Another white whoosh, the very few conspiracy theorists
Can you believe this Nonsense?
What absolute crapola is this?
The conspiracists are legion, Loose Change is No 2 in the Google video list - please go there to make sure this is No 1
See
 http://video.google.com/videoranking

See also this great movie
 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6757267008400743688&q=everybody%27s+gotta

 http://www.judicialwatch.org/flight77.shtml

It doesn't add much it adds nothing love just a crock of shit! More lies and ganda!

Why does no plane appear? Because there's clearly a time gap between each frame, you dolts! You think this aircraft was going so slowly that it would have ambled across the screen? You think that security cameras work at 25 fps?

In fact, your own CT logic fails you. You regularly accuse the American government of pulling this off themselves, yet you seem to think they wouldn't have had the brains to simply fake the video?

I'm no video expert but wouldn't the cameras have to be in fact running a LOT faster than 25fps to capture decent quality images of such a high velocity subject at such a close proximity? I'm sure someone knowledgable would be able to work out the maths.

Apart from that, what are these CT nuts banging on about. The video wasn't just released on a whim. Judicial Watch obtained the video through a court order.

Well it doesn't take long for someone to become offensive.
So us idiots that believe that the American government, more accurately a group of criminals within the american government, had a lot to do with organizing the gig on 9/11.

It appears from the video that the sun was coming from behind the wall of the pentagon slighty to the right
and the camera which (didn't) catch the plane was on to the left I would have thought that the plane there should have been a fairly large shadow cast in the direction of the road which we see in the foreground of the shot from what appears to be a security camera. does this make sense to any of the other conspiracy dolts ?

I can't see what you have to be amused about, this is the so called "prove" that an airliner hit the most protected place in the world and it is seriously inconclusive.
I totally agree with you when you say that the U.S government is capable of making fake videos they have
done a whole serious of fakes on there boy Bin Laden. They obviously have some more intelligent types than the Chimp and his close company of criminals.

To make a credible case for fakery, I see several parameters that would need to be examined. The relative position of the sun in the sky and the position of the plane. To plot the plane you will need to ascertain distance, scale, altitude and position relative to the camera and other surrounding objects. Before you do that you need to work out the factor of the semi-fisheye lens on the cameras and factor all that in.

In other words, you have to prove that the shadow has not been subsumed in another shadow.

If this video is a fake, I'll donate £50 to 9/11 Truth!

So which faked videos are you referring to exactly? I know of the fat Bin Laden one- which is really a fraud rather than a fake. Are their any others?

If you are talking about this, then it's hardly a compelling case being argued:

 http://www.welfarestate.com/binladen/surprise/

What I don't get with all this missile talk, is it is patently obvious that it would be more efective to use a plane than a missile. You really suggesting that they hit the Pentagon with a missile and no-one on site noticed? Or are you really suggesting everyone onsite is in on the conspiracy LMFAO!

The conspiracy theory just doesn't make any sense.

Why does no plane appear? Because there's clearly a time gap between each frame, you dolts! says Amused.

Hmmm. Dolts, eh? That means the building did not slow the plane down at all and all of the plane is still going at supersonic speeds when it smashes through all of that reinforced concrete? We see no wings, no tail, no engine, no nothing. I suppose the plane was travelling at lightspeed.

But then, we managed to see all those videoes of the planes smashing into the Twin Towers without much problem despite their supersonic, light speeds, didn't we?

the following extract come from a source
which appears to be down
so apologies in advance


"Saving the Pentagon" from Spectrum Magazine
which states that in 2001 - the Pentagon had a 'laptop accessable' automation system in place
which was digital in nature

my question is this:

were the cctv cameras outside the Pentagon also digital?

Can building automation systems overcome
interoperability problems to assert control over our offices,
hotels, and airports?

If only you could work in a building where you could keep your office as you like it, icicle-cold, while your neighbor turns hers into a sauna. If only your office lights and computer could flicker on every morning when you swiped your security card in your building's lobby, so that you would be ready to work when you sat down with your first cup of coffee. And while we're on this flight of fancy, wouldn't it be reassuring to know that your building would shield you from harm in the event of an earthquake, or even a chemical or biological attack?

Buildings could do all these things and more, if only they had brains.

As it happens, a few buildings already do, and they're getting smarter. The brainiac of buildings, the U.S. Pentagon, opened for business on 12 September 2001, the day after terrorists crashed a plane into it. Thanks to a network of digital sensors and controllers that let operators close dampers and turn off fans, the fire from the crash was confined to one wedge of the building.


------------------------------------------------------------
On the morning of 11 September 2001, Steve Carter was in his office at the Pentagon. Carter, an electrical engineer who is the real estate and facilities liaison to the Pentagon's US $1.85 billion renovation program, has worked in the building for 17 years.

Carter's office is in the newly renovated area called Wedge 1, in the Building Operations Command Center (BOCC), which opened 8 June 2001. If the Pentagon's building systems-heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC), fire safety, lighting, and security-are its nerves, then the BOCC is its brain. It's the place where all these systems come together through a network of thousands of sensors, actuators, and controllers.

Rather than dispatching technicians to fix a problem, operators in the BOCC can fine-tune many building systems remotely-for instance, raising the set point on a thermostat or turning off a fan in an air-conditioning duct to prevent smoke from a fire from spreading.

