish nightmare …
In their infamous report titled, Rebuilding America’s Defenses —
Strategy, Forces, and Resources for a New Century. The PNAC outlines
their global strategies, as well as, arguments for massive increases on
military spending, including research & development.[2]
The PNAC asked for the fighting of several major theater wars — they are
not outlining just a need for military preparedness, but to actually
fight these wars — and if you didn’t believe them, we already have two —
Iraq and Afghanistan. From there, they want to take over, the entire
Middle East. Iran appears to be the next target on the list. Is
America now being manipulated into fighting the Jew’s war? Is America
under Israel’s bidding? Are Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz, and Rabbi Dov
Zakheim (Jews) using America’s resources and manpower to destroy their
enemies?
The PNAC determined that America needed a permanent military presence in
Iraq. So now we have Dick Cheney’s Halliburton-subsidiary KBR involved
in everything from building U.S. military bases to serving meals for
U.S. soldiers. Again, they asked for an American commitment for
“policing duties” of strategically important places. With the latest
two additions, Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. troops are spread out even
further over the globe.
In Rebuilding America’s Defenses…they insisted on pouring 3.8 percent of
gross domestic product (GDP) into the Defense budget — and that is the
exact number that the Bush Administration’s budget had requested and got
from the Republican Congress.[2]
Under Bush, and his “National Security Strategy” of 2006,
America became a nation, which for the first time in its history
endorsed a doctrine of preemptive attack. And all the neocons needed to
achieve this warped “dream state” was another Pearl Harbor. In their
Rebuilding America’s Defenses…statement, the PNAC eerily wrote, “...The
process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event —
like a new Pearl Harbor?”
What was Pearl Harbor?
To those in the know, politicians, historians, and educated citizens,
Pearl Harbor was more than just a calamity. There have been many books
written on the subject, especially after the declassification of
military documents. The attack occurred only because our President at
the time, Franklin D. Roosevelt, let it happen so America would need to
enter the war. He along with other top officials of our government had
contrived a plan, to handicap the U.S. Naval defenses. Key personnel
were exchanged, important Japanese code-deciphers swept under the table,
and other unethical tactics was employed to give the Japanese the
surprise that they needed to succeed. It was a staged event. It’s
purpose — for public outrage and resolve to mobilize and fight a war!
Therefore, Pearl Harbor to these insiders is synonymous
with a “staged or contrived catastrophic and catalyzing event”. So,
these neocons were in essence calling for a 9/11-style event to initiate
their “War of Terror”. The PNAC Pentagon neocons, Rumsfeld and
Wolfowitz already had plans to invade Iraq prior to 9/11! All they
needed was their own Pearl Harbor! Enter 9/11…
Some of the personalities that participated in the Rebuilding America’s
Defenses… project (“The Pearl Harbor Project”):
Thomas Donnelly – Director of Communications, Lockheed Martin.
Fred Kagan – U. S. Military Academy at West Point.
Robert Kagan – Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
William Kristol – The Weekly Standard.
Mark Lagon – Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Lewis Libby – Chief of Staff for the Vice President.
Gary Schmitt – Project for the New American Century.
Barry Watts – Northrop Grumman Corporation.
Paul Wolfowitz – Nitze School of Advanced International
Studies, Johns Hopkins University.
Dov Zakheim - System Planning Corporation.
Eliot Cohen – Nitze School of Advanced International
Studies, Johns Hopkins University.
Donald Kagan – Yale University, conservative columnist.
Steve Rosen – Harvard University, Professor of National Security and
Military Affairs.
Abram Shulsky - The RAND Corporation.
Roger Barnett, Phil Meilinger, and Mackubin Owens – U.S. Naval War College.
Alvin Bernstein and Stephen Cambone – National Defense University.
PNAC was the brainchild for 9/11.
The events of 9/11 could not have been carried out by USama Bin Laden
(CIA-asset name) — it was not possible for him to have completely
dismantled the entire NORAD fighter response system. That should have
been obvious from the get go, but the party line said that’s what
happened, and with the Jewish controlled media — they made it so. The
powers to be, have appropriated the newspeak of George Orwell’s 1984.
Those that were directly involved:
Richard Cheney – was the obvious leader of the coup. Cheney appeared to
have been one of the main organizers as well as, he had exclusive OEM
authority for the drills and exercises, as well as, coordinating the
deceptive obstruction of the defense responses on 9/11. He was also
instrumental in the cover-up and spin.
