Oh, thank you, thank you, thank you, most frozen one. I didn't want to wait till morning to try to catch every word of it! This icy air is so bracing in this global warming.

I was stunned but not surprised to hear this from Webster Tarpley:

The main barrier are the Left Gatekeepers: Noam Chomsky, Amy Goodman, Air America (most of them), The Nation magazine, the left / liberal intelligentsia --- the biggest barrier --- they have obsessively parroted the racist warmongering official version, they have slandered people like us who try to fight against it. These people have got to be discredited...

And how about this from Jim Fetzer?

The nation's leading newspaper has disgraced itself by its utter failure to come to grips with the obvious and overwhelming evidence that what happened in its own city --- a few blocks from its own headquarters --- killing three thousand of its citizens --- was a crime committed by the United States government.

One wonders why there are no "Structural Engineers for 9/11 Truth," "Demolition experts for 9/11 Truth," "Architects for 9/11 Truth," or "Seismologists for 9/11 Truth."

Some people just can't let go of their fantasies. I don't see how posing as scholars is going to help.

The best one-stop debunking of all the 9/11 Truth garbage is at:
http://www.911myths.com/

Oh, really? Perry? The best one stop shop for awakening to the laws of physics is http://www.st911.org and it will make your link look like the twaddle that it truly is. My guess for why there are not already more groups is because, while almost every one of us knows there is something drastically wrong with the official line on 9/11, most people are too afraid to be seen stepping out from the herd. When I think of all the brave men and women who have given their lives throughout our history so that we might NEVER have to suffer THIS in our country, it makes me want badly to smack the glib little trolls whose mission is to ruin it. If you are willing to come out and admit that you ignore the laws of physics, and good old common sense, just to deny what scares the pee out of you, just to put up an unafraid front, all those terrified young men who piled off the landing crafts into almost certain death on the beaches of Normandy, out of love and gratitude for our freedom, for our Constitution, for US, wouldn't want you in their country. They died to save us from precisely what you uphold.

And, if you follow my link, you will see all those experts you wonder about are right there under the umbrella of this organization. Get a clue, get some cojones, or, please, take your blather off to the rest of the quaking little traitors who could use your stupid excuses.

I agree Agent 99. It is unimaginable that the current adm could be so evil, but with Iraq, rigged voting machines...What could they possibly gain? bush's agenda is oil and big business - what could 9/11 possibly gain them?

The site Perry mentioned is pure propaganda and mis/disinformation. Don't wate your time.

Thanks Winter Patriot for the posting!

Thank you BradBlog, for covering this important event. It looks like you got Zwickers and Tarpleys message that the left gatekeepers will be exposed soon enough.911myths.com is a straw man site that,like the 9/11 Commission Report, distorts facts, leaves out crucial points, and uses half truths to "debunk" things.they are about as reliable as Popular Mechanics when it comes to 9/11.which of course isnt very.

Yes, Mugzi, whatever could it possibly gain them? It could gain them the support, the levels of fear, needed to get troops over there to TAKE what they want, to get people to submit to just about anything they care to dish us.

By the way, I just deleted a comment listing Washington Journal telephone numbers to call, saying they were giving Cynthia McKinney a lot of trouble about her positions on this... EXCEPT the program is about the Lamont/Lieberman race and the Democrat line given was for Lieberman supporters, and the Republican line given was for supporters of Lamont. I really HOPE that disinformation was out of some sort of confusion, but it didn't look like it. If people have been calling to support McKinney with the number given here before it was deleted, are actually calling to support Joe Lieberman. Very funny. What could that possibly gain them?

It pays to verify this stuff whenever possible. It's getting rough out there. A Lieberman supporter trying to use McKinney supporters to make Washington Journal's lines light up for their man? Man.

thanks for the thread Agent99 and Winter Patriot.

911blogger.com

prisonplanet.com

The FACTS, the scientific evidence, the scientist, engineers, and scholars are just telling the truth. That's why I KNOW 9/11 was an inside job, and our government's story is a lie. Therefore, you have no choice but to believe our government was in on it. What else can you believe? If you weigh both sides? To believe our government's story, you must abandon physics and science and evidence. OOPS! I forgot, Bushco is "faith-based" anyway. By the way, you must also believe that Dems know it was an inside job. You can't believe all of this, and not believe that either. If we know it, they know it. The truth cannot and will not be stopped.

Any doubters of 911 truth go to
www.wtc7.net
www.911research.wtc7.net
Go on web and see:
David Ray Griffin's Madison Lecture on CSPAN 2005
911 Revisited - for free I think on Google video
Once you're convinced, check out www.911truth.org

remember that this airs again today at 2:15. tell your friends.

C-SPAN has been on the leading edge of getting this information out when it comes to media organizations with the ability to reach millions of viewers. Zogby polls strongly suggest that millions of Americans share the views broadcast last night (and will be broadcast again today at 2:15 EDT - CSPN 1).

Perhaps this was very strong for you. If so, may I recommend viewing some other evidence?

Last year Rep. Cynthia McKinney became the first lawmaker to enter 9/11 skepticism into the Congressional Record. You can read all about it right here.

Why is there so much speculation about 9/11?

Because the 9/11 Commission Report is a whitewash.

CSPAN's broadcast was a fantastic breath of fresh air into the 9/11 truth movement. The four panelists were so different, the shy physics professor, the campaigning ex-military politico, the historian and synthetic terrorism expert and the passionate (pissed off) scholar.
Each brings his own perspective and unique interpretation. Together they present a strong argument, an overwhelming case really, that our government was behind 911, and call us all to action.
Spread the word: CSPAN rebroadcast Sunday July 30, 2:15pm Eastern.

Viva 911Truth!

A good site for novices to 911Truth

Someone get Dr. Robert Bowman and Professor Steven E. Jones on Primetime television now!

And they would smash the official 9/11 conspiracy theory nationwide within the span of an uninterrupted hour.

Are you nuts?

I've listened today's Washington Journal from A to Z!
They had two guests about the forthcomming elections.
The conservative one said that McKinney is a fringe candidate because of the outrageous 9/11 Bush foreknowledge, the liberal girl just noded..

Now, it's official public record they had been warned there was foreknowledge to what extent let's debate it..

So, clearly the disinformation tool is not me..

Impact caller, are you sure you're not listening to a re-run somewhere? I went to C-SPAN, and Washington Journal, from B to Z, had absolutely nothing about Cynthia McKinney on it. It was Lieberman/Lamont when you made your call in comment, and then about Israel/Lebanon and Israel/Palestine after that. Not a peep about McKinney. Nor could I find evidence of any extra Washington Journal programs on at that time. I am a little nuts, but I can read, see and hear. The program was so good, I listened to the whole thing too.

99 - #5

Before I read the rest of this thread: GREAT response!!!!! Blessings upon your honest head and heart!!!!!!!

Thanks, Peg. Good morning.

Reprehensor #14

That Zogby poll you link to, when compared with this older Zogby poll (link here), shows that the 9/11 movement is going to stay, and is going to have substantial support from the public.

Thank you, WP, for posting this "heads up." I would have missed it, because I have to make one of those odious trips to town for groceries and other essentials to life. When is this country going to open its collective eyes? The boogey-man is looming right over our somnolent carcasses and we don't "care to confront it?" It's not comfy, but staring it down and wrestling it to the ground are the only solutions to the crisis the world finds itself in now! How about that massacre at Qana, Lebanon, earlier today?!

And keep in mind the 5 Mossad agents who were witnessed dancing with glee as they watched the collapse of the WTC towers!

Agent> No I was not the caller I did not go through this morning if you have to know it..

The guest speaker Bob Benenson made that claim about McKinney. So, pls. next time think twice before you sabotage call-ins on important subjcet again!

Wait for the archived online version of the Washington Journal:

07:30 AM EDT
1:00 (est.) LIVE Call-In
2006 Midterm Election Campaigns
C-SPAN, Washington Journal
Bob Benenson, Congressional Quarterly Weekly
Morgan Felchner, Campaigns and Elections Magazine

Impact Caller

By the time you posted your list of telephone numbers, and it cannot have been two minutes before I was tuned to it, the subject was the Lamont/Lieberman race. I do not doubt Benenson might have disparaged McKinney in the opening moments of the segment, before I tuned in, but the numbers were up on the screen, stating clearly for Lieberman callers to use the Democrat line you listed, and for Lamont callers to use the Republican line you listed. Did you want that confusion to come of your impact calling post? I didn't.... And, I doubt Cynthia McKinney would have either.

We just posted the full video from CSPAN's coverage, you can find it here:
http://www.911blogger.co...f-american-scholars.html

A very big thanks to bradblog.com and its users, it is great to see a 'liberal' blog not scared to talk about the biggest lie of all by this horrible administration.

Best wishes,

-dz
www.911blogger.com
www.911podcasts.com

It is important that each and every one of the supporters for 9/11 Truth to have copies of 'Loose Change' and/or 9/11 fact sheets to pass out to all you know or even simply encounter. It takes each person putting a little of themselves 'on the line' to get the facts out there. Main stream media and main stream 'thinkers' will only support the standard memes through their ignorance or complicity. And it is truly coming down to the wire. Bu$hCo. is on the defensive. That's why you will see disinfo sites such as 911myths... etc. It is also why many in the truth movement are worried about the imminence of a new false flag operation to justify attacking Iran and for declaring martial law in the U.S. (though one might hope the debacle currently unfolding between Lebanon and Israel will delay attacks on Iran).
So please start or continue to get the word out any way you can.
Keep the momentum going. At the same time, get prepared for the worst. rdw, member, sf911t

If you are plugging Loose Change on here it's also important to point out the false, misleading or baseless evidence that that film tries to promote, like the idea that a missile hit the Pentagon - although many many witnesses reported seeing the large jet, Loose Change NEVER cites even one of them! The reason people think it was a missile is that a few people said that the LARGE JET sounded like a missle. But deceptive promotions, like In Plane Site and Loose Change will cut out the part that makes it clear they were only describing the jet in order to excite everyone.

Loose Change does cover a lot of good stuff, but they muck it up with nonsense about plane swapping and missiles, which only hurts the whole movement. In the CSPAN coverage even ALEX JONES said, he doesn't bring up the debatable stuff because that's how we all get trashed. Over and over.

A good review of the strong, weak and bogus points of LC is here:
http://www.911research.w.../loose_change/index.html

Oh, and thanks Brad Blog to covering this.

edit of the line above -

will cut out the part that makes it clear they were only describing the jet in order to excite everyone.

should read

will cut out the part that makes it clear they were only describing the jet so that the films can promote missiles to excite everyone.

If only Flight 93 had made it to its intended target, this particular 9/11 building collapse wouldn't have seemed so suspicious. And now everybody thinks I must've been in on it! Can't you bumblers in domestic and foreign black ops do anything right!

Researcher, you raise an important point about the Pentagon issue but it is unresolved because of the many anomolies between the physical evidence and an impact by a 757. It may well be the 'honeypot' Michael Rupert believes it is. It may not. However, the film as a whole can get folks 'over the hump and questioning the government's fairy tale. If you have a better one in mind please share it. I wish we had one that focused primarily on the WTC demolitions and the many other obvious problems with our government's false flag operation.
rdw

Researcher

If the surveillance camera videos finally released by the Pentagon had shown anything remotely like a 757, or released any of the many other surveillance cameras' footage from any of the other nearby sites, people could put that one to rest, but they did not and they have not. All of the verifiable evidence, the actual evidence that is available to us, makes the missile theory much more believable. I'm sorry. I've looked long and hard and all over the place. A 757 did not crash into the Pentagon.

99

I think it had to be a smaller plane, flown remotely, because the engine parts that mysteriously disappeared subsequently came from a smaller aircraft. All that info is is various different locations on the Web, but I'm in too much of a hurry to find a link at the moment. Sorry!

BB, THX for posting this. It needs to be discussed.

I like to go with "Occam's Razor"

Originally a tenet of the reductionist philosophy of nominalism, it is more often taken today as a heuristic maxim that advises economy, parsimony, or simplicity in scientific theories. Occam's razor states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory.

The 'Official story' says that a passenger airliner hit the Pentagon...but there were no 757 size plane wreckage or body parts. Did they vaporize with the impact and fire?

OR...WERE THEY NEVER THERE?

Just wonderin'

I gotta say, that bit of tape of the Pentagon attack they released was an insult of unbelievable proportions. I mean, what an in-your-face slap! There! There's your proof! Case closed! Makes me want to spank someone...

a huuuge THANK YOU to BradBlog for posting about the growing 9/11 Truth movement. no "left gatekeeping" here.

Perry Logan,

I'm just wondering.. do you roam the internet looking for any reference to Alex Jones or 9/11 and plugging your website?

Peg

Agent 86 still insists it was a cruise missile in drag... meaning made to look plane-like. My understanding of the evidence is that most of it points to cruise missile, as described in Loose Change, but there were some pieces seen in pictures that seem to indicate a smaller plane, maybe a fighter. The supposed crate full of secret debris with the blue tarp being carted by a bunch of guys in the video turns out not to be a container of debris, but one of a bunch of portable tents they set out all around the site for the firemen and other workers. Still. Taking the type, extent and look of the damage, along with what little was found, cruise missile still makes the most sense. A smaller plane could not have punched the second hole through the Pentagon the same size as the first one. Too light, and not enough plane-like debris for that either. Not a piece, a remnant of anything in the cockpit, for instance.

So. Goofy as 86's theory sounds, it accounts for the evidence, and for the needs of the perpetrators. They needed very precise accuracy, and maybe the appearance of an airplane, but no way would they have stood down their defenses to allow in something that could not be perfectly navigated, and they HAD to stand down their defenses in order for it to have happened at all... EVEN with all these drills going on to divert NORAD, etc. Cruise missile in drag.

It looks as if C-SPAN has postponed the rebroadcast until 3:05 p.m. EDT.

Thanks RLM

Yes, thanks, Mr. Mills. I was just going to have myself declared insane, right after I came back here to confess my hallucinations of a mustachioed fiend being "grilled" by senators.

Thank you BradBlog!!

Here we go. I'm taping it this time. Better late then never!

The CSpan broadcast is posted on Google Video:
http://video.google.com/...cid=-4258946892514662399

Here is a link to a video titled Ghost Plane.

At 0:02 you see the nose of the plane enter the screen from the left. There is a white object just behind the nose.

At 0:04 the plane has progressed towards the building, but the image seems transparent. The white object has progressed with the plane, but also an image of it is still in the original position. I don't know if these are artifacts from the CCD in a digital camera or what?