Carter and his colleagues were watching the World Trade Center's twin towers in New York City burning on television when a plane struck Wedge 1. "All the control boards in the BOCC went to the fire alarm system, and the alarms came up bright red," Carter says. "We immediately started shutting down some of the air handlers; our first thought was, nothing could be this massive." Shortly afterward, the BOCC lost power-and the operators their ability to make adjustments to the building systems from there.

Carter grabbed a two-way radio and a laptop and headed to neighboring Wedge 5 to a mechanical room housing HVAC equipment. From his laptop, he tapped into the Pentagon's automation network and sent out commands that closed dampers and turned off fans around the building to contain the smoke and starve the raging fire of oxygen.

When he learned that a break in a water main had dropped water pressure to a point too low for firefighting, Carter dispatched engineers to the bowels of the building to remedy the problem. All in all, eight people stayed in the Pentagon that day, controlling the fire damage remotely via workstations from various mechanical rooms in the building, with Carter directing the effort by radio.

The next day, the Pentagon reopened. In all, 189 people had been killed, 125 on the ground, and the building suffered $501 million in damages. But the Secretary of Defense's office, the National Military Command Center, and other mission-critical areas like data storage centers and wiring and switch rooms were spared.

None of this was possible back in 1997, when Carter convinced his superiors to build the BOCC to streamline day-to-day operations. He also convinced them that, while they were installing brand-new HVAC equipment in Wedge 1-the first area to be renovated-they should also retrofit the 55-year-old HVAC equipment throughout the rest of the Pentagon with new digital controls.

Not only would the new equipment, and the old equipment with new controls, be automated and operated through the BOCC, but it could be programmed to work more efficiently, which would help slash energy use by 35 percent by 2010, saving up to $5 million per year.

Johnson Controls Inc. (Milwaukee, Wis.) designed and installed the new HVAC system, linking it to the fire safety system. Engineers also added leak detectors to the natural gas system and to the air chillers, and linked them to the BOCC. Johnson's equipment uses Metasys, the company's own control language.

"In 1997, we couldn't find a vendor with a fully interoperable system for either BACnet or LonWorks," says Carter, adding that these protocols could be used in the Pentagon as the renovation progresses. The BOCC itself is linked via fiber-optic cable to network control modules in each mechanical room, which allows for remote (laptop) control.

New capabilities will be added to the Pentagon's building automation system over time. Next up is an improved lighting control system, which may incorporate Internet protocol-addressable fixtures and occupancy and day-lighting sensors.

 http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/publicfeature/aug03/smarsb1.html
------------------------------------------------------------

also view the gif animated picture:

 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/pentagon21.gif


which seems to show a plane...

now why would the Pentagon release
a video with less detail in than this?

they are rewriting history...

------------------------------------------------------------
why did those towers come down ?

connect:

automated buildings
control of access
loyalty cards
RFID
ID cards
cashless & card less society
mobile phones as credit card
satellite based surveillance state
DNA database
mall based behavioural control

and the ultimate capitalists dream
Microchipping the population
enabling all of the above

security industry needs terror for
its trillions of dollar paycheck

Quite simply, the Twin Towers footage is better becase of a few reasons:

1. It was shot on better quality cameras
2. Those cameras were running around 25fps
3. The distance between the cameras and subject was greater (thus reducing the effects of speed of the plane)

Just to note that at this time, Loose Change 2 is the most-watched Google video at Number 1.
It also ranks at 7 and 30

 http://video.google.com/videoranking

so whats the WTC got to do with it?

WTC footage was largely taken by Media at the scene
at the time

[althoough looking back
there were a lot of top media just
hanging around weren't there]

a bomb went off today in Russia
killing an ambassador

so where are the global media?

not in the right place at the right time...i suppose


Pentagon footage of the initial impact is from CCTV
security evidence from the surrounding points

there are apparenty 85 other videos
which came up for FOIA request
 http://www.flight77.info/


my original question still remains

How can it be this cctv footage really that of such a low quality?
when the inside is managed by an ultra advanced automated system

note also the system was put in place in 1997
so what other improvements were made in the 4 years up to 2001?

why have CCTV perimeter
all around a
trillion dollar building
which is the symbol
for the Mightiest
military industrial complex
the planet has ever seen

that doesn't do a very good job?
IE you can't identify anything with it

also a lot of folks are asking about the
Citgo gas station, a Sheraton hotel
and Virginia Department of Transportation traffic cameras.

check this out for a convincing read!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Videotapes dispel conspiracy

By Jennifer Harper THE WASHINGTON TIMES - May 17, 2006
 http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060516-101748-1168r.htm

The final moments of American Flight 77 are no longer a mystery, dispelling the dark conspiracy theory that it was a U.S. missile that struck the Pentagon at 9:38 a.m. on September 11.

Military officials yesterday yielded to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit and released two videotapes that show the aircraft striking the building -- killing 125 persons inside, 59 passengers and crew, and the five terrorists who had hijacked the Boeing 757 jet at Washington Dulles International Airport.

