Grounds For Impeachment

If Bush and Cheney are not impeached for this crime and removed before their next 9/11, the day will sure come when a 9/11-Official-Version denier will be put in jail on a par with a Holocaust denier.

by ramsheyi (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 411 comments) on Sunday, December 2, 2007 at 8:49:03 PM
 

Thank you, Bill Douglas

You are a courageous hero and true patriot. I swallowed the official story until i happened to hear about a video on KPFK- when i looked into, the official story just fell apart, from every angle examined, including the 9/11 Omission Commission. The truth has been covered up, and if there is not a full, and very public, criminal investigation or Truth and Reconciliation Commission, this Republic will be one in name only

by Better World Order (4 articles, 404 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 874 comments) on Sunday, December 2, 2007 at 9:32:23 PM
 

A Truth and Reconciliation Act is the Best Course

Yes, I think South Africans provided a powerful example of how to handle mass state crimes like the self infliction of the 9/11 attacks and two illegal wars based on that deception.

What they did was they gave all officials complete immunity IF they told the whole truth as they knew it, TO THE PUBLIC.  If they were found to be holding back truth, then they could be prosecuted.

I'd go a step further and give whistleblowers a retirement and help living in another country if they so desired it, because when the American public finds that 9/11 was a self inflicted attack, it would be almost impossible for those involved to live here peacefully.

THE TRUTH is what we need.  Punishment is less important.  9/11 being a false flag act of terrorism, and blamed on Muslims, as it becomes understood . . . will be seen as the greatest hate crime ever perpetrated on a group of human beings.

by Bill Douglas (68 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments) on Tuesday, December 4, 2007 at 9:42:53 AM
 

Exposing the REAL 9/11 Perpetrators

Exposing the REAL Perpetrators will help. But who are the real perpetrators?

Obviously the 9/11 coverup would be well planned.

Would it surprise you to learn that many prominent people within the truth movement have affiliations with directed energy weapons (DEW)? These same people speak up against the DEW evidence.

Would it surprise you to learn that the government contracted with sponsors of the Directed Energy Professional Society (DEPS) for the NIST report? Why would they do this? Perhaps for their expertise in covering up the DEW evidence?

Would it surprise you to learn that the New York Times published NY Fire Dept interview transcripts revealing evidence of standard controlled demolition, but redacted DEW evidence from the transcripts?

Would it surprise you to learn that the controlled demolitions expert who steered the "truth movement" toward standard controlled demolitions has made presentations at the Directed Energy Professional Society?

See here for a full desciption on how the "truth movement" has been a 9/11 perp-run operation from day one. Everything in the link is sourced.

by CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 403 comments) on Sunday, December 2, 2007 at 10:07:00 PM
 

What is required is a full new independent 9/11 investigatio

What is required is a full new independent 9/11 investigation.  Whatever anyone thinks of how the World Trade Centers came down, one thing is certain.

Jet fuel fire and building fire do not burn hot enough to melt steel, and could not have brought down the WTCs in their footprint and turned the buildings to dust.

The 9/11 truth movement has fought for a new 9/11 investigation where all possibilities are fully investigated and analyzed.  The above post trying to split people away from the 9/11 truth movement is counter productive to what we all should be seeking.

TRUTH!  Demand a new 9/11 investigation!!

by Bill Douglas (68 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments) on Monday, December 3, 2007 at 12:25:48 AM
 

Not Another Whitewash!!

I understand your concerns, Bill, but would like you to at least look through the information in the link I gave. (The link is to an article that I, myself, wrote.)

How on earth can we have an independent investigation when the 9/11 perpetrators have been controling the "truth movement" from the start?

Only after the true perpetrators are exposed is a truly independent investigation possible.

Look through this link and see how the "9/11 Truth Movement" has been a 9/11 perp-run organization from day one!

Also see here and here for two "inside job" court cases with mainstream attorney Jerry Leaphart.

by CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 403 comments) on Monday, December 3, 2007 at 3:05:58 AM
 

Simple, everyone demand a new 9/11 investigation

Simple, everyone demand a new 9/11 investigation.  Demand that independent engineers, 9/11 family members, and 1st responders now sick from toxic dust be part of the investigation.

Your broad swath condemnation of the 9/11 truth movement is disturbing, as there is no way you can possibly be saying that 911 family members like the Jersey Girls and Bob Macelvane, etc. can be some part of some cover up.

Rather than dividing and accusing, we should all join together and demand a new 9/11 investigation.  Pure and simple.

Our democracy and world peace depend on a new independent 9/11 investigation.

by Bill Douglas (68 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments) on Monday, December 3, 2007 at 11:40:57 AM
 

Don't Get Me Wrong...

In no way do I accuse family members of being part of the cover-up.