At 0:05 the white object and the plane have caught up with the "ghost image" leading me to believe it was an artifact in the previous frame but then - watch carefully -

At 0:06 an explosion is clearly seen at the point where the wwhite object strikes the building. Judging from the size of the plane this spot seems to be about 20 feet from where the nose of the plane is striking the building.

There is nothing in the nose of this plane which would cause such an explosion. The fuel tanks are located in the wings and central body. Note that there isn't even an explosion when the wings enter the building - it doesn't occur until later after the adjacent wall is pierced and the vaporized fuel ignites.

What is the white object? What caused the explosion? Why didn't the wings just fold up like at the Pentagon?

Many more videos HERE

This is supposed to be the crash in PA. Compare the volume of smoke with that from the towers.

While was a skeptic of the official explanation, this photo is what finally convinced me that the tower collapses were not due to the airplanes.

Now you guys are uncritically accepting conspiracy theories. Even after this shit has been debunked. Even after there has been no demolition experts, or structural engineer to confirm what Steven Jones said. Even after there has been nobody in the Bush Administration who would come out and say "we did it" (contrast that with Diebold, which had plenty).

I hate Bush as much as you guys here, but I'm appalled at the lack of critical thinking here.

Just finished watching. As one commenter said, it was a breath of fresh air. Alex Jones led the session superbly. My elderly mother, watching with me, had been aware of most of the evidence (I keep her up to date as much as possible), but presented this way the impact is much more direct and passionate. So her expression was one or horror and anguish all the way through.

That's what it will take: horror and anguish. And determination to change things. Not comfy emotions at all, but constructive ones if used the right way. But time's running out.

Samuel Abram,

Who are you going to trust, me or your lying eyes?

Thanks Brad Blog! I was over at Americablog earlier to see if they had finally allowed news of 911 and saw Nope but at least the comments on 911 were not erased this time. Thank heavens for you for not being afraid.
I am sending this show to my family and friends with a note to also read Brad Blog. great show, great blog.

#48
Samuel Abram
By the time this gets posted I'm sure others faster than I will have already responded. I share a sceptic view towards some of the evidence presented by the 911 truth movement. I do not share your conclusion. Forget the photos and the witness statements. Please consider one aspect of this tragedy and then look back at the rest. To believe the official version, you have to accept that the most advanced air defense/survellance systems on the planet failed. Not once but multiple times. Not just the people and hardware but response planning that has been in existence and practiced for decades. Yeah I know there are explainations that have been offered for these failures. Sorry, I don't buy them. The most telling fact is that the local air defenses around the Pentagon did not engage. Mistake? Monumental fuck up? I would venture that prior to 911 if Air Force One had approached the Pentagon with suspected threat, it would have been targeted for engagement. As to why aren't there more experts speaking out. To understand that end of the story research Kevin Ryan/Underwriters Labs. His tale is a good start to understanding the lack of professional voices in the mob.

Thanks, WP, for the program recommendation. It was a lot better to watch it on C-Span than to wait hours for it to download.

Samuel Abram - Yours is kind of a disappointing post. I’m not aware that the official story has been shown to be the most likely through the offices of “critical thinking". In fact, it appears to me to be absurdly lacking in a critical foundation.

I’m sure if you would like to defend the official story and engage in a disinterested critical examination of it, bloggers here would be happy to debate the issue.

To believe the official version, you have to accept that the most advanced air defense/survellance systems on the planet failed. Not once but multiple times. Not just the people and hardware but response planning that has been in existence and practiced for decades. Yeah I know there are explainations that have been offered for these failures. Sorry, I don't buy them. The most telling fact is that the local air defenses around the Pentagon did not engage. Mistake? Monumental fuck up? I would venture that prior to 911 if Air Force One had approached the Pentagon with suspected threat, it would have been targeted for engagement.

Remember, our intelligence said that Bin Laden was determined to strike in the US. The President ignored it. You could say that he willfully ignored it, and I'll still think you're reasonable. And if you believe anti-missile machines would have saved us, I've got a Diebold DRE to sell you.

Anyways, I got work to do. I'm off.

Thanks, WP, for the program recommendation. It was a lot better to watch it on C-Span than to wait hours for it to download.

Samuel Abram - Yours is kind of a disappointing post. I’m not aware that the official story has been shown to be the most likely through the offices of “critical thinking". In fact, it appears to me to be absurdly lacking in a critical foundation.

I’m sure if you would like to defend the official story and engage in a disinterested critical examination of it, bloggers here would be happy to debate the issue.

You're saying I have to accept conspiracy theories or the official story? It's not an either/or proposition. There are other explanations, that Bush was asleep at the wheel.

I've read websites like http://www.debunking911.com and they make the case far better than you guys did. Unless I hear you guys logically and factually debunk the debunkers, I'll remain skeptical of the so-called 9/11 skeptics.

Okay, my final, FINAL post.

http://www.debunking911.com/perimeter.jpg

That made me believe the debunkers.

I listened to every word of C-span's coverage of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Thanks to C-Span and to the scholars. It's a great relief to know that the truth is going mainstream.

Here are some suggestions for next time. The audience members on C-Span were aware of the truth, but many people watching at home were not and they are the ones who need to see the evidence. That's why the evidence, and there is so much of it, needs to be presented clearly and illustrated with pictures. It was a visual event, it was an auditory event and there are witnesses. Scholars for 911 Truth explains the facts so clearly online. Other online sites produce pictures of steel framed buildings that have burned with the steel skeletons still intact. Some of the skill of the online presentations of these sites needs to be translated into the television medium. Maybe juxtaposing the picture of the steel skeleton of the Madrid building, still standing after it burned far longer than the towers did, with pictures of the steel framed towers free falling into dust. Examples of controlled demolition could be shown along with falling towers. Anyone with living brain cells can see it is the same thing, the same phemomena. There could have been more on the fact that steel melts at a far higher temperature than occured in the towers. There are so many witnesses on record: show footage of the firemen and newscasters talking about the explosions, saying they sounded and looked like controlled demolitions. I learned all of these things from the many courageous online sites. But not everyone goes to the internet for news and some people don't have computers. Also, showing the evidence, piece by piece, fact by fact, on mainstream televsion until the truth becomes hideously clear is what will do the convincing.
Even though Stephen Jones was fine, there could have been some engineers, demolition experts, and other scientists there to back him up and extend the discussion of the physical evidence.

Suggestions aside, it was so great to see this on television. I'm not trying to be gratuitously critical but I think this information should be presented as effectively as Al Gore presented global warming in An Inconvenient Truth. I know these guys can't afford the glitzy production values of the movie, but if I knew little or nothing about this subject, I would want to see the facts presented from the BEGINNING and watch the pieces, even without Al Gore's fancy pie charts, fall into place, revealing the sordid and indisputable truth, so that anyone still clinging to a vestige of reason couldn't deny that our government had a hand in this.

Samuel Abram #56

You have urged us to accept classic fallacy (link here), which we do not do.

And you fail to realize the false frame corruption that has settled into your cognition.

The problem is not a political problem in the first instance.

It is an evidence problem.

First and foremost is that there is not enough evidence to support the official conspiracy theory that 19 country folk went into the wilderness, lived in mud-brick huts while fondling AK-47's to be trained in sophistication.

Sophistication that could cause the collapse of the world's best construction right out of nowhere.

Well, it is not a convincing conspiracy theory. It requires a hell of a lot of faith.

So, we get down to science, because that is the way crimes must be approached. Science.

Hence, along comes scholars for 9/11 truth.

To take it out of the church of blind faith in what power says, into the realm of what science, thru evidence, can prove.

That leaves you out baby.

I had already seen the program.

So I watched Fog of War on the History Channel.

You should know by now that I do not minimize the 9/11 movement, however, I have the same approach to it as I do to the electronic voting machine (EVM) problem.

That is, the afficianados to not have a sufficient sense of history of the matter (link here, and here, and also here).

The EVM and false flag acts of 9/11 are common to our heritage, but the movements which protest these, are too elitist in the sense they think they are the only ones to ever have detected it.

The danger is not ego, it is in mistaking the nature of the problem ... thinking it just now happened.

Being ignorant of the fact that it is the very psyche of our nation ... our schizophrenic heritage.

We advocate the most wonderful of humane energies while at the same time we advocate the most heinous mayhem. Torture.

Our best mental doctors are only trained in individual schizophrenia, not the national schizophrenia.

The idea of treating individuals who have schizophrenia is honorable, but the idea of treating a nation that has schizophrenia is considered treason or a lack of patriotism.

So, in the EVM realm nothing gets done, and likewise, the national schizophrenia likewise goes untreated.

I've always found this argument to be an interesting one: [ here ]

Particularly the graphs: [ here ] and [ here ]

Whatever else you think, those buildings sure did fall pretty fast.

My thought is that Samual Abrams has a different agenda than examining the facts. He believes the official story and pretends he doesn't. He tries to sound reasonable but he is not. I, for one, am reasonable no longer. When I encounter someone who makes patently absurd statements like "And if you believe anti-missile machines would have saved us, I've got a Diebold DRE to sell you.", I tend to conclude they are a source of dis/misinformation. Or are terribly uninformed. As he is, at least. He needs only to visit www.scholarsfor911truth.org or sites like www.911review.com or 911truth.com. I am not going to restate all the evidence that is stated so well elsewhere by folks smarter than I.

But I did also, like others here, want to thank www.bradblog.com for providing a forum for discussing these issues. Unlike the some of the liberal blog gatekeepers. And god am I tired of milktoast, middle-of-the-path liberals. The times are now too dire for that crap. There is proabably very little time left for any of us to act.

oops ... in my post #59 ... I neglected to link the definition of schizophrenia:

1) Any of a group of psychotic disorders usually characterized by withdrawal from reality, illogical patterns of thinking, delusions, and hallucinations, and accompanied in varying degrees by other emotional, behavioral, or intellectual disturbances. Schizophrenia is associated with dopamine imbalances in the brain and defects of the frontal lobe and is caused by genetic, other biological, and psychosocial factors.

2) A situation or condition that results from the coexistence of disparate or antagonistic qualities, identities, or activities: the national schizophrenia that results from carrying out an unpopular war.

(link here, emphasis in original).

Samuel --- Honestly, I'm somewhat informed but not as informed as many other Brad Bloggers on the issue, although I'm going to try to catch up fast.

One thing I do know a little about is critical thinking and the official account doesn't stand up - it's pr and obfuscation, almost to the point of not even caring much if it stands up. (MSM, do your job.)

Now, if you think the administration was asleep at the wheel and is covering up incompetence, well, I guess, you're a bit of a "conspiracy theorist". Personally, I believe, with MEP, that the breakdown of defense systems to the extent that it happened is beyond the realm of incompetence and certainly indicates conscious decision. Combined with other aspects covered in 9/11 examination, I think we get into the realm of probabilities (beyond possibilities).

But, as you had the integrity to post links, I will check them out.

How we know that a real commercial jet hit the Pentagon, not a MISSILE:

1. Debris is consistent with a jetliner crash:
http://www.911research.w...ntagon/index.html#debris

2. Pentagon facade damage fit a 757
http://www.911research.w...ntagon/index.html#facade

3. Interior Damage is Consistent with a 757 Crash
http://www.911research.w...agon/index.html#interior

4. Damage to Surroundings Fits a 757
http://www.911research.w.../index.html#surroundings

5. Specific Debris Matches a 757
http://www.911research.w...entagon/index.html#parts

6. The Attack Plane's Approach Is Consistent With a 757
http://www.911research.w...agon/index.html#approach

7. DOZENS AND DOZENS of eyewitnesses reported seeing a LARGE JETLINER and some specified a 757:
http://www.911research.w...ence/witnesses/bart.html

See also:
The Pentagon No-757-Crash Theory:
Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics
http://www.911research.w...essays/pentagontrap.html

~ R E M E M B E R 09/11/01 ~
EMMA BOOKER ELEMENTARY
WHY DID THE DOG NOT BARK?

Follow me yet?
Shurlock Holmes, "The dog, did not bark at the master in the dead of night. It was the master that committed the murder, otherwise the dog would have barked at any other intruder."

EMMA BOOKER ELEMENTARY

09/11/01
This was a publicized event. In fact, it was a big deal in Florida. The press had been invited to Emma Booker Elementary to watch the President and the kids read. It was announced almost a week prior. In fact, the White House had a press engagement already scheduled to occur at 9:30am that Tuesday from the school. Scheduled the day prior to be broadcast live, across the Nation.

IF we are to believe the reports of that day, the President was aware of the first plane strike BEFORE he went to the children. The second plane strike minutes later after sitting with the children. Andy Card's own report says he said to the President that, "America was under attack." Shortly after, the President prepared a statement for the public. Bush delivered it on time (9:30am) his address to the Nation, "America was under attack." His motorcade left Emma Booker Elementary at 9:34am, the Pentagon was struck minutes later.

THE DOG DID NOT BARK

The guard dog of the President is the Secret Service. Their role is to guard and protect the President at all costs. To ensure that ALL locations are secure both prior to arrival and during. The S.S. ARE the first line of defense for the President during times of immediate and imminent crisis, like an attack on the Nation.

IF we are to believe the events of that day, then we are to believe that the S.S. had the interests of the Nation in hand and were acting to protect the President, at all costs. However, the S.S. did know prior to Bush finishing the reading session, that multiple planes may have been hijacked, and the President was informed shortly there after.

IF there was a suspicion of multiple planes being hijacked, one of which was not responding to Air Traffic Control:

HOW DID THE SS KNOW THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS SAFE IN HIS PRESENT LOCATION?

WHY DID THE SS FEEL THAT LEAVING THE PRESIDENT IN A PUBLICIZED LOCATION WAS THE BEST SAFETY MANEUVER?

HOW WAS THE SS TO GUARANTEE THE SAFETY OF THE PRESIDENT KNOWING THAT MULTIPLE PLANES HAD BEEN HIJACKED BY DOING NOTHING?

THE DOG, IT DID NOT BARK

Many people point out that maybe they didn't want to frighten the children.

THEN WHY PROP THEM UP AS THE BACKDROP TO THIS GRAVE ANNOUNCEMENT, SCHEDULED LIVE, ON NATIONAL TEE VEE?

Impact, perhaps?