The two minutes of footage taken from security cameras adjacent to the Pentagon is halting, brief and grainy. But the pale fuselage of the aircraft and the fireball that followed are clearly visible in several of the frames.

"We fought hard to obtain this video because we felt that it was very important to complete the public record with respect to the terrorist attacks of September 11," said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, the government watchdog group, which filed the FOIA request with the Pentagon on Dec. 14, 2004, seeking video from security cameras at the Pentagon, a nearby Citgo gas station, a Sheraton hotel and Virginia Department of Transportation traffic camera.

Footage from the gas station and hotel yielded nothing, and there was no film in the traffic camera. But the images from the Pentagon are enough. "We hope that this video will put to rest the conspiracy theories involving American Airlines Flight 77," Mr. Fitton said.

Multiple, unsavory speculations have surfaced about the September 11 attacks in the past five years. One of the most enduring was "9/11: The Big Lie," a 2002 book by French author Thierry Meyssan who claimed that the "American military-industrial lobby" orchestrated the Pentagon destruction, using a satellite-guided missile. "This attack could only be committed by United States military personnel against other U.S. military personnel," Mr. Meyssan wrote, building his case around the fact that no video footage of the impact had been released to the public and that eyewitness accounts were suspect.

Footage did exist, confirmed in a letter to Judicial Watch by the Pentagon in early 2005. But Defense Department officials told the group that the videos were exempt from release because they were evidence in the investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui, the only person tried in this country in association with the September 11 attacks. He was sentenced this month to a life sentence at a federal prison in Colorado.

"Now that the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui is over, we are able to complete your request and provide the video," wrote William Kammer of department's freedom of information office, in a letter to Judicial Watch last month. But conspiracy theories about September 11 persist.

Missouri-based 9/11 Truth, an advocacy group founded to investigate the possibilities, will host a convention in Chicago in June that includes a workshop called "Flights of Fancy: 11, 15, 77 and 93 (an Inside Job)" -- which "highlights the many inconsistencies between The 9/11 Commission Report versus the NORAD [North American Aerospace Defense Command] timeline, the testimony of expert witnesses and the presumed facts," according to organizers.

-----------------------------------------------------

the cultish homophobe Bush money man
and self aggrandised God saviour MOON owns the Washington Times


Footage from the gas station and hotel yielded nothing, and there was no film in the traffic camera.


oh really?

here is a pge ad for a 120 frames per second
video card
 http://www.remotevideosurveillance.com/catalog/16_channel_dvr_card_-_120_fps__high_frame_rate__1366015-1.htm

do you think the techies at the Pentagon / Darpa

could manage a little better?

hmmm

Just look at the intellectual heavyweights if fended off too:

The Evolution of Dance
5 min 59 sec
Comedian dances to clips of music from the 60's to the 2000's

Webcam Girls Go Wild
3 min 9 sec
This is the way you should give out your number! All these girls are after the same guy, lucky guy.

Lady Punch
9 sec
This lady takes one on the kisser.

Funny cats - Miau Miau Miau
1 min 11 sec
Funny cats. Miau fun cats animals nature smile koty kot

funny clips baby fart smieszne filmy filmiki pierdzace dziecko
10 sec
funny clips baby fart smieszne filmy filmiki pierdzace dziecko

___

Yeah what an accolade to come out on top of those Nobel Prize Winners

Could it be that no-one ever expected someone to attack the Pentagon with a passenger jet? Hahahahaha!

AFAIK CCTV isn't a staple component of any air defence system anyway. What use would it be? If something has gotten past your national defence strategy, what use would it be having less than a second of video? Under foreseeable circumstances, enemy attacks from the air would have had to break through the air defence ring and not arise from within it.

The frame rate of the cameras seems adequate of the normal use of CCTV: monitoring acitivity on the ground. I should expect that like any military installaton, the perimeter and entrances/exits will be the focal point of ground based security. Acoustically sensitive fences? Razor wire? Concrete barriers? Infrared? Thermal imaging? Marksmen? Dogs? Foot patrols? Vehicle patrols? Oh and remote controlled CCTV no doubt.

"Damn why didn't we think of anyone flying a kamakazi mission inside our air defence perimiter!"

I wonder...

Could it be that no-one ever expected someone to attack the Pentagon with a passenger jet? Hahahahaha!

AFAIK CCTV isn't a staple component of any air defence system anyway. What use would it be? If something has gotten past your national defence strategy, what use would it be having less than a second of video? Under foreseeable circumstances, enemy attacks from the air would have had to break through the air defence ring and not arise from within it.

The frame rate of the cameras seems adequate of the normal use of CCTV: monitoring acitivity on the ground. I should expect that like any military installaton, the perimeter and entrances/exits will be the focal point of ground based security. Acoustically sensitive fences? Motion sensors? Razor wire? Concrete barriers? Infrared? Thermal imaging? Marksmen? Dogs? Foot patrols? Vehicle patrols? Oh and remote controlled CCTV no doubt.

"Damn why didn't we think of anyone flying a kamakazi mission inside our air defence perimiter!"

I wonder...

I really wasn't suggesting anything, I just thought that it might be possible to see a shadow.
Thanx for your information regarding the tech spec of the camera and sun angle ect.
I certainly not interested in getting into any uninformed arguments, the people who know all
the facts are very unikely to ever publish them.
Spooks ? who or what are they I wonder ?

