NIST: “… we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.”
C O L L A P S E ? ?
-----------------------------
COVERUP AT GROUND ZERO:
Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the “official investigation” blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. --Bill Manning, Fire Engineering Magazine
-----------------------------
"They showed us many fascinating slides" [Eaton] continued, "ranging from molten
metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared
and bent in the disaster". --Structural Engineer, 3. september, 2002, s. 6
-----------------------------
"Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel." --Alison Geyh, PhD
-----------------------------
Molten Metal Flows at Ground Zero (video)
-----------------------------
-----------------------------
Extremely hot metal at ground zero (video)
-----------------------------
Molten Metal Pours from South Tower
-----------------------------
-----------------------------
Eyewitness accounts: Molten metal
-----------------------------
"The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing." --NIST, Answers to FAQ, pt. 13
-----------------------------
“...we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.” --NIST
------------------------------
"... the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable." --James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
-----------------------------
"Steven Jones’ call for a “serious investigation” of the hypothesis that the WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down . . . through the use of pre-positioned cutter-charges” must be the rallying cry for all building design experts to speak out." --Max Ayres
------------------------------
Architects & Engineers calling for a new investigation
------------------------------
------------------------------
"When everyone is to blame . . . no one is to blame."
“[The] American people shared the blame for 9-11 for underestimating the terrorist threat.” --Condoleezza Rice
------------------------------
The 9/11 Whitewash: Blaming No One
------------------------------
"Du kan kalle meg
konspirasjonsteoretiker, hvis du
kaller alle andre
tilfeldighetsteoretiker. Jeg
foretrekker å si at jeg er en
alternativ historiker.”
--John
Judge
------------------------------
Afghanistan? Bevis som legitimerer krigen, takk.
------------------------------
Powell/Blair-dossieret: "This document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Usama Bin Laden in a court of law."
------------------------------
George Bush, Jr., September 11th and the Rule of Law--Professor Francis Boyle
------------------------------
NO WAR AGAINST AFGHANISTAN!--Professor Francis Boyle
------------------------------
"They have spent $13 trillion tax dollars since the end of WWII on this military/intelligence complex, and it cannot protect its own headquarters?... How were they allowed to come into the most restricted air space in the world with no challenge or defense? That is the question that answers both when Bush knew in advance and begs any rational response." --John Judge
"I wouldn't call it fascism exactly, but [an American] political system nominally controlled by an irresponsible, dumbed down electorate who are manipulated by dishonest, cynical, controlled mass media that dispense the propaganda of a corrupt political establishment can hardly be described as democracy either."
--Edward Zehr
-----------------------------
“The more status someone has in this society, the harder it is for them to listen to suggestions that there is something illegitimate about the power structure in which they have that status.” --Peter Dale Scott
-----------------------------
“Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience. Therefore [individual citizens] have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring” –-Nuremberg War Crime Tribunal, 1950
-----------------------------
"No people can be both ignorant and free."
--Thomas Jefferson
-----------------------------
‘The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account.’ -- Walter Lippman
-----------------------------
“A honey pot, in intelligence jargon, is a tempting source of information or ‘dangle’ that is set out to lure intended victims into a trap. Ultimately the honey pot is violently and maliciously discredited so as to destroy the credibility of anything stuck to it by association”
–- Michael Ruppert
Mange liker mentalgym av det spekulative slaget. Hvilket ikke bare er unyttig. Faktisk er spekulasjon avgjørende for å komme frem til en teori. Man spekulerer frem en teori på basis av (alle) tilgjengelige empiriske data. Passer alle data teorien, er den god. Passer de ikke, er den dårlig. Spekulativ.
Teorier om hva som traff - eller ikke traff - Pentagon er i stor grad basert på spekulasjon. Av det unødvendige slaget. Og nesten bare det. Har man ikke forstått det nå - i 2008 - kan et par runder i de indre topplokkgemakker være en fin ting.
Synsinger rundt angrepet har en tendens til å drukne (minst) to viktige spørsmål.
Hvordan kunne noe i det hele tatt treffe Pentagon? Verdens heftigste militærmakt kan ikke forsvare sitt eget hovedkvarter? Grunnet tilfeldighet eller inkompetanse??