For those that doubt the critical thought, keep n mind that just moments after the second plane strike on the WTC, the Vice President was rushed into a bunker for protection by the S.S. These two events DO NOT square with each other and cause those that use critical deduction to conclude that somehow, the S.S had knowledge that Bush was safe. How did they know this?

jUST like his old man . . . . . bush always want to look kool Kalm & Kolected under pressure Or B aT recreation . . .

#63
Arry
You may have already found the following jewel
www.rigorousintuition.bl...orists-guide-to-911.html
and I apologize for being link challenged and having to do it the hard way...though dated,it is worth the read.

Bluebear2 @ 1:39 pm PT...

Thank you for linking this picture. Look at the clean slice...on an angle...just like a demolition charge. And 'melted' by Thermate!
http://thumbsnap.com/v/qyXTftwL.jpg

!

Samuel Abram:

Remember, our intelligence said that Bin Laden was determined to strike in the US. The President ignored it.

Bin Laden is was run by our CIA. He's dead now. Regardless, to think a bunch of rag tag halfwits could run and pull off this thing from a cave using a laptop is so beyond laughable. Did they make NORAD to stand down?

Also, that site you mentioned is total propaganda & mis/disinformation. It sounds like you've already wasted plenty of time there reading that BS.

Accept it man. Inside job.

BVAC #60

Your first link didn't want to go through, but the graphs sure illustrate the fact that the collapse was not from pancaking floors. The illustration Samuel Abram left us in #56 shows that the building was constucted of an inner core area and a surrounding structural shell. Between these, the floors were suspended. Had these suspended floors pancaked it should have left a hollow frame similar to his illustration. The inner core which was suspended independent of the perimeter floors should have remained.

"I hate Bush as much as you guys here, but I'm appalled at the lack of critical thinking here."

Hate to say it, but I'm of the same opinion. Don't turn Brad Blog into a conspiracy theory blog, please. You will lose all credibility.

Steve Jones got that thermate stuff from a bucket someone somewhere wiped from a 911 memorial? That's evidence? Come on!

Acting Patriotic #67

That photo blew me away - it was one of those "Oh My God!" moments. That column is so obviously cut, with the molten metal running down the side.

"Thermate" is the correct substance - a mixture of thermite and other substance to control and enhance its capabilities.

Dear George,

Go read. The links are above. If you read Griffin and can find a flaw in the argumentation, come back and demonstrate it. The same with Dr. Jone's articles. No more red herrings and remonstrations to stop 'conspiracing'. The main conspiracy theory was voiced by the government. I am weary of its defenders.

I am very very very suspicious of Huffinton Post, DailyKOS, and Americablog...for avoiding e-vote fraud and 9/11. You are on the best site right now. I don't even go to those sites anymore. They stink pretty bad...you CANNOT compromise when it comes to the truth about all subjects...you can't "avoid" certain things...we want the truth about EVERYTHING!!! Right??? Well, I know for sure, I DO!!!

George #70

Whatever you think, it's really time to drop the "conspiracy theory" meme now. You can break many laws, but not the laws of physics. Way too much evidence that the official line is complete bunk for anyone to use this harebrained tactic anymore. If the problem is that you really cannot understand the material, it is best to just remain silent now. If you can't be bothered to look at what has been in front of you since 9/11/01 with an eye to making it fit into the unbreakable laws, it is at best just that, apathy. If it is the kind of brain elision some use to come off as prudent, or sophisticated, or tough-minded, what-have-you, you are WAY behind the curve now. Time for a new tactic. You should examine why you want to make foolish comments if you won't examine the facts.

Arry
Sorry I screwed that address up. Had a senior moment. If you are interested go to rigorousintuition.blogspot.com
look over to the left and find The Theorists Guide to 911
It is dated but worth reading with a few laughs thrown in. If you've been there already, never mind. I need to replace the batteries in my Radio Shack Mobile Area Air Defense Site and finish reading this months AARP mag. I might dig out an old NoFear T which reads "The Older I Get,The Better I Was" On a different but positive note 2.4 million people showed up in Mexico City to demand a full election recount. Gee maybe we need to learn from our southern neighbors and the Ukraine.

For George: Were you listening when Prof. Jones talked about the yellow discharges from the buildings? He explained that thermate, which becomes molten and can penetrate iron and steel, gives off such a discharge. But burning aluminum from a plane does not.

Were you listening when he described the collapse of Building # 7 as the most perfect demolition he'd ever seen? Do you have a theory about how that building imploded in such a manner? It wasn't struck by a plane or anything else.

Were you listening when he mentioned the woman who sent him samples of the molten thermate that she had found at the site? If the buildings collapsed as a result of the impact of planes, how did thermate get there? What use could someone have had for it except to demolish buildings from below?

We're talking about evidence here, not conspiracy theories. And that's before asking why our air defense system stood down for almost two hours.

MEP

Better be careful with that "Radio Shack Mobile Area Air Defense Site". If it's anything like my "Radio Shack
Multimedia Wireless Keyboard" you may be in trouble.
This thing keeps leaving out letters and half the time it puts a place holder but no letter when you capitalize!

(It was on sale for $9.99, or I never would have considered it - therefore it only pisses me off half as much!)

#77
BB2
I'll take that under advisement. If it malfunctions maybe my commanding officer (Wife in Charge) will give me a promotion like the guys at NORAD recieved after doing such a "heck of a job". It infuriates and amazes that people can not see the forrest for the trees. No one held accountable within the military or the intelgroups but yet any who dare and attempt to question the official story are destroyed. I'm afraid Russell Tice is in for a rough road. I think his case will end up in the same Fed.jurisdiction that heard the Kenneth Ford Jr. case. If so the bastards have already bought the rope.

Agent99:

Whatever you think, it's really time to drop the "conspiracy theory" meme now. You can break many laws, but not the laws of physics. Way too much evidence that the official line is complete bunk for anyone to use this harebrained tactic anymore. If the problem is that you really cannot understand the material, it is best to just remain silent now. If you can't be bothered to look at what has been in front of you since 9/11/01 with an eye to making it fit into the unbreakable laws, it is at best just that, apathy. If it is the kind of brain elision some use to come off as prudent, or sophisticated, or tough-minded, what-have-you, you are WAY behind the curve now. Time for a new tactic. You should examine why you want to make foolish comments if you won't examine the facts.

Exactly correct. I am willing to bet anyone who throws the "conspiracy theory" label around for belittlement purposes hasn't looked rationaly at the plethra of evidence debunking the government's ludicrous fairy tale. Read David Ray Griffin's "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions" or Webster Tarpley's "Synthetic Terror: Made in USA" and then tell me it wasn't an inside job.

There are plenty of other excellent books are well. Not to mention all the documentary videos....

thank you brad blog for posting this information. Please don't shy away from the 9-11 issue. We need more people to become aware of this information.

Thanks, MEP. Most of it looks valid and it illustrates my "probability" thesis. And it's just a beginning. Much could be added. You could take two columns and write the simplest possibility for each item in one column and other possibilities in the other. Assign probability and complexity numbers. (Use Occam's Razor - as someone else mentioned - as a point of logic.) Look at the cumulative totals. I think you would see the absurdity of even considering that column two adds up to probability. Column one, however, would add up to probability.

Not foolproof, but some analysis of the total picture would be useful. To me, it's damning, just as the exit polling statistics are beyond question overwhelming evidence of vote fraud.

Just another way of looking at it. The other part is, of course, to keep uncovering the evidence and making and preparing our society for a shock - and righteous anger.

#80
AdamT
After the Nay Sayers get through those works add "OVERTHROW"/Stephen Kinzer,"EMPIRE'S WORKSHOP"/Greg Grandin for historical reference. And for further insight "AMERICAN THEOCRACY"/Kevin Phillips. And Agent 99 may I say that you have a wonderful gift for verbal emasculation. Me worry? Nope, I wear a chain mail jockstrap. Might be kinky but it gives me peace of mind.

dr. rdw #30 wrote: "[Loose Change] as a whole can get folks 'over the hump and questioning the government's fairy tale. If you have a better one in mind please share it. I wish we had one that focused primarily on the WTC demolitions..."

I agree with you completely regarding "Loose Change." However, Dem Bruce Lee Styles, who wrote comment #41 above, is too modest to mention his own excellent film, "What the Truth?" which is free online at the links below (this comments section won't let me link to them any other way at the present moment). With the exception of the six-minute intro, it focuses entirely on the WTC demolitions and sticks completely to the evidence. In fact, the evidence is so compelling and dramatic that there is not even a need for a narrator. Said evidence (which consists of images, written testimony of the firefighters and verbal testimony of people who were at the scene that day) speaks for itself.

Furthermore, the evidence is presented in a very logical manner. He separates the events of the day into segments. For each segment, he states a hypothesis, presents evidence/proof and then concludes the segment with a brief summation. He focuses on details that other filmmakers seem to have missed (for instance, keep an eye and ear out for the amazingly consistent testimony regarding, "three big explosions").

There is so much more I could say, but I encourage you to let the film speak for itself.

What's the Truth? video:

http://video.google.com/...cid=-8076200333701191665

You may also download to your computer either a medium quality (250 MB) or a high-quality (900 MB) version here:

http://www.911podcasts.com/display.php?vid=95

MEP #83

Heh, story of my life! Sorry, but I'm up to here with the games going on behind such a serious issue. It's wwaaaaaayyyy past time that baloney stopped and people get real about this. It's not really an "issue" in any better sense that people want to take issue for their own, unworthy, reasons nowadays. Really good people, clearly heroic people, extremely intelligent and tough-minded people have thrown themselves into this in a major way, and have brought us so much evidence, fact, science now, that I for one will not take it lying down anymore.

If a doubter shows up with unresolved questions, or good faith points, I can hang with it, try to work with it, but it really is time the debunkers of truth and smug accusations of "conspiracy theory", as if conspiracy is something that never happens and only maniacs go in for it, has got to stop. If the perpetrators don't realize how obnoxious they are being, maybe they will now. If someone wants to be disingenuous with me, they are asking for it. They've had enough fun at the world's expense. No?

Agent 99 In total agreement. You just do it so damn well it begs for applause.

For what it's worth, please do your own comparison of one bit of Pentagon evidence by looking at this single still image:

http://www.migandi.org.u...tures/pentagon_proof.jpg

The image is large, so be sure to scroll down to see the two "sample" planes at the bottom. Then scroll to the upper-right corner and compare them to the plane in the official image. Which plane most closely fits?

My #82 --- Excuuuuse me. I did not say "voter fraud". "Election fraud" would have been better, though.

Thanks to everyone for making this such a good thread. I've been away all day, and I just got here, but I've read all the comments and I've enjoyed them all.

I especially liked the comments about "conspiracy theories". May I remind you of (or introduce you to) a very simple logical analysis which seems to settle things quite clearly for me. For some reason the following sequence of connected ideas seems to have eluded many people:

The official story of 9/11 is a conspiracy theory!

And it's a big one! It allegedly involved 19 dead hijackers plus one living would-be hijacker plus Osama bin Laden plus who knows how many others? It's at least 21 people even if nobody knew about it other than the people I have named (or numbered).

The only way that anyone can explain the events of 9/11 without a conspiracy is to claim that it was the work of one person acting alone.

Therefore, anyone who says "conspiracy theory" --- in an attempt to invalidate a question or cast doubt upon a hypothesis --- is either deliberately lying or has been seriously misled.

I think we've heard from both camps today. And I think it's healthy to have heard from them. I welcome more official-conspiracy theorists. I think they add to the debate immeasurably. In other words, they inject some humor into a very grim tale. So by all means: Send In The Clowns!

Please carry on. I will definitely be back.

But first I have to do some front-page blogging. It's a biggie: something about an election in San Diego. Have you heard anything about that one yet? Apparently something about that election was really weird. I'll get back you soon.

And in the meantime, BLOG ON, my friends! This is a topic that must be discussed, openly, and the blogs seem like the best place to do it. I am astonished to see comments saying certain other supposedly left/lib/dem blogs will not talk about 9/11 and I think it's a shame.

And so, in response to the comment from a dude in Korea who said "Please don't shy away from the 9/11 issue", I can only answer in Australian: No worries, mate!

Hi all. I've been away for a while. First I was out of town on business. Then I was at home sick. Then my modem wouldn't dial out. A second modem wouldn't work either. Then my computer died. So, I got a second computer with a new modem. It wouldn't work either. The phone company came over and checked it all out. Their computer could dial out. Aaaargh. So, I switched modems again and after two weeks I finally got online again today.

I was flipping channels last night and just lucked into seeing the 9/11 show. It was pretty intense and at times the folks looked a bit fringy. But, all in all it was very good. The host was terrific at controlling the noise level and direction of discussion and most of the panel were excellent. I wonder how many Americans saw that show (at one time or another).

The Establishment might call the 9/11 Truth movement fringe or nutty, but you would have to be nuts to believe THEIR story. It doesn't hold water.

Now, with the Internet there is a way for 'conspiracy theorists' to discuss and elaborate on their ideas. It isn't like 1963 during the Kennedy assassination aftermath. Thank Gore for the Internet.

BTW, I went to Samuel Abram's "debunking" link. Certainly, there are some things on there that add to the building 7 debate, but it's pretty thin stuff in the debunking category and doesn't even begin to address the bulk of 9/11 inside job evidence.

A couple things of interest; debunking it is not.

...and padded with some nonsense and some things that can only be called "diversionary", specifically re: Steve Jones.

Winter (and Brad of course!)

Thanks for the forum!

For Agent99 as suggested by MEP

No. 77 said: "Were you listening when he mentioned the woman who sent him samples of the molten thermate that she had found at the site? If the buildings collapsed as a result of the impact of planes, how did thermate get there? What use could someone have had for it except to demolish buildings from below?"

First, I read this blog for it's excellent election coverage, so I'm not sure why this stuff is being discussed here.

I admit that I didn't get very far into the show because it just didn't make sense to me that someone would seriously accept as evidence something presumably collected by a passer-by at a 9/11 memorial and kept in a bucket. I doubt this kind of evidence would be accepted in a court of law. Can anyone say definitively that the thermate, if it did come from Ground Zero, was not a product of the events that followed the building collapse?

I don't know much about chemistry, but this site seems to have some interesting insights on the chemical soup that was Ground Zero and it also questions how Jones reached his conclusions:

http://www.indybay.org/n.../2006/06/17/18281125.php

I remain highly skeptical.

Winter,
For myself, my experience from blog sites have been mixed.

Blogs that have banned me all together for mentioning 9/11 as being anything "OTHER" than the official story are ThinkProgress.org.
Blogs that have edited any mention OF 9/11 as being anything "OTHER" than the official story are Crooks&Liars.com.