Really very very simple. Let's assume the plane was going at cruising speed for a passenger airliner which is around 400mph. The cctv system was claimed to be recording at just 2 frames every second compared with the normal 30 frames/second for broadcast US TV. This is perfectly normal for most cctv systems as any faster and someone would have to be changing tapes every few hours instead of days. It clearly was recording at something like this slow speed because of the jerky movement of the cop car. Now express the airplane speed in units of metres/second. So 400mph is 400 * 1760 = 704000 yards/hour which is a similar figure in metres. Converting this to metres/sec so 704000/60/60 gives about 200 metres every second. So every video frame the plane will travel a whopping 100 metres. Now it looks to me like the width of view of the cctv at the point of impact is about 50 metres wide so it's hardly surprising that the plane would whizz right across the field of view in well under a frame time. It's invisible until the explosion.

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4990686.stm

i wonder what all the other videos show? i seriously doubt that is the only one...

"Could it be that no-one ever expected someone to attack the Pentagon with a passenger jet?
Hahahahaha! "


er ...are you kidding?

------------------------------------------------------------
Washington, D.C., Nov. 3, 2000 The fire and smoke from the downed passenger aircraft billows from the Pentagon courtyard. Defense Protective Services Police seal the crash sight. Army medics, nurses and doctors scramble to organize aid. An Arlington Fire Department chief dispatches his equipment to the affected areas.

Don Abbott, of Command Emergency Response Training, walks over to the Pentagon and extinguishes the flames. The Pentagon was a model and the "plane crash" was a simulated one.


The Pentagon Mass Casualty Exercise, as the crash was called, was just one of several scenarios that emergency response teams were exposed to Oct. 24-26 in the Office of the Secretaries of Defense conference room.

 http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/Contingency_Planning.html
------------------------------------------------------------


say it isn't so!

I say can't you see?
------------------------------------------------------------
"Nobody in our government at least and I dont think the prior government could envision flying airplanes into buildings."
 http://www.freepressinternational.com/bush_8228_911_wtc_7102.html
------------------------------------------------------------
"Despite what some have suggested, we received no intelligence that terrorists were preparing to attack the homeland using airplanes as missiles."
Washington Post on March 23 2002
 http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=705
------------------------------------------------------------
"Nobody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center that they would try to use an airplane as a missile." -

Condoleeza Rice before the 9.11 Commission
 http://www.theconnection.org/shows/2004/04/20040408_a_main.asp
------------------------------------------------------------
"I know of no intelligence during the roughly six-plus months leading up to September 11 that indicated terrorists intended to hijack commercial airlines and fly them into the Pentagon or the World Trade Center."

Donald Rumsfeld
 http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/apr2004/tran-a06_prn.shtml
------------------------------------------------------------






I think 'spook plant'
should refrain from commenting on
something on which they have not a clue



i would offer you a battle of wits ...
but i wouldn't fight an unarmed man! [or woman]

CW writes:

I think 'spook plant'
should refrain from commenting on
something on which they have not a clue

Hmm...

I think conspiracists
should refrain from commenting on
something on which they have not a clue

Structural mechanics, that'll do
Or how about demolition and explosives, you know
Then there's melting steel, It's all just so so

Technical, technical, years of study
BSc, PHD, RIBA, why do you all bother
Rense and CW know all without all this namby pamby know how

So conspiracists please
Refrain from your comments
on Something on Which You Haven't a Clue

"i would offer you a battle of wits ...
but i wouldn't fight an unarmed man! [or woman]"

If you are the one defining "wit" I could never win.

I'm not the paranoid loon lapping up stupid conspiracy theories that make no sense.

if by

"lapping up conspiracy theories"

you mean

reading stuff

then

oh er i guess

we should all leave it to those
trusted experts

[like we see in the pharma fraud]
--------------------------------------------------------------
Experts Defining Mental Disorders Are Linked to Drug Firms

By Shankar Vedantam - Washington Post Staff Writer - Thursday, April 20, 2006; washingtonpost.com

Every psychiatric expert involved in writing the standard diagnostic criteria for disorders such as depression and schizophrenia has had financial ties to drug companies that sell medications for those illnesses, a new analysis has found.

Of the 170 experts in all who contributed to the manual that defines disorders from personality problems to drug addiction, more than half had such ties, including 100 percent of the experts who served on work groups on mood disorders and psychotic disorders. The analysis did not reveal the extent of their relationships with industry or whether those ties preceded or followed their work on the manual.

"I don't think the public is aware of how egregious the financial ties are in the field of psychiatry," said Lisa Cosgrove, a clinical psychologist at the University of Massachusetts in Boston, who is publishing her analysis today in the peer-reviewed journal Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics.

The analysis comes at a time of growing debate over the rising use of medication as the primary or sole treatment for many psychiatric disorders, a trend driven in part by definitions of mental disorders in the psychiatric manual.

Cosgrove said she began her research after discovering that five of six panel members studying whether certain premenstrual problems are a psychiatric disorder had ties to Eli Lilly & Co., which was seeking to market its drug Prozac to treat those symptoms. The process of defining such disorders is far from scientific, Cosgrove added: "You would be dismayed at how political the process can be."