Hvorfor vil Bush-administrasjonen at vi skal tro at de skjuler noe? Hvorfor kan de ikke frigi video som viser AA77 treffe Pentagon? Vi vet de har film. Vil de at vi skal spekulere?
“They have spent $13 trillion tax dollars since the end of WWII on this military/intelligence complex, and it cannot protect its own headquarters?… How were they allowed to come into the most restricted air space in the world with no challenge or defense? That is the question that answers both when Bush knew in advance and begs any rational response.”
–John Judge
“…making 9/11 complicity dependent on the no-plane claim was a brilliant tactic to discredit the real evidence for people inside the Beltway (Washington DC), both for the majority who vote against Bush and the political / military elites (especially the military officers who saw the plane crash or the plane debris)”
Planlagt operasjon hvor nøye utvalgt informasjon plantes hos spesifikke [utenlandske] mottakere med henblikk på å påvirke deres følelser, motiver, sunne fornuft, og i siste instans hvordan myndigheter, organisasjoner, grupper og individer forholder seg.
Vi trenger ikke ingen-fly-ved-Pentagon for å bevise innsidejobb. Det er bortkastet å spekulere over ting som ikke fører noensteds hen. Og som fjerner energi og fokus fra andre langt viktigere tema. For eksempel ordentlige bevis.
***
John Judge er fra Washington DC - “inside the Beltway” - og burde kjenne topografien i Pentagonområdet bedre enn folk utenfor DC. Hvorfor topografien er viktig? Vel, er det nær på paddeflatt og åpent, ville f.eks. et missil istenden for AA77 være nokså risky butikk. PentaCons overflyvningsteori også. Det er flatt og åpent i DC-området. Et menneske med fotoapparat på rett sted til rett tid, og løgnen hadde vært avslørt. Sannsynlig risiko å ta? Neppe.
Judge har også bekjente som var vitner til hendelsen.
My father, John Joseph Judge was a WWII Army Air Corps veteran and had been a cryptographer assigned overseas. He worked as a civilian at the Pentagon after his return from the war until his death in 1965. My mother and my aunt both worked there as civilian employees beginning in 1943 until they retired. I grew up visiting the offices of my parents, and spending time at the Pentagon library. When the weather was nice, we would all often arrange to buy some food at the canteen and walk outside into the central courtyard area to sit and eat lunch together. When I was 10 or 11, to the best of my memory, which means 1957 or 58, I recall going outside and sitting down on a silver metal box. My father told me to get off of it. When I asked why he said it was a surface to air missile. (I could be off by 2-3 years on this recollection, but it was certainly before 1961). (Emphasis added)
As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don’t know
We don’t know.
– Donald Rumsfeld, Feb. 12, 2002,
Department of Defense news briefing
On this, the 13th anniversary of the tragic events of the Oklahoma City Bombing, Visibility 9-11 welcomes researcher, activist, and documentary film producer Chris Emery. On April 19, 1995 multiple bombs virtually destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in downtown Oklahoma City killing 169 men, women and children and wounded scores of others. Just as with the events of September 11th, 2001, the official story of what really happened in OKC has been proven to be a falsehood by Chris and his colleagues at the Oklahoma City Bombing Investigation Committee.
In August of 1996, the San Jose Mercury News published a three-part investigation by Gary Webb into the U.S. government’s links to the trade in crack cocaine in South Central Los Angeles. Webb’s investigation uncovered links between the Central Intelligence Agency’s covert war against Nicaragua and convicted Los Angeles drug dealer “Freeway” Ricky Ross, whom the Los Angeles Times in 1994 had dubbed the “one outlaw capitalist most responsible for flooding Los Angeles’ streets with mass-marketed cocaine.” (20 December 1994 p. A20)
The (admittedly sensationalized, but basically accurate) story generated much controversy, and heated denials from the mainstream media (in particular the local paper of record, whose editor Shelby Coffey III couldn’t bear the thought of someone else beating his paper out on a major story in his own backyard). This vehement denegation, however, is largely inconsistent with the historical record (some of which has been, and continues to be, reported in these same papers).