But the "truth movement" does need to take a closer look at the scientists, engineers, and other "experts" who seem to be steering the "truth movement" down a certain path.

by CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 403 comments) on Monday, December 3, 2007 at 1:21:43 PM
 

CB Brooklyn

I don't get you wrong, but your comments usually look like you don't support a new investigation...know that most won't go to look at the links you provide, and you destroy the creditability of those who ...bottom line...are leaders of our movement. Furthermore, of course many of the physicists have written or worked for Governmental agencies... I have no problem with any of the theories...even a detractor such as John Judge who insists that WTC wasn't brought down by controlled demolition and that the WTC7 building was designed to fall into its basement is fine to have on the 9-11 truth bandwagon...as long as they admit that the 9-11 investigation was a coverup and we need a new one. That is how you build a movement. There's plenty of room for all the theories of how it happened. Your comments seem to me to be distractions more than wind in our sails. For me, you're either for a new independent investigation or you're not. If you want one, you're our friend, if you don't you're not. All that matters is that the official account can't possibly be true...the alternate specific theories of who, what, how and why are of much less practical significance.

by sherry clark (25 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 64 comments) on Monday, December 3, 2007 at 1:47:36 PM
 

I'm All For A New, Truly Independent, Investigation

I'm also aware that the "truth movement" has been a 9/11 perp-run operation from the start. The mainsteam "truth movement" needs to open up their minds and start looking at information for themselves instead of just believing what they're told.

by CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 403 comments) on Monday, December 3, 2007 at 2:21:26 PM
 

"Free your mind... and the rest will follow"

Placing politics into the science of the differing 9/11 investigations only results in confusion and conflict.  The 9/11 Commission issued its report, NIST completed its report on the collapse initiation sequence for WTC 1 and 2, and NIST is preparing to issue the results for the collapse sequence for WTC 7.  "A done bun can't be undone", especially when there's no scientific need to reopen the investigations.

Focus on the science and the "rest" will follow.  Focus on the politics, and you'll always arrive at the conspiracy.  One just needs to have the courage to accept that the science as defined by the Laws of Nature, and the collapses are entirely predictable through the methodical application of the laws and physical properties of differing elements.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 3 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 1494 comments) on Monday, December 3, 2007 at 1:42:12 PM
 

FACTUAL CLAIM WHICH WE DARE NOT ASSERT AGAIN!

ROBERT HALFHILL

   Your assertion that there is no scientific evidence for any alternative to the official conspiracy theory about 9/11 -- i.e. that Al Qaida sent 19 men with box cutters to hijack planes and crash them into buildings -- reveals that you have just assumed the official account to be true without checking any of the evidence.  At the 2002 hearing of the House Committee On Science, all three of the authorities testifying before the Committee said that there had NEVER BEFORE been a case of a protected steel framed building collapsing because of fire.  Yet about 9/11, the government makes a factual assertion about three protected steel framed buildings in fire, WTC 1, 2, and 7, which has never been true before or since.  To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, we have the claim about protected steel framed buildings in fire which we dare not assert again!

Robert Halfhill   rhalfhill@juno.com

by rhalfhill (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 270 comments) on Monday, December 3, 2007 at 2:38:28 PM
 

Passionate causes and the scientific method are no-no's

I have commented on the science associated with these events almost ad nauseum in many prior posts. I have looked at the evidence, and like the overwhelming majority of architects, engineers, and scientists in the world (not the silly A&E for 9/11 Truth), the "OGCT" fits the science better than competing theories.

As to the sentence, "Al Qaida [sic] sent 19 men with box cutters to hijack planes and crash them into buildings," it has been so over-used by the 911Truthers that it has no value or merit being repeated - whatsoever.
On a personal note, your reply has all the passion of a zealot but none of the reasoning associated with the scientific method. Otherwise, you'd know that the worn-out sentence above is immaterial as to its believability and instead should be used as just another piece of information in the overall population of data.

And for the record, there have been a number of unprotected steel-framed structures collapsing albeit WTC 1, 2, and 7 were (by far) the tallest. I'll happily report those links here to yet again debunk such silly assertions.

Honestly, the 911Truther movement can be likened to Dorothy who just stands there clicking the heels of her ruby slippers together and repeatedly saying, "There's no place like the Truth... There's no place like the Truth... There's no place like the Truth." The exception, though, in this case is that the Truth favors a political goal rather than a genuine commitment to the conclusions rendered by the scientific method.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 3 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 1494 comments) on Monday, December 3, 2007 at 3:26:04 PM
 

Molten steel in the WTCs rubble disproves "official" 9/11 th

Molten steel in the WTCs rubble disproves "official" 9/11 theory.

The official myth of the 9/11 attacks is disproven by physics.  Molten steel was in the rubble for many weeks after the collapses.