~ R E M E M B E R 09/11/01 ~
EMMA BOOKER ELEMENTARY
WHY DID THE DOG NOT BARK?

Why did it take 441 days to convene a commission to investigate 9/11, AND only after the threat of lawsuits from families OF 9/11 victims?

Who has ever, EVER been cited for their poor performance on the job that day? No air traffic controller, NORAD, FBI, CIA, or superiors have EVER been held accountable for their poor performance that culminated in the deaths of 3000 people. WHY?

Why is the only, ONLY video(stop motion film) of the Pentagon strike missing frames? Why is that film dated Sept, 12, 2001? And the Military time set at 5:20(?)PM? And why is this the BEST film/video/security system our DoD can buy on a budget that allows them to hyper-compute millions of data that they mine from the American people or video cameras that they attach to drones they fly over our borders or computer systems that take ultra high resolution pictures of people from MILES in space?

Logic dictates that the "Official Story" is illogical as it omits certain details that ARE facts. Whereas the Government, MSM, and Congress would rather live in an era of "OUT OF SIGHT, OUT OF MIND." Just because they don't talk about it, DOES NOT make it untrue or unreal.

Yes, Three buildings were hit, TWO by jumbo planes caught on film, the third by a Unidentified Flying Object(UFO). Yes, several buildings subsequently collapsed due to FIRE alone, never to be repeated before or after. A one in a MILLION anomaly. That the ONLY EVER three steel buildings to collapse from fire happened to occur on the same day. Who can do the odds on this? You stand to win the LOTTO before this EVER can be repeated. And Shanksville, no plane crash ever has spread it's debris over an 8 mile area, unless it broke up in mid air first.

=============
Those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
=============

PNAC called it a catalyzing event. A "New Pearl Harbor."
But this was not a new idea. There have been MANY false flag operation perpetrated upon mankind. Some to wage war(CHECK), some to gain power(CHECK), and some to over throw political ideologies(CHECK). 9/11 gave all of that to the GOP and especially the Neoconservatives, who's global hegemony doctrine is one that simply states, "Don't mess with the USA."

~ R E M E M B E R 09/11/01 ~
EMMA BOOKER ELEMENTARY

This is why we are in Afghanistan, Iraq, threatening Syria and Iran, North Korea, and backing Israel air strikes on Lebanon. This is why we accept the dictatorship of Pakistan and their ability to AIDE and ABED the "EVIL DOERS".

It is why we have the implementation OF the Patriot Act. A duplicate of Hitler's "Enabling Act."

The collection of data on the populace of America is the seed of DARPA. This seed was planted long ago. Before there were terrorists attacking our soil. And while you contemplate this remember, the REASONS given are because of the terror attacks of 9/11. ON OUR SOIL. And to prevent further attacks, therefore making us more secure.

Rationalize it in your mind, if you will. Collection of data PRE-9/11, justification of data POST-9/11.

PRE-9/11 there was no REASON, and with no reason for the vast collection data, people might get worried and Congress might enforce oversight.

POST-9/11, the Government gives Americans a reason to worry - TERRORISTS - and look, people willingly give up information, securities, and Liberties through their blind faith and trust in a system that has them by the balls.

And finally, remember, the terrorists want to inflict as much damage to American Principles. Similarly, Congress gives the terrorists what they want; The erosion OF our Bill of Rights.

George, does it occur to you that Dr. Jones may have told a very watered-down story of the provenance of that bit of evidence? Does it occur to you that he's not a dolt, and wouldn't jeopardize a better source for his evidence?

Can't you park your comments about your skepticism and do a little more real research before you insult good people?

Bluebear2 and MEP

xoxoxoxoxox :blush:

#94
George
"First I read this blog for it's excellent election coverage...."

Is it safe to assume that you are in agreement that it appears massive election fraud may have taken place in 00 and 04 or are you refering to something else?

George #94: I probably have a slightly different take on your input than do some of the others, but that ain't no big news around here!

I read this blog for it's excellent election coverage, so I'm not sure why this stuff is being discussed here.

This is a good question and the answer is kind of complicated abd this thread may not be the right place to do it ... but since you asked ...

Brad used to blog about a variety of topics (see the 2004 archives) and then I came along and offered to help him, and one thing led to another, and before long we were working together (see the 2005 archives). I tried to stay away from elections stuff so that I wouldn't step on Brad's toes, and so that he could concentrate on elections without sacrificing the multi-issue approach that seemed to work so well.

During 2005, John Gideon came along, and his excellent coverage has been a great addition; once John was here I never even considered blogging about election-related stuff, because there was no need. I knew it would be covered. But I blogged about virtually everything else, so we could still have lots of variety here.

Unfortunately (or maybe not, depending on your attitude!), I had to go quiet in late 2005 and it left a hole in the coverage here. Brad drifted more and more into elections and that made the hole even bigger. Starting in June with "Busby Bilbray Who Won? Who Knows?" the blog has been almost entirely electoral, not because Brad wanted it that way but because he didn't have time or energy for much of anything except CA50. And I wasn't available.

If I had been here the whole time the blog would never have become a single-issue blog in the first place. So it's mostly my fault if you were expecting this to be an elections-only blog. It's my fault for leaving, and it's my fault again for coming back. But it's your fault for arriving in the interim. How's that? Can we share the responsibility?

And now ... I'm back from my temporary hibernation and I'm hoping to re-establish the tradition of covering a wide variety of issues here. (More to the point, I can't concentrate on elections the way Brad and John do because that's not my stong suit. I've been "specializing" in "everything else".) And Brad has given me the keys again and told me to blog about anything that moves me, so apparently he agrees that a little variety is a very good thing.

And he will be away for at least another month --- maybe even six weeks! --- and in that time we will probably have threads dealing with national security, the various wars in the Middle East, whistleblowers, false flag terror, government corruption, media propaganda, and all kinds of other things. Whatever moves me, given the news of the day.

As for 9/11 in particular, it's not on any playlist or anything; in other words it's not going to recur as a major topic in a regular way, but I'm not going to ignore it either. It's a big story, George. And seeing such a panel on CSPAN is big news, whether you "like" 9/11 as an issue or not.

Speaking of which, Brad doesn't especially "like" 9/11, whereas I like it a lot. And when I first started commenting here, I was reluctant to mention 9/11 because Brad wasn't mentioning it and I wondered whether it was verboten or something. But eventually I couldn't help mentioning things that I have been wanting to say for a long time, and to Brad's credit he didn't react by banning or even flaming me, even though I don't think he agreed with what I was saying.

At least I think he thought it was pretty way-out at the time. But over the years I think I've managed to make a dent in him, and clearly the readers' responses to the issue haven't hurt on that front. Brad still might not "like" 9/11 as much as I do, or as much as some of his readers do, but he likes it a lot more than he used to. I think he gets it, I really do!

As for me, I knew the official cover story was bunk on the day of the event, and nothing I have learned in the ensuing almost-five-years has made me change my mind on that one.

If you don't want to know how I knew the official story was baloney as soon as I heard it, you'd better not read "9/11 Was a Hoax: How and When I Knew It". And if you didn't notice how the events of the day changed the national debate --- um, not changed, exactly, but stifled it, and if you don't want to know, then don't read my other early 9/11-related piece, "Trouble".

In particular re: 9/11, I do not have a "theory" that covers every possible bit of "evidence", and I don't think such a theory is even possible. I think a lot of the so-called "evidence" is fake and we'll probably never sort out which is which. So it'll be tough to create an explanation that covers everything.

But the official explanation is so obviously, so clearly bullshit! It may be the worst wacked-out conspiracy theory I have ever heard!

And in the end I am 100% certain of this much: We NEED to talk about this! And if you notice the number of comments we get per thread around here, it's clear that I am not in the minority on this one.

As I wrote in my first really long comment on this blog, in December of 2004,

Since 9/11 too many people have been too frightened to talk about anything that matters. That has to stop and it has to stop right now. We need to keep talking about all this stuff, not only here on The BradBlog but everywhere. Bring your friends up to speed; get your family there too. Spread the word in every way you can and don't stop. We the people have enormous untapped power, and most of it is economic. We hardly even have any idea how to use it. So we need to learn how velvet revolutions work in other countries. Look at what happened to Slobodan Milosevic. Look at what happened to Ferdinand Marcos. Look at what's happening in the Ukraine. Could we do something similar? Of course we could.

It's not up to Brad. It's up to all of us.

Thanks for the explanatin WP. I also "like" 9-11 coverage. I didn't even consider the truth of 9-11 until after the 2004 election and my curiosity on all things conspirital about my government began to click. There are so many informative sites in which to learn, and after today from this blog I have more investigating to do. So thank you for posting this. I agree it must be talked about and learned about. I think the most important thing tho is we need to come together as a country and Impeach These MotherFuckers Already!

One other point I believe Webster Tarply when he says there was a COUP D'ETAT on 9-11 only I believe the COUP D'ETAT happened during the 2000 election that led us to the horrifying 9-11.

Thank you WP for the link to "Holgren Debunks the Conspiracy Theorists". I downloaded it long ago and then lost it when my hard drive died. As usual I couldn't remember where I had found it. Off the current topics....does anyone know if there is a legal fund set up for Russell Tice? The guy is going to need all the help he can get. If you guys find a fund site please forward it. The next 90 days could be epoch. Good luck with all of your endeavors.

I feel sorry for leftgatekeeper Bush hating liberals who still buy the official neocon version of events. It aint about tower or pentagon theories, it's about covert US funds funding the hijackers.
covert US funds ---> Pakistani ISI ---> al Qaeda operatives. Got it? google CIA ISI 9/11, google
Able Danger, google Sibel Edmonds, etc.
911myths.com REFUSES to address these smoking guns, why? Because they are irrefutable.

"Ground Zero's fires still burning
11:20 03 December 2001
From New Scientist Print Edition.
Jonathan Beard, New York

Almost 12 weeks after the terrorist atrocity at New York's World Trade Center, there is at least one fire still burning in the rubble - it is the longest-burning structural fire in history. "

http://www.rumormillnews....cgi?noframes;read=88138

The thing that impressed me the most about the C-SPAN coverage was the size of the audience and their intensity. These people were pumped up. They weren't about to be told they couldn't applaud everything that was said. Especially impeachment. YEAH BABY!

I'm not an expert on Alex Jones, but I've mostly agreed with his theories except for the fact that he seems to lump Clinton in the same category as Bush! Now that I see Clinton avoiding election fraud and hanging with Bush senior, I'm not closed to the idea as much. Sorry Bill, but I think exposing a dictator is more important then holding the country together in a war his son pushed us into.

Webster Tarpley's comments about the "left's gatekeepers" almost ruined the show for me, but I realized he's right. The issue is avoided by Any Goodman, and others. Maybe they're afraid people on the fence will tune them out if they hear those theories, (not a bad argument)! I'd sure as hell like Mr. Tarpley point to some right wing shows that cover it!

The time has come for RIGHT and LEFT to unite and DEMAND a realistic study of 911. This could unite our country for the first time since the phony Clinton impeachment!
RIGHT NOW!!!

And I whole heartedly agree. Thanks for the internet Al. You are a visionary! What do you think Alex?

It's hard for the "average citizen" to imagine an American coup d'etat. That's a French term. Coups d'etat happen in foreign countries, not here. They happen only where governments are unstable, right?

Usually. But not always. If 9/11 is viewed in the context of the stolen election that preceded it, the conspiratorial energy "conference" held by Cheney that divvied up the spoils of a unilateral invasion that hadn't happened yet, the need for a watershed event to justify that invasion, and the theft of the 2004 election, it becomes clear that the normal political process was not allowed to function. That's a coup d'etat.

The average American will understand it as soon as the end-justifies-the-means mentality that pervades among neo-cons is understood. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Kristol, et al. think that whatever must be done to advance their world view can be justified. Stealing elections, invading sovereign nations, even staging a false-flag event and killing innocent civilians are worth it to a neo-con if in the end America's version (his version, that is) of how the world should look is realized.

I talked to Alex Jones when he was on a local radio show years ago, to ask him what he thought about an ad I saw at work on the back of a magazine called "Eyecare Business".

I have worked in the Optical business for years and our store was astonished to see this when it showed up about a week after 9-11. The date on the front of the magazine is August 2001. Notice that the ad says "TV campaign begins August 23" (19 days before the attack). I don't know how much television I was watching at the time, but I don't remember ever seeing this ad on TV.

Was the ad pulled early because of insider information to prevent embarrassment, or just delayed for some reason and justifiably dropped because it would have been in extremely bad taste?

Would make an interesting story to know how much money they lost on the ad and what happened.

I wish that link worked, Larry! What a great thread! Thanks, all! It ain't easy, ya know, being an expat in the heart o' Europe. No CSPAN here, pal! But I've got BradBlog (Thanks, Brad) and the Internet (Thanks, Al) - OT here, but I kinda like the sound of Gore-Friedman '08 - I'd settle for Kinky at the bottom of the ticket, but I think that 6 or 7 of you know who my choice is. I wish I had a faster puter - all the images are jumpity...

Just a thought this morning. Note what happens when you finally come to realize that 9/11 was a false flag op. 'War on Terrah', Patriot Act, War in Afghanistan, War in Iraq, Imminent war on Iran, ....all of these and more are seen in a 'New' light. Neocons and PNAC, Carlyle Groups and Bilderbergers, Peak Oil/Energy wars looming. Corporatism and transnational corporations, Big Oil and the Military-Industrial Complex, not to mention Election Fraud and the destruction of our democracy. The American version of Fascism, the growing Theocracy and the 'internment' camps upgraded and built by Haliburton. And many many more issues. It is coming down to the wire now. Will there be a new 9/11? Will there be martial law? What about FEMA and all of the Presidential Directives undermining the Constitution and our Bill of Rights?
9/11 was a Big Event. But it was only the first of this cycle. This is a battle for America. Beware the coming congressional recess.
What are YOU going to do? Go with the flow? Or stand up and risk yourself, your lives for the Republic?
There is very little time.

Dr. RDW,

We can only hope they turn FEMA loose to round us up. We'll be able to track them into their camps and then lock them in, from the outside. Start buying Kryptonites now, by the gross. They don't have boltcutters that can handle them, and they'll have to send out for remedies. This is going to be fun! Anyone remember when we levitated the Pentagon? I have to admit, though, that I'm wicked afraid they'll blow away New England with a dirty bomb (with the bonus of letting the fallout come down on that pesky, effete Europe) to rally around the morans. I think it's time to go into the two-minute offense.