This web site is part of a long-standing research project of mine. As a scholar working at the interstices of speech communication and cultural studies, I have been investigating the public discourse surrounding the “war on drugs” as an exercise in disciplinary social control. This site is a database of information, evidence, and other resources that have helped guide me in this research project, and will hopefully help others working along the same lines.
Så du Iran-Contra-filmen jeg nylig postet en peker til, vil du gjenkjenne flere av personene Gary Webb og Martha Honey beretter om i denne videoen. En slags “kjøtt på beinet”-oppfølger, på en måte.
Svært tankevekkende. Fra 1988. Med blant annet Peter Dale Scott. Denne må ses!
Liten kuriositet: Legg merke til Oliver Norths reaksjon da COG (Continuity of Government) blir bragt på banen (1:02:30).
Lyden er litt lav. Headset fikser biffen.
An extremely well-done, powerful video about the Iran-Contra scandal, and subsequent coverup. Includes interviews with former CIA analyst David MacMichael; Former U.S. Ambassador Robert White; Barbara Honegger, formerly a key Reagan/Bush ‘80 campaign worker; former Iranian President Bani-Sadr; Former contra Eden Pastora; Former contra directorate member Edgar Chamorro; Peter Dale Scott, co-author of The Iran-Contra Connection. Secret Teams and Covert Operations in the Reagan Era; quite a few, surprisingly candid government officials, including Rep. Henry Gonzales and Rep. Jack Brooks; Tony Avirgan and Martha Honey; the Christic Institute’s Daniel Sheehan; etc. (…)
Gammel, men interessant. Og, for å spekulere litt med fingrene, det å ha kunnskap om Iran-Contra-affæren og dens aktører, kan være nyttig for å forstå mer av 9/11-terroren.
Stikkord: Reagan, Clinton, Oliver North, CIA, narko, Contras … Og selvfølgelig Papa Bush lurkende i kulissene.
WASHINGTON — It should be clear by now that for 12 years, from 1981-1993, the United States was governed by political leaders who merged the power of the state with criminality to a degree possibly unmatched in modern American history. That disturbing reality was underscored again this past month by an exhaustively researched series by Gary Webb in The San Jose Mercury-News. . .
But a wealth of other evidence, collected by federal drug agents and congressional investigators during the 1980s, corroborated that the Reagan-Bush administrations knew about the drug trafficking and mounted a determined cover-up to protect the contras from exposure. Senior administration officials apparently shared Enrique Bermudez’s situational ethics. After all, President Reagan had hailed the contras as the “moral equivalent of the Founding Fathers.” They could not be unmasked as drug dealers. . .
Produced and directed by Irish filmmaker and former BBC producer Jamie Doran, the film tells the story of thousands of prisoners who surrendered to the US military’s Afghan allies after the siege of Kunduz. According to the film, some three thousand of the prisoners were forced into sealed containers and loaded onto trucks for transport to Sheberghan prison. When the prisoners began shouting for air, U.S.-allied Afghan soldiers fired directly into the truck, killing many of them. The rest suffered through an appalling road trip lasting up to four days, so thirsty they clawed at the skin of their fellow prisoners as they licked perspiration and even drank blood from open wounds. . . .
As I reported in the summer of 2003, US and British newspapers briefly alleged that the paymaster for the 9/11 attacks was a well-known agent of the Pakistani intelligence service ISI, Mohammed Sheikh Saeed. There was even a brief period in which it was alleged that the money had been paid at the direction of the then ISI Chief, General Mahmoud Ahmad.[1]
. . . Mohammed Omar Saeed Sheikh, a notorious kidnapper raised in England, and widely reported as a probable agent of ISI, the Pakistani military intelligence service.[3] . . . he may even have been a double agent, recruited inside al-Qaeda and ISI by the CIA.[4]
Subsequent newspaper stories reported on the undisputed relationship of Saeed to ISI, to FBI claims that he wired $100,000 to Atta’s bank account,[5] to a CNN report that these funds came from Pakistan,[6] and the uncontested statement that “Mustafa Ahmed,” having concluded his 9/11 financial business in Dubai, flew on September 11 to Pakistan.[7]
These alarming charges are ignored in the Report. . . .