Jet fuel and building fire do NOT burn hot enough to melt steel.  Thermate (a controlled demolition steel cutting agent) has been found in WTC samples.

Meaning there were explosives planted in the buildings BEFORE 9/11/2001.  Who controlled the security systems of the WTC buildings?  Securicom, a Kuwaiti based company with who on the board?  Marvin Bush, GW Bush's brother, and GW's cousin as well.

A new 9/11 investigation, truly independent of Dems., Republicans, etc. MUST BE DEMANDED.

For those who believe the official 9/11 story, you should be demanding a new investigation to disprove all the 9/11 conspiracies.

There's only ONE reason you'd fight an independent investigation . . . and that is because you know it'll show the government's 9/11 myth to be blatantly false.

EITHER SUPPORT AN INVESTIGATION . . . OR BE PART OF THE COVER UP.

by Bill Douglas (68 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments) on Monday, December 3, 2007 at 4:00:21 PM
 

Ummm... I'm Afraid Not

The molten metal story is a hoax promoted by government plants within the "truth movement". Any new investigation based on "molten metal" will be proven false in a Court of Law and that will be the end of the "truth movement".

The "truth movement" needs to start looking at evidence for themselves instead of automatically believing mild mannered scientists within the "truth movement".

The molten metal "evidence" has been debunked piece-by-piece at the following link and people are encouraged to actually look at the analysis and think for themselves.

Let's Exercise Those Brain Cells!

WTC Molten Metal: Fact or Fiction?  

by CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 403 comments) on Monday, December 3, 2007 at 4:57:38 PM
 

Amen to the Church of 9/11

"EITHER SUPPORT AN INVESTIGATION . . . OR BE PART OF THE COVER UP."

And is this from the best seller "Reasoning for Dummies"? I supported and approved of the investigation. And the 9/11 Commission Report was issued on July 22, 2004 - http://www.9-11commission.gov/ . Why must another investigation be held? I tend to agree with Leon's comment below in that if there are any errors, they tend to be from omission and not commission.

I certainly do NOT think that the government knew what was going to happen on 9/11 and sat idly by as it transpired. Rather, they may have known something here and some analyst could have pieced together this analysis there. But for whatever reasons, the whole picture was not pieced together by 9/11. However, once the evnts had transpired, the disparate pieces fell in place rather quickly.

As to the molten steel issue, CB has offered one link and I give another - http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm .

As to the supposed security at the WTC, I have discussed this here previously under the comment "Casual and unsubstantiated associations" - click here .

Truthfully, though, all the issues you raise have been thoroughly disproved. Consequently, you don't hear, read, or see significant numbers of people calling for a new investigation. What's missing is the 911Truthers acceptance that there dogs don't hunt.

And yet, the 9/11 Truth Movement has taken on a religious-like quality for a fair number of people. To deny that a conspiracy exists is like telling a Christian that Jesus, if he existed, was just another Nazarene pedestrian or telling parents that their brand new baby is ugly. The reaction on all three accounts is utter disbelief.

But just so we're perfectly clear here, you're conspiracy baby is ugly. And your logic as presented in the statement above appears to have originated from a Bazooka Joe comic gum wrapper.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 3 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 1494 comments) on Monday, December 3, 2007 at 8:39:34 PM
 

PROTECTED AND UNPROTECTED

ROBERT HALFHILL
I said there had never been a case of a PROTECTED steel framed building collapsing because of fire, and cited the three specialists who testified before the House Committee On Science to back up this claim, and you "refute" me by asserting that there have been cases of UNPROTECTED steel framed buildings collapsing because of fire.
Your assertion that my statement reveals itself as the statement of a zealot is just name calling in the absence of you giving any evidence for your claim. It is on the level of a ten year old boy yelling "yeah, yeah, yeah, you're another!"
And your cloaking yourself in the scientific method is just that, claiming to be practicing the scientific methhod while giving no evidence for your claim; the very antithesis of the scientific method actually.
Robert Halfhill rhalfhill@juno.com

by rhalfhill (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 270 comments) on Tuesday, December 4, 2007 at 1:38:04 AM
 

Don't try to frighten me with your sorcerer's ways...

You are, I presume, aware that the the areas that were impacted by the airplanes (in the cases of WTC 1 and 2) and the falling debris (in the case of WTC 7) represented unprotected steel.  Therefore, why should I focus on protected steel?

Even IF we wanted to focus on protected steel, the fire rating for the spray-on fire proofing is good for one to two hours (back then) and two-hours today.  In fact, why is fire proofing even applied to a structure - to stop it from collapsing?  No.  It's applied to give the building occupants enough time to escape the structure BEFORE it collapses due to a weakening of the load carrying members associated with the heat from fire. 