Here is a link to an MP3 audio file of the 911 Conference.

http://www.uploading.com/?get=BBL4MAQ8

Thank you Winter Patriot at 99: "At least I think he thought it was pretty way-out at the time. But over the years I think I've managed to make a dent in him, and clearly the readers' responses to the issue haven't hurt on that front. Brad still might not "like" 9/11 as much as I do, or as much as some of his readers do, but he likes it a lot more than he used to. I think he gets it, I really do!"

Thank you for the background. It was nice of you to respond so thoroughly.

My first reaction on seeing the 9/11 post was curiosity. What was this about? I had heard little about the stuff being put forward, and the fact that it was on C-SPAN got my attention. So I watched some of it and read some of the comments on the site.

The whole thing is just too farfetched. I'm sorry, but it's clear from the comments that people are going way overboard with the wild speculation.

My concern about Brad Blog as a whole, honestly, is that it is going to lose legitimacy and that its election fraud coverage will be dismissed. People will say: they are obsessed with conspiracy theories at Brad Blog. I hope that doesn't happen.

George #112

If the 9/11 Commission Report section supplied in whole or part by NIST is so tight and so logical, why is NIST afraid to Debate the issue with 9/11 Scholars For Truth (Story Here)?

Thank you Bradblog. If people are afraid that the issue of 9/11 is "too touchy" to discuss, they are just closed minded and only believe what their told by the neocon propaganda machine. Shame, shame. In my opinion, everything is worth discussing. Futhermore, any site that refuses to discuss any topic with the ramifications like this one, has no credibility. I urge people to watch William Rodriguez's presentation at the same conference. It is truly riveting.

I'm with George (#112) on this. The "9-11 Truth" theories are not just broad, varied, and often farfetched ... some of them present outright falsehoods, of which the link in #4 (www.911myths.com) reports on many. Any falsehoods (or simply perceived falsehoods) that come to be associated with the BradBlog will harm the reputation of everything else on the site.

Whatever your beliefs in this matter, and whatever the ultimate truth, there is a good chance that increased coverage of 911 theories will harm the public credibility of BradBlog in its election fraud coverage. Brad has worked hard to establish both credibility and recognition as a groundbreaker in issues of legitimacy in US elections. It would be a deep shame to lose those hard-fought resources, while the rest of the movement is still in its infancy.

I suggest a different forum be used by BradBlag readers to discuss the events of 9-11. There are only so many underground movements that this site can support before it will lose its effectiveness in convincing the general public to join any of them.

Some people believe the 9/11 story in a way that will cause them to threaten the lives of scholars who voice opinions about the 9/11 events (link here, and here).

George, what do you mean by the statement "...the whole thing is just too farfetched."????

Do you mean that the government's explanation for what happened is farfetched? Do you mean the event itself is? Or do you mean the questions being raised here about the official story are too farfetched?

If you mean the latter, you've turned whole argument upside-down. We know two separate planes were hijacked and flown into the twin towers. That's not farfetched; that happened. We know that a third tower nearby collapsed without being struck by any plane, and the only thing farfetched about that occurrence is the nonsensical belief that reflected heat from the other two buildings caused it to implode...as Dr. Steve Jones said, "Like the most perfect demolition I ever saw."

What's farfetched here, George? I assume the subtext of your statement is (correct me if I'm wrong), "It's absurd to think our own government would commit a terrorist act against Americans, or not prevent one if they could." Most Americans would agree with that sentiment, but most Americans don't know that our air defense were on stand-down mode for almost two hours on the morning of 9/11. That's a fact, George, not a farfetched theory. Do you have an explanation for why that happened? The only one I can contrive is that the government didn't want to interfere with a terrorist act, in order to marshal public anger and gain approval for its (already decided) invasion of Iraq.

Words like "farfetched" are two-edged swords, George.

Hi again George: Thanks for your response. I also am concerned about the image of this blog in the eyes of the rest of the world, and I agree that if its credibility is tarnished then the all good work --- no! GREAT work --- that has gone before may be seen as easily dismissable. So I share your concerns in this regard. But I would also like to point out a few things that are easily overlooked...

[1] If people want to say "they are obsessed with conspiracy theories at Brad Blog", they are going to say it regardless of whether it's true or not. What, after all, is a "conspiracy"? In the legal world they call it "racketeering" and it happens all the time.

[2] To those of us who have been reading and thinking quite a bit about 9/11, the official story seems significantly more farfetched than almost any of the "wild speculation" that you see in the comments. For instance, if you believe the official story, you have all kinds of technical questions to answer, such as "How did they get all the information they needed to pull this off?" and "How did they manage to fly those planes around without getting intercepted?" and "What were they hoping to gain from this?" and so on. On the other hand, if you believe that the planners and perpetrators were deep within the government, these questions find easy answers. Unfortunately, I believe that if you study a bit of what's available about known false-flag terror operations, such as Operation Northwoods and Operation Gladio, you will find that the speculation you are reading here is none too farfetched after all.

[3] In my view, one of the easiest ways for a blog to lose credibility is to refuse to discuss --- or refuse to allow its readers to discuss --- controversial issues. Without naming any names, I will say that the main reason I am here at The BRAD BLOG is because of what happened immediately after the so-called presidential election of 2004. All the other blogs I had been reading started discussing everything except what I considered the most obvious fact in the world --- that something had gone wrong with the election. Brad's tenacity in continuing to examine the circumstances surrounding that "election" has been the main reason for this blog's rise in the credibility ratings. I wish to point out that many people in November 2004 considered the possibility that the election had been stolen to be "farfetched". And of course there were others who saw right away that this was the only possible explanation for the announced totals. In the nearly two years since then, many who originally thought the whole idea "too farfetched" have come to accept what appeared immediately obvious to the others. IMO the only reason why this has happened is because Brad kept blogging about it even though he was hearing from a lot of people who thought it was "too farfetched".

[4] Brad has always been extremely lenient with respect to comments. People have to be consistently rotten to get banned here. Clearly he is confident enough in what he is saying to allow other points of view to be expressed here. I think this reflects extremely well on him and gives him added credibility. And at the same time it's quite clear that Brad doesn't always agree with every comment posted here --- indeed: how could he? So if you find some of the comments a bit far-fetched then you have every right to that opinion, but please remember that this doesn't reflect in any way upon the credibility of Brad's work, nor on John's. Anyone who says "you can't take The Brad Blog seriously because some of the people who read it have some pretty strange ideas" is either lying or seriously misled.

There you go, George. I hope this allays some of your concerns. But if you have any other comments or questions or anything else, please post 'em. Thanks again.

I know that I don't find the "official story" of 911 convincing. But I don't find the various alternative theories I've seen convincing either. And what I continue to wonder about is why engineers across the country and around the world aren't speaking out against the "official story", if it really is as farfetched as it seems to me to be.

Eppie: I can answer your question in one word. FEAR.

Ari #115

The polls show that the 9/11 movement was solid in New York years ago(2004 Poll) and is growing across the nation (2006 Poll).

And as to myths, in all psyops and blackops many are trained during the preparations to eventually spread myth (grey ops) or outright lies (black ops). That is the way it is taught in false flag school (link here). Which is nothing new (link here, PDF).

It is a sign that we are getting close to the facts when those show up.

Like trolls, it is not a sign that we recoil from, because we know that operatives purposefully spread some of this while claiming to be participants in the movement to get a real 9/11 report (from a real 9/11 Commission) into the public domain.

Guaranteed "triple-digit" comments on any 9/11-related topic!!!

Dredd: You know what all this has to do with? Government not representing the people. Runaway government acting like the founding fathers' DID NOT INTEND IT TO... Government pissing all over the constitution. We're better off with NO GOVERNMENT, than these creeps... Taking all our tax money for war profits...and hidden agenda's WE DON'T WANT OUR $$$ SPENT ON!!!

2 things would stop all this: If we could withhold our tax money and stop joining the military. Our tax money and military is what they use to carry out their "government within a government" agendas, which have nothing to do with what the people want, both red staters and blue staters...

For Eppie: Why aren't engineers speaking out against the official version of 9/11?

I think fear has something to do with it. Engineers who work for somebody else (an engineering firm, a local government) have to worry about the response from their bosses. Call it the "What are you doing to us with that unpatriotic talk?" problem. A college professor has more latitude.

You might also ask, "Why didn't more members of Congress protest the 2004 election with Barbara Boxer and John Conyers?" Same deal, basically...fear of the public's reaction. "Traitor!" "Conspiracy theorist!"

When push comes to shove, a person's righteous anger often gives way to self-protection. I was fired from my broker's job for blowing the whistle on my late wife's relatives, who stole $60,000 from her money-market account as she lay dying. A lawyer said I had a perfect case under Connnecticut's whistle-blower law, but warned me that I'd have to depose my fellow brokers (at $3,000 per deposition), and said that based on her experience in such cases, most of my angry friends would fall silent if it came to testifying against the muck-a-mucks. So I didn't sue, and thanked the lawyer for her honest advice.

Professor Steven Jones is a patriot who isn't afraid of being called unpatriotic.

George: I weighed the evidence of our government's 9/11 explanation (politicians, please remember, they are politicians/used car salesmen) vs. the scholars, engineers, and scientists explanations.

Call me "crazy", but I believe the scholars/engineers/scientists over the "POLITICIANS"!!!!

George, you believe politicians??? I thought that, in general, most people know politicians are full of shit...

George: think about it: YOU ARE BELIEVING POLITICIANS, AND CALLING SCIENTISTS/SCHOLARS/ENGINEERS FAR-FETHCED!!! You are buying the "used car salesman"'s story!!!

I can't see that covering two topics that actually are one is a problem. Rather like the chicken and the egg which came first? If we had had a honest election, recount, not Supreme decision, perhaps 9/11 would not have happened.

Bush's brain knew the media were checking out Florida events and how handy was it to have a major event to distract the media, and the public from uncovering.

Police always check to see who benefited most from a crime to find the criminal.

But BushCo and friends give a rats ass if it is even proven they engineered the whole 9/11. So certain they are of having full power, they care less about what is being uncovered. How can focus be on them with the Middle East is imploding ?

Thank you WP and Brad for sacrificing time and careers to keep those who want to learn informed.

One of the nails in the coffin, for me, that seems to get overlooked when discussing 9/11, is that there were military exercises being run that dealt with some similar scenarios at the same time as the actual attacks. This seems to be a recurring theme.

I read this and it still seems to gloss over the fact that these exercises are still incredibly fucking suspicious despite the fact that the exercise "did not predict a bomb on a bus".

I do agree that not all of the 9/11 "conspiracy" information is factual. Of course there is information that is not accurate, and i'm not sure i believe Alex Jones when he says that there is enough information to win a case in a court of law (or something like that), but without a shadow of a doubt, the people we suspect had a hand in 9/11 either did so or are so negligent as to be dangerous and need to be removed from OUR government as quickly as possible.

Winter Patriot, I'm glad the post was done and that issues surrounding 9/11 are being widely discussed.

Worthwhile reading for anyone interested in what happened on 9/11 is this March 2005 Popular Mechanics article: "911: Debunking the myths".

http://www.popularmechan...7842.html?page=1&c=y

I will leave it at that.

Thanks, George, for your kind words in #128.

BTW the "feature article" in the March 2005 issue of Popular Mechanics has been thoroughly demolished here:

"Reply to Popular Mechanics re 9/11" by Peter Meyer

re: Winter Patriot # 118

Thanks for your on target comments.

TRE #127

Don't forget the missing $2.3 Trillion Rumsfeld announced the day before. That nes item sure disappeared in a hurry!

texaslady wrote in #126

Thank you WP and Brad for sacrificing time and careers to keep those who want to learn informed.

and this reminds me that I have to beg again.

If you can possibly help us out by making a contribution, no matter how small, we would greatly appreciate it. Look for the blue box near the top of the right sidebar. And thank you very, very much.

Damn, 2.3 Trillion is a lot of money to lose track of. How do you figure this fits into 9/11?

I have thought a lot about the disbelief some express - even in the light of overwhelming empirical evidence. I know that some posters are trolls, disinfo-psyops folks and the like. Some are simply incapable of examining evidence. But many just can't imagine that our government would do such a thing (even in spite of our history of other false flag operations, outright deceits and the like). I think a very potent reason that some just cannot accept evidence in front of their eyes is of course denial. This denial is based upon the overwhelming fear of what the fact of 911 as a false flag operation means. It means all that you thought of as 'your government' and years of beliefs about it and its meaning to you... is now turned on its head. That you don't live in a democracy. That there are forces - most likely dark forces - that play havoc with the events around you. Towards ends you do not know, perhaps may never know or cannot know. That others are controlling, part of your world, controlling/influencing you and your life. That everything you assumed to be true, real, and predictable about the nature of your political and national reality are suspect. For many folks, this is just too great a threat, too great a fear, to be borne.

Unfortunately, there will always be nay-sayers. And when the proof is so overwhelming, nay-saying can only be attributed to fear, rigidity and an unwillingness question not only what they have long cherished as social/political reality but also their presuppositions about the institutions they have believed in unthinkingly for so long. [think of how hard it is for a theist to actually, truly question whether there is a god or not]

Understanding that 9/11 was an inside job changes everything. It changes so much that many turn away from seriously considering it. And it is this fear, this behavior and other similar psychological phenomena that the psyops folks count on.

And until now the predictions - based upon well-known laws about human behavior and the nature of belief - have held true. They begin to break down as bit by bit the momentum starts to turn. That is what is happening now, I truly believe (and hope) and the tide is turning against the government conspiracy. But will it be soon enough? Will it be enough?

For those unwilling to remove the fog from their "disbelief", consider that a human being was standing in the "crash site" of one of the towers. We are to believe that the steel got hot enough to "fatigue it" and cause a collapse, yet was cool enough after the crash/explosion to allow a human to stand in the impact site. "Hot enough to weaken steel" -> MUCH GREATER -> "temps a human can survive in"...

Then there's no wreckage at the Pentagon (I've seen the "photos" that supposedly show stuff inside the Pentagon, and trust me, there's nothing there big enough to have "sucked into" a 16-foot hole that is from a 757).. No damage to the lawn, light poles "down" with "no damage"?? kind of like someone wanted to make SURE the approach didn't hurt the plane? What, the terrorists went and laid those down?

Pancaking takes longer than freefall, and the towers dropped at freefall..

All the survailance tapes REMOVED from ALL business that could see that side of the Pentagon, and STILL NOT RELEASED. We have dozens of angles to look at, yet the government won't release it? What are they hiding?