Two days after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, a delegation led by the head of Pakistan’s military intelligence agency (ISI) Lt. Gen. Mahmoud Ahmed, was in Washington for high level talks at the State Department.[1]
Most US media conveyed the impression that Islamabad had put together a delegation at Washington’s behest, and that the invitation to the meeting had been transmitted to the Pakistan government “after” the tragic events of September 11. But this is not what happened!
Pakistan’s chief spy Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad “was in the US when the attacks occurred.”[2] According to the New York Times, “he happened to be here on a regular visit of consultations.”[3]
(…)
What was the nature of these routine “consultations”? Were they in any way related to the subsequent “post-September 11 consultations” pertaining to Pakistan’s decision to cooperate with Washington, held behind closed doors at the State Department on September 12 and 13? Was the planning of war being discussed between Pakistani and US officials?
“I don’t think there is any connection between the anthrax attacks and al Qaida. . . . They’ve never really been able to find the culprits on those attack. It’s like looking for a needle in a haystack. I think the matter is still an open matter, and under investigation. . . .”
What sort of investigation are you talking about, Arlen? Cover-up investigation?
Prof. Francis Boyle wrote this in April, 2002:
What happened? Soon thereafter the FBI authorized the destruction of the anthrax culture collection at Ames, Iowa. It had been determined that this was Ames-strain anthrax. The FBI authorized the destruction of that entire supply. It is obvious it was a cover-up. If you had access to that supply you could do a genetic reconstruction of the origins of the Daschle letter. If you had access to the Ames collection scientists would be able to do a genetic reconstruction of where the Daschle and Leahy agents originated.
I believe the FBI knows exactly who was behind this attack and they have probably concluded that yes, it was someone who was currently involved in illegal and criminal biological warfare research by the United States government. Either the Pentagon or the CIA or one of their private contractors. And for that reason they are not going to apprehend and they are not going to indict him because obviously he would spill the beans on the whole thing and implicate the Pentagon, CIA, whoever is behind this. So this is where we are today, where the FBI says we are working on it, but of course, that is ridiculous. (Emphasis added)
Last Fall we saw an anthrax attack on the United States government that obviously was designed to shut the government down at a very critical moment in our history as a republic, that is immediately after September 11 when Congress should have been in session, making very critical decisions on oversight of the executive branch of government. This did not occur because of these anthrax attacks. I am going to work up to what I think really happened then to the extent anything can be figured out at this point in time. But to do that I will have to go through some historical background on the law and policy and science of biological weapons here in the United States.
Origins of BWC
At least going back to World War II we had an extremely aggressive offensive biological warfare program. Finally, Nixon and Kissinger decided to get rid of this offensive biological warfare program on two grounds. One, it was counterproductive. Militarily these things cannot be controlled. Two, we had a massive superiority in nuclear weapons anyway. Biological weapons (Bios) were the poor man’s atom bomb and we wanted to get rid of them to deprive anyone out there in the third world of a weapon of mass extermination. Nixon unilaterally ordered the termination of our biowarfare program for offensive purposes. Nevertheless the CIA continued its bios program despite the President’s order.
(…)
Cover-Up
What happened? Soon thereafter the FBI authorized the destruction of the anthrax culture collection at Ames, Iowa. It had been determined that this was Ames-strain anthrax. The FBI authorized the destruction of that entire supply. It is obvious it was a cover-up. If you had access to that supply you could do a genetic reconstruction of the origins of the Daschle letter. If you had access to the Ames collection scientists would be able to do a genetic reconstruction of where the Daschle and Leahy agents originated.
I believe the FBI knows exactly who was behind this attack and they have probably concluded that yes, it was someone who was currently involved in illegal and criminal biological warfare research by the United States government. Either the Pentagon or the CIA or one of their private contractors. And for that reason they are not going to apprehend and they are not going to indict him because obviously he would spill the beans on the whole thing and implicate the Pentagon, CIA, whoever is behind this. So this is where we are today, where the FBI says we are working on it, but of course, that is ridiculous. (Emphasis added)
Dette er hva jeg vil karakterisere “under 2 timer til 9/11-skeptisisme”. Veldokumentert, solid research - og veltalt. Kondensert foredragsversjon av to av kapitlene i boka “The Road to 9/11” (University of California Press, 2007).