Donald Rumsfeld – was involved in designing the war games, implementing
the disabling DoD directive, setting up the diversionary training, the
shuffling in of patsies, and the massive cover-up operation at the
Pentagon and Shanksville.
Lewis “Scooter” Libby – Chief of Staff for the Vice President, one of
Cheney’s most trusted advisors and a member of his shadow government.
He was one of the “chosen few” that were in the White House bunker with
Cheney. No doubt, he was one of those behind-the-scenes characters that
piloted the spin machine.
Robert James Woolsey – as former director of the CIA, he was involved in
designing the terrorist exercises. He personally participated in
several important exercises that were utilized to test the responses of
key personnel. Did his intelligence connections play a role? He was
one of the first to spin the story to the media, blaming the attack on Iraq.
Dov S. Zakheim – previously he was CEO of System Planning Corp. Appears
to have used his connections at System Planning Corp. for the remote
technology (see below). He is alleged to have been involved in a
massive embezzlement at the Pentagon when he was comptroller, which
appears to have prompted his resigning. Did the accounting fraud
finance the neocon’s 9/11 operation?
George Bush Sr. – ex-head of CIA, and ex-President, worked through his
Carlyle Group associations with his friends in the Bin Laden family. He
would be instrumental in Saudi diplomacy.
George Bush Jr. – played his role as the idiot-in-chief. He was also
active in the cover-up and spin. Bush used his office to promote the
USama Bin Laden and WMD fables, while dishing out toxic levels of
propaganda to support his “War of Terror”.
General Meyers – During 9/11, he was the acting Joint Chief of Staff.
It would have been impossible to carry out the attacks without his
complacent cooperation.
Paul Wolfowitz – as Deputy Secretary of Defense, he headed a group of
about 700 military experts. The huge “think tank” had formulated plans
to remove Saddam Hussein and for the invasion of Iraq.
Paul Wolfowitz gets a laugh out of the sham 911 Report
(Images: 911 Truth.org).
Who had the capabilities to pull off 9/11?
The leaders of the PNAC had the motive, means, and determination to
carry out the 9/11 attacks. As mentioned previously, USama Bin Laden,
alone could not have fabricated the elaborate scheme. In reality, he
was just a willing scapegoat. To sidetrack the defenses of the United
States, it was necessary to have accomplices in the highest levels of
the government:
* The operation needed assess to the nations most secure
facilities, including the Pentagon. Only insiders would have that kind
of access.
* Only those with privy knowledge from highly classified materials
could have had the know-how.
* Access to large amounts of capital to finance the operation.
* Connections to military leaders to suppress responses and make
key substitutions to personnel.
* Have a willing and able support staff that is of the highest
allegiance. (The Secret Service, CIA, FBI, and loyal foreign agents
like MOSAAD).
* CIA, ISI, and DIA Intelligence information.
* Ability to run “mock trials” of the operation, through practice
exercises and war games.
* Top military technologies, missiles, remote & drone science, and
an arsenal of high explosives, with the facilities to implement them
(hangers, technicians, etc.).
* Access to military aircraft (C-130 or EC-130).
* The authorization to send personnel overseas, like Powell,
Scowcroft, and Paul O’Neil, whom may interfere with the scheme.
* The ability to make decisive directives. Examples are the
Rumsfeld DoD hijacking directive and the OEM authority given to Cheney
over all exercises and preparedness drills.
* Recruit, fund, and train several patsy terrorists.
* Coordinate FEMA, FBI, and other rescue units, to support cover-up
processes.
* Willing accomplices in the media were needed to propagate the lies.
* The means to take advantage of the attacks…
Box cutters just weren’t enough…
However, the PNAC cohorts did however have all the necessary evils to
pull off a 9/11.
Where did the remote technology come from?
Enter Rabbi Dov S. Zakheim, CEO of System Planning Corp…
Rabbi Dov S. Zakheim, Comptroller, and CFO of the Pentagon
(Photo: dod.gov).
Zakheim was a respected and established voice in the intelligence
community, which prompted his upward move from Systems Planning
Corporation to Comptroller of the Pentagon in May 2001.