Someone asked "what does the admin gain from this?".. Well, $300 billion in war spending (and counting), a power grab under the banner of "unitary executive" and beating the "war powers" drum (despite not being in a war, since Congress has NOT declared war).

No bodies reported at the "crash site" of Flight 93? The coronor found no bodies? Hmm.. strange. Nothing like what Operation Northwoods was going to do, right? blow up an empty plane?

Hundreds (or thousands) of questions are "not answered", yet people are content to "trust their government", even after all the LIES that have been PROVED to have come from them during this administration.

I've seen a few "debunking sites", and all of them pale in comparison to the "evidence" sites. At the end of the day, we "don't know" because the government schooed away all the evidence as fast as they could.. nothing to "check" or "investiage".. why? Your Republican Congress spent $600 million checking into a blowjob, and only $50 million on the single worst terrorist attack in our history. Hmm..

The government gets away with these black ops and illegal activities because people don't want to think.. don't want to question those in positions of authority (we're taught early not to question our parents and teachers and police officers, despite the FACTS and EVIDENCE that shows they are every bit as falable as "the rest of us").

Sept. 11, 2001 was this administration's "new pearl harbor". It allowed them to make the biggest power grab in American history. It has them running roughshod over the public and Constitution. It has them breaking law after law and getting away with it because they say "remember the boogy man! remember 9-11!!". I, for one, am getting pretty damn tired of hearing how our rights and the law can be flouted because of something that happened 5 years ago, and has caused no "real" change in our efforts to "protect the masses".. Get it?

And you want to know why "scholars" are coming out about it and not "engineers" and other "experts"? Who the fuck do you think TAUGHT the engineers?? PHYSICISTS IN COLLEGES.. uh.. duh?

Tre said on 7/31/2006 @ 10:16 am PT...

Damn, 2.3 Trillion is a lot of money to lose track of. How do you figure this fits into 9/11?

Donald Rumsfeld made the announcement that the money was missing on Sept.10,2001.the next day pretty much squelches any investigation attempt.

Savanster: Many people at the business's watched those confiscated videos, and are under gag order not to say what they saw on the video's. I always say, a gag order is a way to suppress the truth. When has a gag order ever benefitted the truth??? Gag orders are to KEEP THE TRUTH QUIET. I wonder how many people under 9/11-related "gag orders" have "committed suicide"??? Is there any way to find out?

Savanster: What would be great, is if someone copied one of those videos before they were confiscated, and they release it to st911.org !

As a Professional Licensed Civil Engineer who has studied every major steel bridge collapse in American history, I feel compelled to add my 2 cents.

First I'd like to comment on the image linked in posts #47 & #68; without further context it's impossible to say that this is evidence. How soon after the collapse was the photo taken? My first reaction to that angularly cut vertical steel beam is that it was probably cut with an oxy-acetylene torch during the rescue & recovery effort.

Second I'd like to point out that Samuel's #56 linked drawing is an outright lie - the central steel columns carried the majority of the vertical load in the towers - interesting that they're not even depicted in that funny little cartoon drawing!

I recall that while watching TV live on 9/11/01 I was horrified to see the buildings collapse - not even so much at the tragic loss of human life as at the sheer physical improbability of what I was witnessing. I couldn't comprehend how the steel-core structures could have been brought down by the plane impacts and ensuing fires. When an "expert" on live television stated that there must have been tons of additional explosives on site to cause such collapses, I found my brain comforted by what was actually a reasonable explanation. When shortly thereafter the reasonable explanation was retracted, I couldn't believe that the government would go to such lengths and my mind again wrestled with the impossible. I studied the MIT collapse explanation and found it lacking. When the formation of the 9/11 commission was faught tooth and nail by the Bush admin, with Bush finally agreeing to testify under VERY limited conditions (with Cheney present, not under oath, and only, I believe, for 90 minutes) I became solidly convinced of a coverup.

As time has progressed and I've seen the evidence and theories emerge, along with the debunking and outright railroading by mainstream news sources, I feel helpless as to how such crimes and criminals can possibly be overcome. It's only through opening these crimes up to intense scrutiny that we can awake from our national nightmare. Unfortunately the neocons have had plenty of distractions ready for the world in the meanwhile.

I'm kicking myself for missing the C-SPAN broadcast and plan to watch online later as time allows. It's a shame that other "left" news sources such as Huffington can't bring themselves to face the science of what really happened that fateful day.

Thank you Brad Blog and Winter Patriot for posting on this critical matter! Keep up the great work!

-njt

Think of this as part two of Recherche du trillions perdu, my Online Journal article on Dov Zakheim, former Bush appointee as Pentagon Comptroller from May 4, 2001 to March 10, 2004. At that time he was unable to explain the disappearance of $1 trillion dollars. Actually, nearly three years earlier, Donald Rumsfeld announced on September 10, 2001 that an audit discovered $2.3 trillion was also missing from the Pentagon books. That story, as I mentioned, was buried under 9-11’s rubble. The two sums disappeared on Zakheim’s watch.

http://onlinejournal.com...blish/article_1047.shtml

newjesustimes, check out C-Span this Tuesday(tomorrow) at 6:10 pm. they are re-playing it.

Dr. RDW: I agree, that is excellent insight. That is probably the non-troll reason for not believing it. You must be a doctor of psychology...

newjesus: why don't they just release the video tapes of the businesses??? and let the people under gag order speak...

WP 129: Also, wasn't a relative of Chertoff on the staff of Popular mechanics (or something like that)??? I seem to remember? I'm going to search for that. I remember at the time that Popular Mechanics propoganda came out, there were ties between the PM's edititorial staff and the Israeli citizen Michael Chertoff, our homeland security advisor... I go by memory for some things...but I have a great memory!!!

Savantster makes a telling point. This government absolutely doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt on any matter requiring trust. They've lied about two elections, about when they first decided to invade Iraq, about WMD, about yellowcake from Niger, about a link between Saddam and Osama bin Laden, about torture of detainees, about extraordinary rendition, about illegal spying on American citizens, about secret C.I.A. prisons, about a C.I.A. kidnapping in Italy, about Valerie Plame's status, about Rove's knowledge of her status, about manipulated intelligence as described in the Downing St. minutes, about Bush's friendship with Ken Lay, about John Kerry's war record, and about Bush's own career in the national guard.

So why should anyone believe their story about 9/11?

Sorry for so many posts, but I keep paging backwards, and then I want to respond to a comment! George: I don't think Brad is worried about how Brad Blog is perceived by the (non-existent btw) falsehoods about 9/11...if C-SPAN isn't worried about it, do you??? In fact, C-SPAN covering it allows brad and bradblogians to say, "I told you so..." now that the very legitimate C-SPAN is covering it.

George #128

Cool. I hope you don't leave it at that magazine's content on the subject. I hope you keep looking. Man enough to state you are glad for the discussion, man enough to recognize the truth when dragged to it. I hope you've let the people on this thread help convince you that the truth is other than we've been told, and that you will see that helping to make this truth, to whatever extent possible, see the light of day, may end up saving our country.

http://www.st911.org

There are links to all the scholarly help you'd ever need, and plenty of audio and visual help as well.

RLM #124 and Epppie

One engineer, Kevin Ryan, an insider at United Laboratories (UL) who questioned the official story was fired the next day (link here).

Chris #141 - thanks, I'll be out but would like to record it - I'm looking at the guide and don't see it scheduled. Do you know if it ill be on CSPAN 1 or 2? And at 6:10 pm Eastern time / 3:10 Pacific?

Tuesday Aug 1st on CSpan 1:
http://inside.c-spanarch....csp?timeid=212021164055

How bout the new promo clips for the new Nicholas Cage Hollywood marshmellow fluff film about 9/11 perpetrating the government conspiracy story coming out in 2 weeks. If anyone knows him, maybe they can suggest he views this 9/11 panel discusion and a copy of the dvd LOUDER THAN WORDS 2ED. dedicated to those who DIED ON 9/11 before he goes out on his promotion junkett.

He could become a champion of the people just by asking a few intelligent questions. Since he likes to play a variety of roles especially action hero, he should consider the role of real American patriot with a chance to be recognized as a hero around the world by exposing the TRUTH to people who lost their life for the Bushit neo-con agenda. This includes over 100,000 Iraqi civilians ands 2500 US servicemen. Maybe if he receives a few 1000 boxcutters in the mail he could take a hint. He would have everything to gain by connecting the dots for a bigger audience to see. Evidence the facts such as 2 rigged presidential elections for Bush and Cheney. The way they have used their political power to destroy our environment in crisis, and boat loads of spending for the military and the war effort (proven to be based on the tie-in lies of 9/11 etc in light of the downing street minutes www.afterdowningstreet.org ). Finally, simply look at how our Democracy has become a Fascist dictatorship using FEAR and attributing all their Bushit acts of aggression to this 9/11 incident. This is the MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. Taking away rights of Americans, using electron voting machines to steal elections in which 1 person can control the outcome of an election, not to mention illegal wire tapping and their torture bushit.

With all the Bushit administration lies, American's must end this faith based cover for these criminal murderers. They deserve no trust from us and their actions must be exposed to all Americans while we still have a DEMOCRACY. I emplore you Nicholas Cage to get any of the confiscated video of what hit the Pentagon but you will never because it would expose their big lie.

IMPEACH AND JAIL THE BUSHIT ADMINISTRATION!!!

Thanks for the responses, all.

Winter (#129):

I've read through that link before, and it does nothing remotely close to demolishing the Popular Mechanics piece. (The text that follows is in reference to the link in message #129, referred to as the "response" to PM)

The response doesn't do anything to address PM's pod assertions, other than to claim they were looking at the wrong picture. The picture they show is equally vague, and doesn't prove much of anything. To me, it just looks like a shadow from the right engine is projected onto the fuselage ... but then again I'm just an engineer, not a forensic photo analyst ... and that explanation would be too simple.

The response to the stand-down order section doesn't really address PM's point either. It dwells on whether NORAD had authority to conduct intercept missions without White House approval, but PM never addressed that, and there have never been any claims that they needed special authority to intercept a hijacked plane. It does argue that PM cites no sources for its info, but the info in this section (re: alert ready planes and timelines) can be found in the 911 Commission report, and would be widely discredited by now if it were indeed false. So far, no one has seriously claimed that there were more than 14 alert-ready planes that morning, nor that the timeline is wrong at any point by more than a couple minutes. The response doesn't bother to address the rest of the facts in this section.

In the section on intercepts, the response tries to discredit the true claim that there was only 1 intercept of a CIVILIAN airplane OVER NORTH AMERICA in the prior decade by stating that NORAD scrambled jets a total of 67 times in a prior 10 month period. This is not a contradiction, because those other scrambles were in response to offshore flights. The quote that is posted about the WTC's personal helicopter response team leads to the obvious question of "Who is Walter Burien and why are his facts credible?" Furthermore, IF he is to be believed, how do we know the WTC had a 4-minute lead time in which to call for an alert? Are we to believe they monitor ATC communications with NORAD?

There is a lot to address in the "melted" steel section, but as a mechanical engineer I feel I'm qualified to say that the PM side holds up better than the response side. One misleading portion of the response: That paper, wood, and leather ignite at 246C or less; the ignition temperature is different from the flame temperature, the prior being the temperature at which an object catches fire and the latter being the actual temperature of the fire. In reality, the maximum flame temperature of these objects is in the range of 1200-1300 deg.C (over 2000 F), well above the 1100 F supposedly needed to weaken steel 50%.
Another misleading point: steel may be a good conductor compared to wood, or any number of other non-metallic common materials, but it is not such a good conductor that energy will instantly flow to the rest of the building evenly (it is in fact a very poor conductor compared to gold, platinum, silver, or diamond). Hot steel has a conductivity (k) of ~50 watts per meter-Kelvin, a specific heat capacity (c) of ~450 Joules per kilogram-Kelvin, and a density (r) of ~8000 kg per meter^3, and heat transfer is roughly Power=Area*k*dTemp/distance, while heating is dTemp/dtime = Power/(volume*r*c), meaning that a 1-meter long section of beam with one end at 0C and another end at 1000C would transfer heat at rate that would heat any similar 1-meter section of beam 1K (1 Celsius) every minute. In an hour, heat conduction (if left by itself) would probably have a negligible effect on anything further than a few floors from the inferno. The rebuttal to PM is miles off the mark on this point, and betrays its poor understanding of the physics involved.

On the WTC7 collapse, the response is certainly incredulous of PM, but it doesn't offer any serious rebuttals to actually counter PM's analysis.

In the Pentagon hole section, the response assumes, with no authority to back up their claim, that landing gear cannot make a circular hole in a wall. However, just as a bullet is capable of making a large exit wound in a gunshot victim, so too can an irregular object like landing gear shear away a large circular hole in a wall. It is understandable that the ASCE report did not mention the object that punched the hole as anything other than plane debris, because only 20 pages was devoted to site inspections and discussion, and the vast majority of that space was devoted to pictures and discussion of the collapsed section of the outer ring. The ASCE conclusion that the hole was caused by the landing gear may come from the interview with ASCE report co-author Mete Sozen, rather than the report itself.

The windows intact section is pointless, because it seems to assume that a missile impact is more likely to leave nearby windows intact than a 757 ... a conclusion that has no factual basis.

The debris section delves mainly into irrelevant speculation of what really hit the Pentagon. What it shows is a crash photo from a plane that did NOT collide with a reinforced series of concrete walls, as Flight 77 did, but that DOES show significant portions of the crash apparently melted from fires; it's dubious how this casts doubt on the official recording of events. Furthermore, the response is incredulous that body parts survived while the plane was largely destroyed; it fails to mention, however, that aluminum melts at 660C, while bodies are cremated at over 800C (to destroy bones), and that the flame temperatures may have been between these points.

The white jet section doesn't do anything to refute PM's fairly reasonable explanation for public sightings of a second plane ... rather, it goes further into speculating about a 3rd plane as a possibility. Who Susan Mcelwain is and why her description of a plane should be considered wholly accurate is not stated.

The engine section certainly doesn't disprove PM, though the response posits that the engine the claim discussed may be a different engine than the one PM describes. This section features the Shanksville mayor's quote that he saw "no plane", but fails to recognize that the mayor (Ernie Stull) later claimed his quote was taken totally out of context and that he saw parts of the wreckage with his own eyes (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,265160-5,00.html).
The claim that flight 93 may have landed in Cleveland is false, as the flight in question was Delta 1989 (http://www.911myths.com/html/93_landed_in_cleveland.html).