The American Psychiatric Association, which publishes the guidelines in its bible of disorders, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM), said it is planning to require disclosure of the financial ties of experts who write the next edition of the manual -- due around 2011. The manual carries vast influence over the practice of psychiatry in the United States and around the world.

Darrel Regier, director of the association's division of research, said that concerns over disclosure are a relatively recent phenomenon, which may be why the last edition, published in 1994, did not note them. Regier and John Kane, an expert on schizophrenia who worked on the last edition, agreed with the need for transparency but said financial ties with industry should not undermine public confidence in the conclusions of its experts. Kane has been a consultant to drug companies including Abbott Laboratories, Eli Lilly, Janssen and Pfizer Inc.

"It shouldn't be assumed there is a true conflict of interest," said Kane, who said his panel's conclusions were driven only by science. "To me, a conflict of interest implies that someone's judgment is going to be influenced by this relationship, and that is not necessarily the case. . . ."

The DSM defines disorders in terms of constellations of symptoms. While neuroscience and genetics are revealing biological aspects to many disorders, there has been unease that psychiatry is ignoring social, psychological and cultural factors in its pursuit of biological explanations and treatments.

"As a profession, we have allowed the biopsychosocial model to become the bio-bio-bio model," Steven Sharfstein, president of the American Psychiatric Association, said in an essay last year to his colleagues. He later added, "If we are seen as mere pill pushers and employees of the pharmaceutical industry, our credibility as a profession is compromised."

He stressed that the association has strict guidelines to police the role of the pharmaceutical industry but said the profession as a whole needs to do a better job monitoring ethical conflicts.

Sharfstein added yesterday that the presence of experts with ties to companies on the manual's expert panels is understandable, given that many of the top experts in the field are involved in drug research.

"I am not surprised that the key people who participate have these kinds of relationships," he said. "They are the major researchers in the field, and are very much on the cutting edge, and will have some kind of relationship -- but there should be full disclosure."

At least one psychiatrist who worked on the current manual criticized the analysis. Nancy Andreasen of the University of Iowa, who headed the schizophrenia team, called the new analysis "very flawed" because it did not distinguish researchers who had ties to industry while serving on the panel from those who formed such ties afterward.

Two out of five researchers on her team had had substantial ties to industry, she said. Andreasen said she would have to check her tax statements to know whether she received money from companies at the time she worked on the panel, but said, "What I do know is that I do almost nothing with drug companies. . . . My area of research is neuroimaging, not psychopharmacology."

The analysis could not determine the extent or timing of the financial ties because it relied on disclosures in journal publications and other venues that do not mention many details, said Sheldon Krimsky, a science policy specialist at Tufts University who also was an author of the new study. Whether the researchers received money before, during or after their service on the panel did not remove the ethical concern, he said.

Krimsky, the author of the book "Science in the Private Interest," added that although more transparency is welcome, the psychiatric association should staff its panels with disinterested experts.

"When someone is establishing a clinical guideline for the bible of psychiatric diagnosis, I would argue they should have no affiliation with the drug companies in those areas where the companies could benefit from those decisions," he said.

 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/19/AR2006041902560_pf.html


---------------------------------------------------------------

and just go about our daily business
completely ignorant of the system

after all we have nothing to fear if
we haven't done anything wrong

------------------------------------------------------------
BIG BROTHER INC. TRIES TO FOOL RANDI RHODES -- AND THAT'S NOT NICE

Buzzflash

Wednesday, May 17, 2006 by Greg Palast

I smell mendacity! The sticky-sweet Atlanta drawl of the PR flack for America's private KGB was dancing in rhetorical circles with Randi Rhodes, Air American, broadcast yesterday.. Unfortunately for the Bush-friendly Spies-R-Us contractor, Randi also has a keen nose for the telltale scent of pure bullshit.

By "private KGB," I mean ChoicePoint, Inc., the Atlanta company that keeps over 16 billion records on Americans which it sells to the FBI, Homeland Security and, through a bit of a slip-up, identity thieves.

They are watching you because George and Dick don't have time to track everyone in America (and that would be illegal, to boot), ChoicePoint does it. Then turns over the electronic you -- cross-matched profiles of voting registration, your DNA info and who knows what else -- for a price.

Randi was on the phone to one James Lee, Marketing Director of ChoicePoint. He was trying to explain some of the good work they do for government -- and responding to the evil lies about his corporation by a reporter (me).

I was listening in from a glass booth. The Eichmann treatment was required by ChoicePoint -- they wouldn't let her interview the company if anyone else was in the room. They also warned her, her interview would be "taped" ... AND, they didn't have to add, they know where she lives -- and where she votes and a whole lot more about Randi that maybe Randi herself doesn't know. Just a friendly warning.

It seems the data guys were upset that she had me on her show on Monday to talk about my investigations of the company which I conducted for BBC-TV, for Harper's and for my new book, Armed Madhouse. [Yeah, that's a plug: order it here.]

The company's name came up because of the Bush regime's getting caught with their hands in the data jar: spying on Americans, sucking our phone records into data bases where George and Dick can peruse them at leisure, without warrants.