According to The company website, System Planning Corp (SPC) specializes
in many areas of defense technology, including a highly sophisticated
war-game technology that allows the control of as many as eight
different drones from a remote location, either on the ground or
airborne, on varying frequencies, and has a range of several hundred
miles. This technology can be used on many different types of aircraft,
including large passenger jets. One system developed by their Radar
Physics Group is the Flight Termination System. This is a system used
to destroy target drones. For example, if a drone that was fired on and
was “missed”, then the drone target would be destroyed.[4]
According to the SPC website a recent purchaser, prior to 9/11 was USAF
Eglin AFB, Florida. Eglin is very near MacDill AFB, Florida, where
Rabbi Zakheim contracted to send at least 32 Boeing 767 aircraft, as
part of the Boeing /Pentagon tanker lease agreement.[4] Did the 767’s
that hit the World Trade Centers come from this arraignment by Zakheim?
Coincidentally, it was an SPC subsidiary, TriData Corp.,
which oversaw the investigation after the bombing on the World Trade
Center in 1993.
During Rabbi Zakheim’s watch as CFO and Comptroller of the Pentagon,
there was massive fraud. “According to some estimates we cannot track
$2.3 trillion in transactions,” Rumsfeld admitted.[5] Interestingly,
Dov Zakheim soon after resigned.
The Carlyle Group — a clandestine defense contractor.
The offices of The Carlyle Group are on Pennsylvania Avenue in
Washington DC, midway between the White House and the Capitol building,
and within a stone’s throw of the headquarters of the FBI and numerous
government departments. The address reflects Carlyle’s position at the
very center of the Washington establishment. The Carlyle Group
specializes in seizing control of aerospace and defense contractors and
then by using their influence, extols contracts out of the Department of
Defense.
Some of the elitists in the Carlyle Group are:
George Herbert Walker Bush – former US President and Director of the
CIA, Carlyle Senior advisor and Shareholder.
Frank Carlucci – former Secretary of Defense and Deputy Director of the
CIA, Carlyle Chairman Emeritus.
James Baker III – former Secretary of State and Secretary of Treasury,
Carlyle Senior Counselor. Baker is defending Saudis against a 9-11
Families’ Lawsuit.
Fidel V. Ramos – former President of the Philippines, Carlyle Asia
Advisory Board.
John Major – former British Prime Minister, Chairman Carlyle Europe.
At the time of the attacks, The Carlyle Group, was hosting a business
conference in D.C. in which the featured guest of honor is one of Osama
Bin Laden’s brothers! The Guardian reported, “On 11 September, while
al-Qaeda’s planes slammed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon,
the Carlyle Group hosted a conference at a Washington hotel. Among the
guests of honor was a valued investor: Shafig bin Laden, brother to
Osama.” [6]
And as the Carlyle investors watched the World Trade towers go down, the
group’s prospects soared. In their own words, they run what they call a
“a vast, interlocking, global network of businesses and investment
professionals” that operate within a triangle of industry, government,
and the military. The Carlyle Group leaves itself open to any number of
conflicts of interest. For example, the political and CIA-type
intelligence connections (reportedly, ex-President Bush is still
receiving daily CIA briefings) have given the company a window of
opportunity to exploit. Also consider that U.S. president George W.
Bush is in a position to make decisions that will wad his father’s (and
his) bank accounts. The Carlyle Group is what should be most feared by
the world — it is a powerful and bloodthirsty corporation that has
clandestine governmental powers. It can make wars to profit from wars.
The Carlyle Group — Bin Laden family — Bush connection
USama bin Laden’s family is an investor in The Carlyle Group. Bin
Laden’s family members, who allegedly renounced their son ten years ago,
stood to gain financially from the war being waged against him until
late October 2001. When public outrage surfaced about the relationship,
it forced them to liquidate their holdings in the firm. However, his
family had reportedly funneled tens of millions of dollars to USama
through banks, like Algemene Bank Nederland (now called ABN-AMRO), which
has links to La Salle National Bank in the U.S.[7]
Bush Sr. during Carlyle business with the Bin Laden’s
(Photo: pnionline.com).