The Indian Lake section is a bunch of quibbling about small differences in wind direction. Working in wind energy, I can say wind measurement is an inexact science and wind direction can change rapidly across both time and location. This section does nothing to significantly reduce the plausibility of PM's explanation.

The last section admits that PM may be correct about Rick Gibney's story; no more needs to be said.

In the end, the rebuttal to Popular Mechanics does not present a single point which actually discredits PM's message. In contrast, several of the points raised by the rebuttal itself are demonstrably misleading or outright false.

A good source of information on flaws in various 911 theories, again, is http://www.911myths.com.

Winter Patriot

Thanks for alerting us to the 9/11 Truth program on C-Span, would have missed it otherwise. I think they did a fine job, just wish there was more time for Q & A. Yes, I understand much more , maybe it's these new glasses, I can see clearly now!

911myths.com fails to address so many issues, and the issues they do address they only address halfway, they leave out half the facts on any given issue and they seem to only talk about CD and the Pentagon for the most part. overall its one of the more weaker attempts at "debunking" 9/11 conspiracy theories.the main source for sites like 911myths.com is a Popular Mechanics article that whos chief "investigator" is Micheal Chertoffs cousin. yes, that Micheal Chertoff. not only that, but there was a massive purge of the senior P.M. staff shortly before the 9/11 hit piece was written. i wonder why? i'll give the Popular Mechanics hit piece some credit though, it may be a pile of disinformation that was edited by the head of Homeland Securitys cousin, but at least it talks about WTC7 unlike the official report.but hey, if you wanna believe government propaganda, then by all means go to 911myths.com and get your facts from P.M.,which is "connected". good for you lemming.

C-Span 1 at 6:10 eastern.

This is the introduction to a detailed argument that lays waste to Ari's disinfo attempt above based upon crap available from the pathetic 911myths.com site. This is merely the introduction (below). Go to http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org site and scroll down for the complete article. The disinfo trolls from 911myth love to throw a wrench in (as Ari did) which few posters then have the time to rebut and so the post then stays intact as some kind of anti-911 truth statement. Well, bullshit. Go to the scholars site and read the real McCoy and learn why the Popular Mechanics article is such a fraud.

Popular Mechanics' Assault on 9/11 Truth

by Jim Hoffman

created 4/12/05; published 6/15/05

The eye-catching headline on the issue's cover is "9/11 LIES", with "DEBUNKING" and "Conspiracy Theorists" being much smaller. Is this a subconscious appeal to peoples' suspicions that the official story is a lie?
The Hearst-owned Popular Mechanics targeted the 9/11 Truth Movement (without ever acknowledging it by that name) with a cover story in its March 2005 edition. [1] Sandwiched between ads and features for monster trucks, NASCAR paraphernalia, and off-road racing are twelve dense and brilliantly designed pages purporting to debunk the myths of 9/11.

The article's approach is to identify and attack a series of claims which it asserts represent the whole of 9/11 skepticism. It gives the false impression that these claims, several of which are clearly absurd, represent the breadth of challenges to the official account of the flights, the World Trade Center attack, and the Pentagon attack. Thus it purports to debunk conspiracy theorists' physical-evidence-based claims, without even acknowledging that there are other grounds on which to question the official story. Indeed many 9/11 researchers don't even address the physical evidence, preferring instead to focus on who had the the means, motive, and opportunity to carry out the attack. I summarize some of this evidence at the end of this article.

While ignoring these and many other facts belying the official story, PM attacks a mere 16 claims of its choosing, which it asserts are the most prevalent among conspiracy theorists. PM groups these claims into four topics, each of which is given a richly illustrated two- or four-page spread. Since nearly all the physical-evidence-based challenges to the official story fall within one or another of these topics, the article gives the impression that it addresses the breadth of these challenges. However, for each topic, the article presents specious claims to divert the reader from understanding the issue. For example, the three pages devoted to attacking the Twin Towers' demolition present three red-herring claims and avoid the dozens of points I feature in my presentations, such as The Twin Towers' Demolition [2]

The article brackets its distortion of the issues highlighted by 9/11 skeptics with smears against the skeptics themselves, whom it dehumanizes and accuses of disgracing the memories of the victims, and repeatedly accuses of harassing individuals who responded to the attack. More important, it misrepresents skeptics' views by implying that the skeptics' community is an undifferentiated army that wholly embraces the article's sixteen poisonous claims, which it asserts are at the root of virtually every 9/11 alternative scenario. In fact much of the 9/11 truth community has been working to expose many of these claims as disinformation.

(the article continues....)

www.betterbadnews.com/58

GBD, that was very funny indeed......

"Sudden Building Collapse Syndrome (SBCS)"

as a clin psy, I really like that......

You know what? Ari meets all my qualifications as a shill. "I'm an engineer, so I'm qualified...blah blah blah..." I don't believe you're an engineer, Ari. And, an enginner interested in 9/11, who happens to go on Brad Blog...a site who's forte is electronic voting machine fraud??? COME ON!!!!!!!!!! What do you think, we're stupid here???

Also, the "befriend, then bone" technique... is being employed, the most dangerous of shills!!!!!

Ari: Answer these 32 questions, one by one, and then I have 68 more for you when you're done with the first 32:

1. Why didn't jets intercept the airliners since they had numerous warnings of terrorist attacks?

2. Why did Ashcroft stop flying commercial airlines, citing an unidentified "threat" in July 2001?

3. Why did FEMA lie about their presence in New York on 9/11?

4. Why didn't the Secret Service hustle Dubya out of the classroom?

5. Why did George H.W. Bush meet bin Laden's brother on 9/11?

6. Why did passengers or crewmembers on three of the flights all use the term boxcutters?

7. Where are the flight recorders?

8. Why were the FISA warrants discontinued?

9. How did Bush see the first plane crash on live camera?

10 Why was security meeting scheduled for 9/11 cancelled by WTC management on 9/10?

11. How did they come up with the "culprits" so quickly?

12. How did they find the terrorist's cars at the airports so quickly?

13. Why did Shrub dissolve the Bin Laden Task Force?

14. Why the strange pattern of debris from Flight 93?

15. How extensive was the relationship between the Taliban, the ISI and the CIA?

16. What exactly was the role of Henry Kissinger at UNOCAL?

17. When was it decided to cancel building a pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan?

18. Why did the FBI in 1996 close the files to investigate Osama bin Laden's relatives in Washington?

19. Why did .Bush stop inquiries into terrorist connections of the Bin Laden family in early 2001?

20. Who made the decision to have John O'Neill stop investigating Al-qeada accounts?

21. Who gave the decision to give him a security job at the World Trade Center?

22. Did John O'Neill meet anyone of the FEMA in the night of September 10th?

23. What about media reports that hijackers bought tickets for flights scheduled after Sept. 11?

24. Why did none of the 19 hijackers appear on the passenger lists?

25. Why would devout Muslims frequent bars, drink alcoholic beverages and leave their bibles?

26. Why would the hijackers use credit cards and allow drivers licenses with photos to be zeroxed?

27. Why did the hijackers force passengers to call relatives?

28. How did the hijackers change the flight plan without law enforcement or the military try to stop them?

29. How did a hijackers passport miraculously appear near the WTC? Who found it and what time?

30. How could the FBI distinguish between "regular" Muslims and hijacker Muslims on those flights?

31. Why was there not one "innocent" Muslim on board any of these flights?

32. Did someone go through the passenger lists looking for Muslim names and label them as hijackers?

I've been too busy to post much on this thread today but In my opinion Ari can blow off as much hot air as he wants but he will never be able to defend the Popular Mechanics article from a logical standpoint: in other words, the technique used in the PM article is bogus to begin with. As Peter Mayer wrote:

Popular Mechanics presented sixteen "Claims", which it attributed to 9/11 "conspiracy theorists", and to each one added its "Fact", which it intended to be a debunking of the "Claim".

and

It is not the intention of this article to defend all of the "Claims" given by Popular Mechanics. Some of them may in fact be ludicrous. This is the "straw man" tactic, where an intellectually dishonest proponent sets up some ridiculous claim, which he attributes to "conspiracy theorists", and then proceeds to knock it down. This tactic is well-known to intelligent people, though apparently Popular Mechanics does not regard its readership as belonging to that class.

As far as I'm concerned, Mayer is absolutely correct about this, and after these two paragraphs, he never had to say another word.

As far as I can tell, Ari has one of the following "problems": either he is very bad at propaganda DETECTION or he is very good at its DISSEMINATION

This is a great timeline I post every once in a while, by cooperative research. Book mark it, and read parts of it when you get time...it's huge...and always growing and being improved...you can click on "view entire timeline" to view the 2,000+ entries in chronological order, or you can click on topics to filter it...

http://www.cooperativere...ne=complete_911_timeline

Great link, Big Dan!! Thank you very much!! #164 is one rockin comment

I had this one bookmarked a while ago and I lost my bookmarks in a computer crash, and I had forgotten where to find this timeline. Good one! Thanks again!

Here is one of my favorite bits from the timeline:

Grizzly Bear Dancer #158

Sympathetic Collapse - of course! I forgot about that - it's so common these days, it slipped right past me.
Poor WTC7, felt so bad for its big brothers it just couldn't take the pain. Only thing left to do was join them in the hereafter.

#159 & #167 Yeh most my life i was always trying to find the humor in life until i saw where our country and our world was going under the direction of the Bushit administration. i'm still waiting for the sypathetic collapse of these corrupt rusters but they must be removed by a stronger force. Resiliant as a deadly man made cancer to our Democracy, they put controls into place to constantly bombard Americans with fears, lies, disinformation, and hate. The end result of their destruction and smoke screens is their agenda to maximize their greed and control of our resources while keeping themselves in office.

Bush says he gets messeges from God. That is a bunch of Bushit but if you want to put the fear of God into the lying creeps who stole the power of the Executive Branch and their criminal sydicate, all you need to do is pass a national referendum across the 50 states that verifiable paper ballots by mail will be the ONLY way people vote this November.

Diebold, Sequoia, and ES&S electronic voting machines can go where the government sent the majority of the 9/11 evidence from the collapsed towers. Out of this country for scrap to be melted down.

Grizzly Bear Dancer, I think thats a fabulous idea theres no better place for the evote machines then in China being melted down. I know I've read it here before pnac had their New Pearl Harbor, We need a new Boston Tea Party! It pisses me off that we have to pay for this garbage that is destroying our country, but we have absolutely no say so in the way we vote.

Thanks for this post, Winter.

2 more "Gatekeepers of the Left":

John Avarosis & AmericaBlog

John Amato & Crooks&Liars.com

I traded email with Avarosis before and after he abnned me for discussing any alternate 9-11 theories on his blog - "Too nutty" and "no way in hell am I posting on this".

Amato's people did the same, because John lost freinds that day and won't stand for it. My one friend in the Towers that day by pure dumb luck walked out of the North Tower at 8:30 a.m. If he had died, I'd want to know who killed him. I still want to know who murdered all those people.

...and mention of the replay of the event on C-SPAN today at 6:10 p.m. EST was just posted in the comments on C&L, and deleted minutes later.

Courtesy of CrooksandLiars.com:

deleted] Please don't post this on this site. We don't want the thread to get hijacked by competing theories.

Edited By Siteowner

SORRY I USED THE WRONG LINK LAST TIME. let me try this once more.
- - - - - - -
I talked to Alex Jones when he was on a local radio show years ago, to ask him what he thought about an ad I saw at work on the back of a magazine called "Eyecare Business".

I have worked in the Optical business for years and our store was astonished to see this when it showed up about a week after 9-11. The date on the front of the magazine is August 2001. Notice that the ad says "TV campaign begins August 23" (19 days before the attack). I don't know how much television I was watching at the time, but I don't remember ever seeing this ad on TV.

Was the ad pulled early because of insider information to prevent embarrassment, or just delayed for some reason and justifiably dropped because it would have been in extremely bad taste?

Would make an interesting story to know how much money they lost on the ad and what happened.

My original link in comment #107 seems to work now if you want a much better picture then comment #172.

Dr. Steve Jones said he detected the presents of "Thermate"(trademark) in steel sample taken from the trade towers ...no brainer ...re-investigate 911 .This is the "smoking gun" ,themate should have a tracking marker.

Where's the FBI ?

Ari

Man, am I ever disappointed in you. If you just worked half as hard at assimilating reasonable and factual information as you have finding and regurgitating total bunk, you might have ended up saving so many lives. Just pathetic. Pathetic.

+++++++++++++++
... Jersey Jay said on 7/31/2006 @ 10:52 pm PT...

…and mention of the replay of the event on C-SPAN today at 6:10 p.m. EST was just posted in the comments on C&L, and deleted minutes later.

Courtesy of CrooksandLiars.com:

deleted] Please don't post this on this site. We don't want the thread to get hijacked by competing theories.

Edited By Siteowner
+++++++++++++++++++

I wonder, how many postings regarding the CSpan showing tonight would I have to make on C&L, etc. to get banned? I got banned from 'Capital Hill Blue' because I challenged the site owner to a rational, evidenced-based debate about 9/11 after he trashed the 9/11 truth movement in one of his little 'rants'. My challenge was politely stated and moderate in tone. Obviously, they chose not to or could not handle even a mild challenge. That spoke volumes regarding CHB's credibility to me.

I am sick and disgusted with sites that don't, can't or won't speak truth to power. Being Fox-like and lying constantly is one thing. Omitting the truth -like CNN and MSNBC, etc., - is just as evil in my book. I don't think I care anymore about the argument of being moderate so they appeal to the greatest number of whatever. I've donated to various sites in the past that I will never donate to again. I'm gonna switch whatever donating I do to bradblog and just a couple of other groups. Because they, at least, do not prohibit open and frank discussion of issues that are incredibly important to the future of this country.

Sorry about my rant..... I know I am just one person and those sites could give a rat's ass what I do. But I can only try to remain consistent to my beliefs and ethics whether or not anybody else cares.

For those interested, the federal court that did the Moussaoui trial has posted the exhibits used in that trial:

The following web pages link to all 1,202 exhibits admitted into evidence during the trial of U.S. v. Moussaoui, with the exception of seven that are classified or otherwise remain under seal. This is the first criminal case for which a federal court has provided access to all exhibits online. The exhibits were posted on July 31, 2006.

(link here). Wouldn't it be nice if all the evidence concerning 9/11 was handled that way?