ChoicePoint's the big banana in the data game, with fat no-bid contracts with Big Brother Bush's agency and the Department of Fatherland Security. (Homeland? Deutschland? Whatever.) Other governments, including Mexico, threatened ChoicePoint operatives with arrest for their use and misuse of data, but Dick and George like'm just fine. That's because ChoicePoint provides just the data that suits their needs -- not necessarily accurate, but accurate is not what is needed.

For example, ChoicePoint is the company that gave Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush the list of Florida voters, most of them Black, which were removed as "felons" before the 2000 election. The list was ridiculously inaccurate -- these were innocent citizens -- but those African-Americans lost their voting rights anyway and Jeb's brother thereby took the White House.

That's not nice, what Jeb and Katherine did -- but ChoicePoint kept silent. In return, they received a high, and highly suspect, fee for their "work."

And that's dangerous. Because, after ChoicePoint selected our president for us, our president selected them for no-bid jobs to save us from terrorists -- which they do by keeping track of us. (Odd, I thought Americans were the VICTIMS of terror -- they've made us the SUSPECTS.)

In Armed Madhouse, I reveal that one ChoicePoint executive confidentially told me the company's chairman hoped to build a national DNA database. Dracula's got nothing on these guys: they are already the biggest providers of DNA info to the FBI, they boast. They boast about it one week -- then they deny it another. This week's flavor is denial.

Back to Randi. I wasn't allowed in the room with her, so I waited in the glass booth. ChoicePoint had a huge list of complaints about my latest comment on their activities. I thought it important for the public to know how these private "data mining" companies drill into you and sell up the valuable nuggets they find to Mr. Bush's spy apparatus.

As a public service -- everyone needs a laugh once in a while -- I'm reprinting their inventive rebuttal to my report, "The Spies Who Shag Us"
The company uses some clever rhetorical sleights of hand: "No data files or 'dossiers' exist at ChoicePoint." Now that's just darn strange for a data company.

But that's a quibble. Let's move to the out and out flaming fabrications, whoppers and what, before George Bush took office, we used to call "stinking, bald-faced lies." (Now we call it, "intelligence.")

ChoicePoint swore to Ms. Rhodes that they do not have or sell "credit" information. Yet, according to the company's own filing, among their other Big Brother products, they sell:

"...claims history data, motor vehicle records, police records, CREDIT INFORMATION and modeling services...employment background screenings and drug testing administration services, public record searches, vital record services, credential verification, due diligence information, DNA identification services, authentication services and people and shareholder locator information searches...print fulfillment, teleservices, database and campaign management services..."

Uh, oh. They are either fibbing to the Securities and Exchange Commission (their CEO is already under investigation by the SEC) -- or they are prevaricating to Randi. They shouldn't do that, because, the lady has class -- she let ChoicePoint give their goofy alibi uninterrupted; but, lie to her, and, as my editor says, "she'll bite off a chicken's head while it's laying eggs."

So who are you toying with, Mr. ChoicePoint, the SEC or Randi?

There's more. ChoicePoint's PR apologist says it doesn't maintain credit card records, but they fail to mention that they sell "credit report headers" -- which is why the federal government just fined them a record $10 million for letting identity thieves run off with this kind of info. They sell "SSN verification" (your social security number), financial reports, education verification, reference verification, felony checks, motor vehicle records, asset location and information on criminal suspects and their neighbors and relatives. Howdy, neighbor!

Let's go back to ChoicePoint's dirty work for the Brothers Bush. ChoicePoint writes that it didn't get its corporate hands dirty in the racist purge of voters which fixed the 2000 election. That was the fault of some company called "DBT" which ChoicePoint only purchased, they claim, "after DBT's work was done for the state."

Au contraire. ChoicePoint bought DBT before the election, while the purges were in full swing. Then, right after the "election," ChoicePoint's PR mouthpieces boasted about how the company was going to cash in on its "success" (their word) in purging Florida voter rolls. Their PR flack told me at the time, "Given the outcome of our work in Florida, and with a new president in place (!), we think our services will expand across the country." But then we caught them -- and they quit elections games and moved on to saving us from Al Qaeda. Lord help us.

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn about ChoicePoint. They're in it for the money. If they turned a blind eye to evil, if they abetted the theft of an election and kept silent to keep the money, well, that's the Fear Industry for you.

It's not what ChoicePoint sells that terrifies me, it's whom they're selling it to: a regime for whom information is a weapon and disinformation a way of life.


 http://www.gregpalast.com/printerfriendly.cfm?artid=503
------------------------------------------------------------------------

so

do
we trust a Bush government that lies about WMD in Iraq
that has been spying illicitly on the global public
via corporate fascists

spying via an echelon system [for many years]

and that is in charge of a country which hires paid goons
to oversee and do PR
for drug tests on humans

so we trust a government
when it comes to 911 then, do we?

hmm
i think not

this is where is all lies

loony or not

some of us just can't believe this bullshit
that is being fed to us

sure:
forget the ornate psyocho babble
and pseudo racism of
alien bases alien races and some secret agenda
which seeks to concretize the notion
of elite bloodlines
rather than
dispel the racist empirical mythology

but

what of the lies
the outright obvious lies

address that

oh witless one

ha ha ha indeed...
[yawn]

hi six to ya -- inbred!