Bush Sr. has also been a paid consultant to the Bin Laden Group, helping
them with his CIA links. His son, George Bush Jr., flatly refuses to
freeze Osama’s numerous accounts at ABN-AMRO, thus evading having their
own secrets coming out — their links to USama Bin Laden.[7]
Bush Sr. during his days as CIA head and Vice President created USama
bin Laden as an American CIA-asset. USama was paid to wear down the
Soviets in their prolonged Afghanistan war (1979-1989). Originally
dubbed “freedom fighters” or “mujahideen”, they were significantly
financed, armed, and trained by the United States’ CIA. The training
bases, Tora Bora cave complex, stinger missiles, etc. were CIA financed
through the “go-between” Pakistani ISI — done under the direction of the
likes of Bush Sr.[8] U.S. Naval Intelligence operative, Mike Vreeland
claimed, “Sometimes certain governments design, create networks like
al-Qaeda… Those entities create specific problems at the creating
government’s direction.[9]
After the war with the Soviets, the CIA’s “mujahideen”, lacked an enemy.
In the ensuing years, they would become the new CIA backed al-Qaeda
(“the base”) group, which would do their bidding in a new war — the “War
of Terror”. The Israeli’s had had the Abu Nidal terrorist network, and
now the United States would have their al-Qaeda network.. The
perpetrators would launch the world into a new era of terror…
throughout, Africa, United States, London, Spain, Philippines, and
Indonesia, people would experience these atrocities first-hand.
So who benefited from the 9/11 attacks and the resultant “War of Terror”?
Did Saddam Hussein get any benefit out of 9/11? No.
Did the pro-Israeli neoconservatives? Yes. In fact, they had achieved
everything that they could have possible imagined. Let’s look:
* Advanced the Jewish doctrine by profiling Arabs as our enemies,
thus America joined Israel in their “War of Terror”. On the day of the
attacks, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — when asked
about U.S.-Israeli relations — his quick reply was, “It’s very good…
Well, it’s not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy [for
Israel]”[10]
* Attacked and destroyed two Arab nations — Iraq and Afghanistan.
* Made massive profits during reconstruction efforts, mostly from
shams and embezzling U.S. taxpayer dollars.
* Secured the strategic oil fields of Iraq.
* Made lucrative profits for the neocon-linked oil and gas companies.
* Established a permanent presence in the Middle East.
* Seized the important Afghanistan pipeline corridor for pumping
out gas and oil from the former Soviet states around the Caspian region.
* Increased the U.S. military spending to 3.8 percent of GDP.
* Increased profits to the defense contracting industries.
* Funded new research and development for more “war technology”.
* Created a new military-civilian-complex called Homeland Security.
* Made immense profits from these Homeland Security-based contracts
(i.e. Airport security scanners, etc.).
* Advanced the neoconservative political agenda; “police state”
legislation like the Patriot Act and domestic spying programs.
* Increased spending on covert intelligence agencies (CIA, NSA, etc.).
* Used the 9/11 attacks as a propaganda tool, to advance their “War
on Terror” agenda — the new WMD, weapon of mass deception.
* Endorsed a neocon “National Security Strategy” — a new U.S.
doctrine of preemptive attack.
So who benefited from 9/11? Israel and the neocons.
Who lost? The people of the United States, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
Who’s next? …
BACK TO INDEX
[1] Wikipedia, 2006 Ed., 30 Febuary 2006,
<en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Perle
[2] “Rebuilding America’s Defenses – Strategy, Forces, and Resources for
a New Century,” Project for a New American Century, September 2000,
<www.newamericancentury.org/…
[3] “Project for a New American Century website,” Project for a New
American Century, <www.newamericancentury.org
[4] “System Planning Corporation website,” System Planning Corporation,
<www.sysplan.com
[5] Vince Gonzales, “The War On Waste,” CBS Evening News, 29 January 2002.
[6] Ed Vulliamy, “Dark heart of the American dream,” Guardian Unlimited,
16 June 2002.
[7] “The corrupt banking systems of the world & the fake war on terror,”
Raw Story, <www.rawstory.com/exclusives/benway/corrupt_banking.htmJanuary 2006).
[8] Jason Burke, “Frankenstein the CIA,” Guardian Unlimited, 17 January
1999.