Just so we fully understand the "hear no evil, speak no evil" mind-set that links the truth about 9/11 with the truth about the last two presidential elections, consider the story on an inside page of today's New York Times.

The Times has never once cited skeptical views about 9/11 and has mostly eschewed all ugly "rumors" about the 2000 and 2004 elections. But academic freedom is considered worthy of mention, fortunately.

Kevin Barrett is a teacher's assistant at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He disbelieves the government's story about 9/11, but has never brought his personal views into the classroom. He did, however, tell a CONSERVATIVE radio interviewer that French sources had uncovered C.I.A. links to Osama bin Laden two months before 9/11. He also opined that fires could not have caused the collapse of the twin towers at free-fall speed (as Prof. Jones has said).
Barrett said (outside the classroom) that "The 9/11 report will be universally reviled as a sham and a cover-up very soon. The 9/11 commission has its conspiracy theory, and we have ours."

For expressing his private views, Mr. Barrett now finds his career in jeopardy. Sixty-one Wisconsin legislators (60 Republicans) sent the governor a resolution calling for Barrett's course at the school to be terminated because of his "academically dishonest views." The ringleader of this Inquisition is Rep. Steve Nass (R-Whitewater).

Later in the article the Times wrote, "Mr. Barrett's ideas place him squarely within a loose confederation of skeptics who think the American government had a role in the Sept. 11 attacks and whose theories are spread through the Internet and other means." No mention of what those "other means" are, and no mention of Dr. Steven Jones. Thank heaven for small favors, though...if it weren't for the academic freedom issue, New York Times readers would never have read a word about 9/11 except the "official" word.

AGENT99; ..and to GO OUT OF YOUR WAY to post misinformation...this isn't your average legitimate non-believer...that Popular Mechanics article was totally debunked and totally destroyed long ago. And then they proved ties between the editors of PM and Michael Chertoff...it was a gallant try by PM for misinformation...

http://www.prisonplanet....o/090305alexresponds.htm

That's only ONE debunking of it...

Editor "Ben Chertoff" of Popular Mechanics...last name sound familiar??? duh...

RLM #178

Not to mention the fact that a New York newspaper does not realize that half of the citizens of the state it names itself after have some or total disbelief of the governments conspiracy theory depicted in the 9/11 Commission Report.

I mentioned these polls in post #21 and post #121.

WP

Raw Story has the subject matter of my post #177 in big red letters on its site now.

We beat Raw Story !!!

I notified scholars for 9/11 truth just before I posted #177.

Any time someone is proporting a "logical position" and claiming to be using "evidence", then turns the entire discussion upside down with "emotional appeals", I dismiss them (and their argument) out of hand.

Popular MECHANICS is a "tech" rag, something that should be using LOGIC and REASON to debate points. When they start with name calling and labeling dissenters as "vile" and "un American" or "not Patriotic" or "trampling the memories of the dead", they are no longer using logic to discuss points, and are entering the realm of "faith based debate". Nothing they say can be trusted at that point since using those distraction techniques are normally employed when someone is trying to support an ill founded position.

There was no damage at the Pentagon consistent with a HUGE 757 hitting it. A 16-foot hole (and nothing more) isn't created by a huge plane moving 400 MPH, a plane with a 50 or 60 foot wing span.

Tower 7 had no reason to "fall", other than the lease holder was the same guy that lost "2 other buildings" that day.

Pancaking takes longer than "free fall", and the towers fell at "free fall".

The temps required to fatigue steel would kill a human, yet we see someone standing -inside- the (would be super heated) entry/impact site.

Jet fuel and burning office equipment don't burn hot enough to "fatigue industrial steel", yet, that's the official explination.

No bodies found at Flight 93's crash site? (one report, I've not seen anything official stating/showing bodies there). No bodies at the Pentagon? Cell phones running/working at altitude/speed?

There are SO many questions that have NOT been answered that the few that "might" be "debunked" become irrelavant. Nothing of the official story "fits the facts". Therefore, the official story is NOT CORRECT. At best, it's mistaken, at worst it's a deliberate attempt to burry the truth (and we all know Shrubby faught tooth and nail to avoid the forming of the comission anyway).

Dredd #177

The site at your link must be getting hammered - it keeps timing out for me.

I guess it is what Raw is refering to when they say: "US releases hundreds of 9/11 attack photos, twenty-two videos to public... Developing..."

Those other Pentagon videos would be nice!

If people are still interested in seeing the c-span coverage of the American Scholars Symposium they (c-span) ARE SHOWING IT AGAIN TODAY AT 6 pm. And the time isen't always correct, so you have to be ready to flip channels a bit. On Sunday a replay said to be at 2:15 was on at 3:05. THANK YOU FOR COVERING THIS !

Raw Story Link is now active - still haven't been able to see files - taking forever!

List indicates some 10 minutes of Pentagon videos.

Well, I've given up for now! 45 minutes of trying and I still haven't gotten through. Must be a whole lot of traffic on this - I guess that could be a good thing, or maybe not, depending on how this information was picked and handled.
Here's hoping some other sites post it so we can get to it.

Big Dan #160 - did Ari claim to be an engineer? I didn't see that. Maybe you confused him with me. I actually am a licensed PE who worked years in steel quality assurance. And I actually am interested in 9-11 and surprised more steel engineers aren't (although looking at 9-11 critically is probably not a good career move). And I actually do read BradBlog about every 2 or 3 days; heck, I've even donated, more than once.

And it's not in spite of my engineering credentials but because of my knowledge that my immediate doubts were raised - I've seen how failing steel structures behave and 9-11 wasn't it. At a minimum the engineering community needs to concede that the central steel columns were somehow taken out from below prior to / during the collapse. In my not-so-humble opinion, there's no other way to explain what we witnessed. I'm fairly confident tests with scale models would prove this.

Believe me, I am definitely on your side of the truth fence. Maybe Ari is smart and open-minded enough to join us one day. Doubt it, but you never know...

C&L are gatekeeping scum. long live BradBlog.com

Winter Patriot... I want to thank you again for allowing us to have this forum to discuss 9/11. There are issues that are probably 'honey pots' ... like the Pentagon attack that nonetheless point to government complicity. There are other issues that are discussed in detail on 911review.com et.al., incuding www.scholarsfor911truth.org. All should be discussed and the truths sifted out. As an aside, Randi Rhodes show tonight included audio excerpts from the CSpan presentation with an honest disucssion. This is one of the issues that, if fully pursued, will break this administration and the neocons wide open. Will lay bare, the agenda of PNAC and it's effort to achieve global hegemony at the expense of freedom, self-determination and peace throughout the world including the lives of many innocent children, mothers and fathers. It will lay bare the motives, including empire buildling, greeed, self-aggrandizement and the US response to the issue of peak oil and global conflict for energy and control of resources. And the corporatists, fascists and theocrats. Controlling the vote and denying democracy in the U.S. is an important part of the overall strategy. All of the dots are connected.

So, thanks again for allowing this to be expressed (unlike many of the other left, progressive, liberal - so-called - web sites) - who deserve only disdain for their cowardice and their willingness to be co-opted by the status quo.
rdw

Oh, and I forgot, where do I donate?

dr. rdw

Click in blue box on right side of page! Thanks!

Super Duper thanks to C-SPAN for repeatedly airing this ... it's reaching many people .. who, I might add, often feel that such views are too alienating, so it's good for "denialers" to realize that there are millions onto the crimes of our govt, including Establishment names and former presidential admin figures.

WTF!

Exhibit "P200022 Two video clips (clips 1 and 2) and 12 time-lapse photographs from security cameras in the parking lot of the Pentagon depicting Flight 77 crashing into the building. Exhibit P200022 also contains six video clips (clips 3-8) depicting the damage to the Pentagon after Flight 77 crashed into the building. [This video runs 10 minutes, 18 seconds]"

When you click on the exhibit # you get a PDF of defense exhibit 486 instead. Where are the videos??????????

I understand the point about the "Left Gatekeepers," however, I consider myself to be a fairly good judge of character, and I'm a long time Chomsky reader ... his position on 9/11 as an inside job was [as of a few yrs ago anyhow] "possible but improbable."

He's clearly lying, yes. But for what reason exactly? He's NOT defending these fascists, or their motives. Whether it's his and his families safety, or a real concern about a complete Power structure collapse, and, specifically, what may occur within that collapse/vacuum. A lot to consider, and each has various concerns ... but not for a second do I buy this nonsense that Chomsky is a "paid shill for the ILLUMINATI." Gimmie a break. It does the 9/11 Truth Movement no good whatsoever to attack him, Palast or Goodman.

I'm finding a number of errors in the list - items not being what the text claims.

One thing that stands out is that the few items I have viewed from the flight 93 crash - passports etc, show no damage from fire - some are torn or folded, but nothing that looks burned. But then I've only had a few that would open before timing out.

#170: re John Avarosis & AmericaBlog; I've posted numerous times on 9/11, as have many others, and have never experienced censorship of any kind. Granted, I've never seen him personally post about it, but his site seems quite tolerant of discussions about it.

Unless video can be completely doctored, the lying murderous CRIMINALS in the Bushit administration are not going to release any video of what hit the Pentagon no more than you will get answers why they moved Bin Laden's family out of the country 2 weeks before. And the people who never claimed millions of dollars in put options betting heavy that stock would fall.. they just didn't want their money? They don't want their money because??? BECAUSE IT WOULD EXPOSE THAT THESE FCKERS KNEW IT WAS GOING DOWN. IMPEACH AND JAIL THE ENTIRE BUSHIT ADMINISTRATION FOR CRIMES AGAINST THE DEAD PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES be it on 9/11, in New Orleans during Katrina, or anytime in the Bushit war of IRAQ. This includes the DEAD people of Iraq who actually were bombed starting 6 months before the US invasion.
Thanks for the new pics and video Bush/Cheney/Rummy/Rice/Gonzalez and CO. WE know what you did and you're going down controlled demolition style just like the World Trade towers and World Trade building #7.

How is the Bushit administration dealing with Global Warming? They are not doing anything except some are actually completely denying it. So when the lack of US action under the leadership of Bush/Cheney refused to sign the Kyoko Treaty to reduce Carbon Dioxide levels even though the US is the #1 abuser with China now closing in, we can NOW thank them for killing off entire species. Not 1 or 2..1 million. Our fragile atmosphere cannot take all the human caused Carbon Dioxide and shit pump into it and as the glaciers melt which will cause a massive climate change, many places on this rock we call earth will no longer receive any rain. No water equals DEATH! Death of a million different types of species.

Now is the time to fix this. 2006 AND All you holy rollers out there better be saying your prayers.

Pray that we can remove the Bushit administration before they completely destroy the earth on be it with their guns or their oil barron plans to push wildlife past the point of no return in the name of greed.

Jesus: The point is that no one has a more valuable opinion if they say, "I'm a _______" so trust me and don't question what I'm saying".....you don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows (Bob Dylan). Ari quoted Popular Mechanics, that was an easy shill to spot. And he further implicated himself by disappearing after being called on it. We don't like shills...here at the Brad Blog... Another thing is, shills work on stupid people, and there's close to zero stupid people here. And I haven't seen any "followers" here (kook-aid drinkers).

Yaweh: The follower mentality "trusts" corrupt people. They trust authority to the extent that they don't question their lies. Actually, they are not authority at all, when you cut through the bullshit. They're just a bunch of liars and bullshitters and used car salesmen.

Way to go Dredd!

"Trust me"...they say...

The link to the Pentagon videos has been fixed - still shots of the films we have already seen - download of the video stalled - have only seen the stills so far - nothing new there! First Nose Cone shot not included.

Where are the airplane parts!

Pentagon Photos released today:

Jet fuel fire or high explosives? See the air duct hanging down on the right - that is made of plastic - why is it not melted? This also applies to the jacketing of the red and white cables on the left.

Where's Waldo Airplane

Also there are two photos of bodies - what is noteworthy is that in those photos the exposed flesh is charred and the hair is gone, yet the clothing is remarkably intact with only singe marks. Seems like a short duration high temperature event - not the result of a fuel fire.

Hani Hanjour couldn't even fly THIS so how the hell did he fly THIS at about 6 feet off the ground at full throttle?

Has anyone else read the link over at Raw Story to a WAPO article "911 Panel Suspected Deception By Pentagon"? The timing is suspect in light of how much exposure the C-Span 911 program is getting. Going back to read it again. Interesting content and timing.

A third of Americans believe 9-11 conspiracy Link: http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll

... MEP
you mean this one
"Some 9/11 Commission members mulled criminal referrals for military and aviation officials suspected of lying to cover-up for "bungling," according to a story in Wednesday's Washington Post."
http://www.rawstory.com/...members_mulled_0802.html

This is total BS and total "damage control" .

Fdny lieutenant calls for WTC #1 #2,& #7 collapses. Link: http://www.total411.info/

Insert investigation in there somewhere.

Never forget the following :

"Mineta: "During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President...the plane is 50 miles out...the plane is 30 miles out....and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president "do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said "Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!??"

http://www.911truth.org/...?story=20050724164122860

Cheney knows all.

BB2 #195

They DON'T want us to see them! The only possible reason for not showing them to us is that no 757 hit the building. They don't have the footage of that. If they show the videos, we won't see what they want us to see. Pretend exhibits, evidently, are fine for pretend defendants.

If Harry Reid wasn't part of it, we could have had Phase II by now. Where is Phase II, Harry? You said 2 weeks. Even shut the Senate down. Where is it Harry? Been 10 months now.

Here's a conspiracy theory for you: An amateur pilot who had never flown anything near to the size of a jetliner commandeers a Boeing 757. Without the help of radar or air traffic controllers, and while being challenged by passengers on board, he somehow circles the Pentagon several times before bringing the airship in at six feet above the ground, striking the Pentagon squarely but causing no damage to surrounding wires, trees, or ground. His contact is so pure that no residue of the plane is found, and no traces of any bodies.

Too fantastic? Yeah, I guess so. No, wait...this is the official story!

Yes, there are many questions about 911 to be answered. If you want investigations, vote for Dems in 2006. Otherwise, nothing will happen.

Again, the main issue is election fraud.

Your wacked out professor Mr Jim Fetzer was ripped apart by Bill Oreilly. I am ashamed that this lunatic can teach at our University here in Duluth. He had very little to say, he was put in his place.Im sure all the blogs will ignore his interview. All you can do is play in your big sandbox with all the other wack jobs. Anyone in there right mind should be able to see thru the big smoke screen.

ps maybe fetzer does have martian living in his house!!!