...The cctv system was claimed to be recording at just 2 frames every second compared with the normal 30 frames/second for broadcast US TV. ...Converting this to metres/sec so 704000/60/60 gives about 200 metres every second. So every video frame the plane will travel a whopping 100 metres. Now it looks to me like the width of view of the cctv at the point of impact is about 50 metres wide so it's hardly surprising that the plane would whizz right across the field of view in well under a frame time. It's invisible until the explosion.
slow cctv

I'm sorry, I'm still missing something here. Firstly, I'm not sure we saw 200 metres a second when the planes hit the Twin Towers. Secondly, when the fireball occurs, I'm not sure we see 2 frames a second. But let's pass that by.

What I'm really interested in is the plane hitting reinforced concrete. You see, I can't figure out how a plane going 200 metres a second continues to go 200 metres a second when it hits reinforced concrete. If I had to guess, I'd say that the concrete would kinda slow the plane down. And slow it down quite a lot. If perhaps, it hit paper, then that wouldn't make much difference to the plane's speed. But it didn't hit paper, it hit reinforced concrete.

Now, I reckon there are all kinds of problems with the notion that the nose goes through the Pentagon and the wings gets bent back and follows the nose into the hole. I kinda guess it would be easier to snap the wings off the plane. But if that didn't happen, then the engines would make big holes in the Pentagon facade. After all, the thrust for the plane comes from its engines. But on this occassion, it seems that the thrust lept from the engines and went into the nose. Now, I reckon that's unlikely.

But let's say it did and the nose went into concrete. That would still mean that the plane took half a second to go through reinforced concrete?

Pray tell us Slow CCTV and Amused. Did the plane take half a second to go through reinforced concrete.

As for the other, science fiction aspects of the story. We are supposed to believe that the plane was at ground level when it hit the Pentagon. So, the plane descends, reduces its momentum so that it doesn't smash into the ground but flies along the ground. And it does this without even scratching the ground at all. The plane hits lamposts and makes no difference to its flight path. I bet, pilots do not land their planes like this because if that's what happened, the plane wouldn't have run along the ground. This scenario is ridiculous.

The idea that supposedly intelligent people believe this nonsense is mindboggling. Slow CCTV and Amused will be telling us that the magic bullet theory wasn't theory but the truth next. And they'll have a whole load of calculations to prove it. You can fool all of the people some of the time...

How about the WMD lies? How about 45 minutes to doom? How about Saddam & UBL? How about the leaked documents and whistleblowing from the *cough* the Intelligence Community regarding bare-faced lies. You know, the intel people who are all in on the Pentagon mass murder hoax hahahaha!

Why are you burying your head in the sand with Rense & Jones (anti-semites) when you could be addressing real proper conspiracy theories with actual evidence that points to Bush, Blair and Associates as international war criminals and mass murderes.

I guess it's easier to hide in a false reality. I think deep down you know it's all crap, but it gives you an excuse to do absolutely nothing whilst pretending to be an "infowarrior"- from what I can discern it means some sort of nutcase armchair general that chases "impossible proofs".

Seems to me to be the activists equivalent of shooting off your big toe to get a medical discharge.

Hut-two private!

I called this three years ago, since the "pod people" kept dwelling on this weak assertion.

All we need now is the rest of the still-absent, compelling and key pieces of independently-originating and verifiable evidence which would exist if the "Let us kill Arabs with impunity, as planned (www.newamericancentury.org) ..." Conspiracy Theory doled out by the "Saddam has nukes!!" guys were true, stuff like the airport surveillance video, which would show "ze terrorists" boarding the planes, if they ever did ...

Perhaps they'd like to release the Sheraton hotel, I-365, and Velasquez Gas Station films
Perhaps the footage from all the other external and internal CCTV cameras

"How about the WMD lies? How about 45 minutes to doom? How about Saddam & UBL? "

i've looked into that...and as much as i can
documented it...


 http://www.declarepeace.org.uk/captain/murder_inc/site/spin4war.html
 http://www.declarepeace.org.uk/captain/murder_inc/site/kelly.html
 http://www.declarepeace.org.uk/captain/murder_inc/site/masint.html
 http://www.declarepeace.org.uk/captain/murder_inc/site/huttonresult.html


as for armchair generals [very amusing]

how do you change a fascist government
by
painting your face and chanting peace
taking nice doped up directions from your
G8 cointellpro operations
and walking into Achterada for a set up


any clues?

not allowed to posit a theory

might look like nutter to your mates all
dreaded up white
wiv'
VW camper van attitude

innit

camden is it you live?

why oh why do you draw a line?

why do you want to address the lies
of a government you believe in
when it comes to terror attacks?

?

selective aren't you

or afraid

one of the two

 http://prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/170506reallylook.htm

I wouldn't trust Bush or Blair if they told me crows were black. What I also don't buy is that THOUSANDS of professionals are all in on a conspiracy- virtually every single expert on the planet. Not one has spoken out. It's total nonsense as a hypothesis before we get anywhere near "specifics".

Then we get to problem two. The fact it's easier to fly a plane into a building than it is to fake it. No really, think about it long and hard.