Peter Dale Scott bygger en overbevisende sak mot Dick Cheney, og forsåvidt mot 9/11-kommisjonens rapport. Ikke en sak for rettssalen, men en som presser på for at Cheney må forklare seg under ed - for første gang - om sine bevegelser på 9/11. Scotts hovedtese er at Rumsfeld, Cheney og Bush implementerte “COG” (Continuity of Government - eller “Change of Government”, som Scott mer korrekt benevner det) mens nasjonen var under angrep, og at dette er en viktig brikke i 9/11-puslespillet. Det er ingen tvil om at COG ble iverksatt. Washington Post kalte det de facto “skyggemyndigheter”! Fotnoter finnes i transkriptet/artikkelen under.
“The 9/11 Commission Report is an example of concerted cover-up, partly by omissions, and just as importantly by its cherry-picking of evidence to create impressions that are in fact authoritatively disputed, and in some cases probably not true. There are many examples of cherry-picking and contrived simulations of fact. More importantly, there is a consistent pattern in this: to minimize Cheney’s responsibility for what happened that day.”
Transkript/artikkel:
9/11 Commission Deception, Cheney’s Actions on 9/11, and
Why He Should Testify Under Oath
Former Rep. Lee Hamilton is the Democrat that the Republicans always want to handle one of their touchy national-security investigations because he never pushes too hard. That, however, has left some important questions for Hamilton to answer.
Editor’s Note: Whenever the Republicans have a touchy national-security scandal to put to rest, their favorite Democratic investigator is Lee Hamilton. Over the years, Hamilton has developed a reputation as a very reasonable fellow who knows how far he can go without ruffling too many important feathers.
Hamilton’s carefully honed skill for balancing truth against political comity has elevated him to the status of a Washington Wise Man. In this guest essay, however, Jerry Meldon suggests that attendees at a Tufts conference on the Middle East might want to ask Hamilton about his past compromises with history.
Sibel Edmonds tried her best, to speak with the 9/11 Commissioners regarding the information that she had, which she felt was relevant to the 9/11 investigation. The Commissioners didn’t respond to her, so having heard about us, the 9/11 widows from New Jersey, she contacted us.
(…)
Senators Grassley and Leahy looked into Sibel’s allegations and wrote letters to the Justice Department regarding what Sibel had told them. The letters were made public and it was clear that the Senators considered Sibel’s information to be credible.
Sibel told us that she had taken her story to 60 Minutes. They aired her story.
(…)
Sibel finally met with the Commissioners and gave them lengthy testimony, but in the end the 9/11 Commission didn’t include Sibel’s important testimony in their final report. . . .
The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, an independent, bipartisan commission created by congressional legislation and the signature of President George W. Bush in late 2002, is chartered to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks. The Commission is also mandated to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks. (Uthevelse tilføyet)
HAR MAN fulgt nyhetsbildet de siste ukene har det vært uunngåelig å ikke få med seg PSTs siste anslag mot somaliske “terrorfinansierere”. Viktigheten av å stoppe mennesker som støtter terrornettverk økonomisk burde for de fleste være åpenbar. Terrorister uten driftsmidler får ikke utrettet stort.
I Norge kan den slags finansiering straffes med fengsel i inntil ti år, hvilket gjør det til et relativt alvorlig lovbrudd etter hjemlig målestokk.
Straffelovens paragraf 147b - finansiering: Med fengsel i inntil ti år straffes den som fremskaffer eller samler inn penger eller andre formuesgoder, med det forsett at formuesgodene helt eller delvis skal finansiere terrorhandlinger eller andre overtredelser av § 147a.
Usamerikanske myndigheter - som jo har funnet opp konseptet “krigen mot terror” - og 9/11-kommisjonen, synes derimot terrorfinansiering er av “liten praktisk betydning”.
To date, the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance. (Uthevelse tilføyet)