You find the regulations that require the application of the fire proofing in life safety sections of national consensus building and fire codes (e.g., National Fire Protection Association’s International Fire Code or IFC and the International Code Council’s International Building Code or IBC).  The fire proofing, though, has no inherent architectural quality (i.e., provides neither support nor transfers load) associated with it.  While buildings are important, people are more so.  

As I watched the towers burn on 9/11, I distinctly remember commenting to my co-workers that I was VERY surprised that the NYFD, which had obviously implemented its ICS (albeit chaotically), was still sending fire fighters into the towers KNOWING that they had between one and two hours before the towers would collapse.  When questioned about what I meant, I told them the above.  And sure enough, the towers collapsed – although I thought the collapses would be confined to the floors above and near the points of impact. 

I understand now (through a careful application of the scientific method) that the conversion of the potential energy of the floors and building contents above the points of impact into kinetic energy at the times of the catastrophic failures was far too great for the remaining structure to sustain, support, and redistribute in such a compressed time frame.  Consequently, the resulting pancake collapsing of the structures. 

I spent several years as a consultant on several large-scale (i.e., $10M USD) asbestos abatement projects for high-rise structures in Boston, Massachusetts in the late 1980s and early 1990s.  As one of the responsibilities associated with the position, I had to inspect, test, and verify the reapplication of non-asbestos containing fire proofing to ensure its (1) adherence tot he substrate - cohesion/adhesion and corrosion of steel members, (2) uniformity of applied depth - confirming density and compression, and (3) coverage of load bearing members - concealed members and spaces, as well as deflection. 

While the American Society of Testing & Materials (International) or ASTM details the inspection, testing, and verifying procedures for spray on fire proofing materials (ASTM E84, E119, E605, E736, E759, E760, E761, E859, and E937 - http://www.astm.org/cgi-bin/SoftCart.exe/STORE/standardsearch.shtml?L+mystore+vklv0550+1196798834 ), NFPA 5000 - http://www.nfpa.org/aboutthecodes/AboutTheCodes.asp?DocNum=5000 and the IBC - http://www.iccsafe.org/e/category.html detail the actual need for the fire proofing http://www.nfpa.org/categoryList.asp?categoryID=124&URL=Codes%20and%20Standards . 

As to the alleged name calling, it fits in light of the silliness of the statements and your apparent faith in a cover up. 

“GEN MOTTI: Don't try to frighten us with your sorcerer's ways, Lord Vader. Your sad devotion to that ancient religion has not helped you conjure up the stolen data tapes, or given you clairvoyance enough to find the Rebel's hidden fort...” 

And we all should know what Darth Vader “showed” the good General.  911Truthers should avoid becoming General Motti.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 3 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 1494 comments) on Tuesday, December 4, 2007 at 8:45:32 AM
 

CB Brooklyn

Quite frankly CB, it is you and your ilk that are switch and bait COINTELPRO agents, trying to divide the Truth Movement (notice no derogatorily quote marks).

Your support of Direct Energy Weapons is misleading (at best) that way you can direct people who know little about 911 Truth to be lead to an arena that was created to make those who question the "official conspiracy" look like carnival creatures, when actually it is your circle of snowflakes and pennies groupies that should be locked up.

 For those who are new to the DEW's creator and central operations of cointelpro, please view this interview of Ms. Woods, the proponent of Direct Energy Weapons that she theorizes brought down the WTC 1, 2 & 7.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-558096240694803017  

by Joann (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 45 comments) on Monday, December 3, 2007 at 1:56:54 PM
 

Joann's problem....

...is that she just does not understand. She's the victim of a PSYOPS. I've run into these individuals in the past on message boards and they all use terms like "cointelpro" or "disinfo" in their posts. They offer absolutely no scientific analysis. Instead, they refer to links such as the Greg Jenkins interview of Dr Judy Wood.

Jenkins former research was funded by the NSA.
Jenkins has affiliations with directed energy weapons.

The video was a professionally orchestrated ambush interview.

A read of the transcript proves Dr Wood won the debate hands down.

Bob Bowman, Steven Jones, Greg Jenkins all have ties to Directed Energy Weapons.

Explosives expert Van Romero, who said the towers could have been destroyed with a "relatively small amount of explosives" participated in events at the Directed Energy Professional Society before and after 9/11.

Look at this photo. Who in their right mind would think this was done with a "relatively small amount of explosives"?

The New York Times published evidence of explosives in the WTC Task Force Interviews. Why did they do that? Why did they redact evidence for directed energy weapons?

Why did NIST contract with sponsors of the Directed Energy Professional Society for the NIST Report?

Sources to confirm all of the above are in my article:

9/11 Directed Energy Weapon / TV-Fakery Suppression Timeline

by CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 403 comments) on Monday, December 3, 2007 at 2:44:06 PM
  <