[9] Micheal Ruppert, “Spy Case in Canadian Courts Suggests US Naval
Officier had Foreknowledge of 9-11,” 4 April 2002,
<www.copvcia.com/free/ww3/01_25_02_revised_012802_vreeland.html
[10] Jerusalem Media and Communication Centre,
<www.jmcc.org/new/01/Sep/us.htm> (23 June 2002).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 16:00:07 -0700 (PDT), Iarnrod <...@yahoo.com
On Jun 13, 4:46 pm, JMD Morgan <...@email.non
And you scream idiot while you are a kook.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 15:22:41 GMT, "Freedom Fighter" <...@once.net
"Michelle" <B. Huss...@news.alt.net...
Ad-hominem attack is the refuge of unintelligent and immature people
incapable of disproving a valid assertion with facts or logic, so in
frustration they resort to childish name-calling.
Pathetic!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 13:25:01 -0700 (PDT), harry k <...@hotmail.com
On Jun 13, 7:59 am, "Freedom Fighter" <...@once.net
<snip
Repeating BS does not improve its quality, it only makes it smell
worse.
Harry K
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 19:28:13 +0200, Government Shill #2 <...@gmail.com
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 13:25:01 -0700 (PDT), harry k <...@hotmail.comwrote:
If Freedom Fighter says a foolish thing fifty million times, it is
still a foolish thing.
Me (with apologies to Anatole France)
--
Shill #2
If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.
Anatole France (1844 - 1924)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 13:27:23 -0400, "Patrick Keenan" <...@dev.null
"JMD Morgan" <...@giganews.com...
Well then, he's in luck - or he would be if the "9/11 truth" movement
actually cared about the truth.
The problem is that they don't; they are motivated by something else.
If they did care, the "movement" would have long ago forced the insurers,
via shareholders rights, to investigate the justification for the billions
of dollars in payouts, which would almost certainly have been improperly
paid if the "controlled demolition" theory had any validity and was
supported by any evidence.
But they don't and won't do this, because the "9/11 truth" scammers know
that these theories have no validity and that there is no evidence to
support them.
The remaining questions are towards your real motivation, since it clearly
isn't truth.
-pk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 15:29:50 GMT, "Freedom Fighter" <...@once.net
"Patrick Keenan" <...@supernews.com...
You repeat endlessly this story about the insurers, but it is pretty evident
that they can do nothing under the circumstances with which they are faced.
It is possible that they have been compensated in some way, or threatened,
to silence them and pursue the matter no further. It is also evident that
you will use any argument, no matter how weak, to rationalize your
opposition to publicly exposing the truth about the 9/11 INSIDE JOB. Either
you are in psychological denial, or you are just another paid government
coverup shill!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 14:36:30 -0700 (PDT), Iarnrod <...@yahoo.com
On Jun 14, 9:29 am, "Freedom Fighter" <...@once.net
Wrong.
Your "theory" is physically impossible and has been disproven. You
lied six times in the opening paragraph. You write fairy tales only.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 19:03:29 -0400, "Patrick Keenan" <...@dev.null
"Freedom Fighter" <...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
What's evident is that the "9/11 truth" movement has nothing to do with
truth.
Sure they can. Your comment tells us that you really don't understand the
actions or their implications.
The insurer can halt payouts, and *revoke coverage until wrongful payouts
have been returned*.
Perhaps you aren't involved in the real world enough to know what having
your insurance coverage revoked means.
I suggest that you check that out, if you think that your psyche can
withstand the truth.
In addition, the insurers can go to court with their evidence to get monies
returned - and you can bet that the formerly insured is going to go to court
if their coverage is revoked, and their assets seized.
Oh please. They've had to pay out billions of dollars. They would
*love* to have that money back.
Have you ever actually dealt with an insurer?
Such monies would appear on the balance sheets. These companies are
public. Show your work.
And further, think of the bonuses any executive or investigator would get if
they recovered billions of dollars of shareholder's money.
Can you even *spell* motivation?
The truth is simple.
A small group of fanatics who wanted to die found a weak spot in the US
social structure and exploited it.
There is neither a need for or evidence to support an enormously complex
conspiracy that involves thousands upon thousands of people, *none* of whom
have come
forward.
And now, you want to include all insurance companies and all their
shareholders in that conspiracy, as well.
Face it. The "evidence" you have isn't any more convincing than the
"evidence" for the existence of unicorns and wood nymphs. It is sheer
fantasty.
I expect that you know this, and that's why you refuse to take meaningful
action. You simply can't withstand the truth.
Hope this helps.
-pk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|