If you really think what you are living under is remotely close to fascism you need to do a bit more reading and a little less weed. Unacceptable yes; fascism no.

Why the hell don't you CT buffs ever consider that just because I disbelieve the claptrap from Jones & Rense that DOES NOT automatically mean I believe/support/adore/vote Bush & Blair.

And I am the witless one; the one unable to look beyond the obvious?

Again. HAHAHAHAHA!

Yes, I'm very selective... of who I believe.

DE-CONSTRUCTING THE SPOOK PLANT
----------------------------------------------------
YOU SAID
Just can't get the staff these days
----------------------------------------------------
[IMPLYING THAT WE ARE UN PROFESSIONAL]

----------------------------------------------------
18.05.2006 08:45
----------------------------------------------------
YOU SAID
I wouldn't trust Bush or Blair if they told me crows were black. What I also don't buy is that THOUSANDS of professionals are all in on a conspiracy- virtually every single expert on the planet. Not one has spoken out.

----------------------------------------------------
AGAIN IMPLYING THAT NO ONE HAS COME FORWARD
AND THAT NO ONE HAS BEEN SHUT UP OR PRESSURED
INTO OBEYING THE PARTY LINE ON FEAR OF RETRIBUTION

THIS IS NOT TRUE

THE PLANET IS BY NATURE AN INTERCONNECTED BIOSPHERE
HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS FORM
AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE MECHANISM OF HOW WE EXIST

INTERCONNECTION IS BY NATURE A CONSPIRACY
WE AGREE TO UNDERSTAND COMMONALITIES
WITHIN LANGUAGE

AND WITHIN DEFINITIONS OF A SHARED SYSTEM

OF CULTURAL VALUES

HOWEVER

THESE CULTURAL VALUES HAVE BECOME
ARCHETYPES WITHIN A MARKETPLACE

AND ARE NOW UTILISED TO
SELL THE CONCEPT
OF FREEDOM VIA A PUBLIC RELATIONS
WHICH IS POLITICISED
---------------------------------------------------


It's total nonsense as a hypothesis before we get anywhere near "specifics".


WHAT SPECIFICS ARE YOU REFERRING TO?
THE ONES GIVEN TO US BY EXPERTS
PAID UP MEMBERS OF THE BUSH JUNTA
THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX
THE CORPORATE STATE?

LIKE 777
WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?

ID CARDS FOUND IN WRECKAGE
KORANS FOUND IN CARS
FLIGHT MANUALS FOUND IN CARS


DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT
SOMEONE CAN LEARN TO FLY A JET LINER

AND HAVE TO KEEP REFERRING TO THE MANUAL?

I'D SAY YOU HAVE TO PRETTY MUCH KNOW YOUR STUFF
EVEN IF YOU ARE A HIJACKER

BECAUSE IN THE EVENT OF AN ACCIDENT WHILE HIJACKING IT
THE PLANE COULD CRASH PREMATURELY
AND THE MISSION, WITH ALL ITS METICULOUS
PLANNING AND FUNDING
WOULD BE OVER
------------------------------------------------------------------------



YOU SAID
Then we get to problem two. The fact it's easier to fly a plane into a building than it is to fake it. No really, think about it long and hard.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
NO ONE HAS SAID ANYTHING ABOUT FAKERY

ALTHOUGH:
 http://www.declarepeace.org.uk/captain/murder_inc/site/911videolie.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------

SOME 911
POSSIBILITIES:
-----------------------------------------
WTC
-----------------------------------------
HIJACK PLANES
AND FLY THEM INTO BUILDINGS

REMOTE ACCESS DEMOLITION

REMOTE CONTROLLED AIRCRAFT
HIJACKED VIA HACKED REMOTE ACCESS
UTILIZING SATELLITE BASED
DRONE TECHNOLOGY WHICH HAS
BEEN IN PLACE SINCE AT LEAST 1997


PLANE SWAP...
[SEE BELOW]
-----------------------------------------
PRETEXTS TO JUSTIFY US MILITARY INTERVENTION IN CUBA
-----------------------------------------
(Note: The courses of action which follow are a preliminary submission suitable only for planning purposes: They are arranged neither chronologically nor in ascending order. Together with similar inputs from other agencies, they are intended to provide a point of departure for the development of a single, integrated, time-phased plan. Such a plan would permit the evaluation of individual projects within the context of cumulative, correlated actions designed to lead inexorably to the objective of adequate justification for US military intervention in Cuba).

1. Since it would seem desirable to use legitimate provocation as the basis for US military intervention in Cuba a cover and deception plan, to include requisite preliminary actions such as has been developed in response to Task 33 c, could be executed as an initial effort to provoke Cuban reactions. Harassment plus deceptive actions to convince the Cubans of imminent invasion would be emphasized. Our military posture throughout execution of the plan will allow a rapid change from exercise to intervention if Cuban response justifies.


2. A series of well coordinated incidents will be planned to take place in and around Guantanamo to give genuine appearance of being done by hostile Cuban forces.


[snip]

8. It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner en route from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.


a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.


b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled, to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will being transmitting on the international distress frequency a "MAY DAY" message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO radio stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the US what has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to " sell" the incident.

 http://cryptome.org/jcs-corrupt.htm



-----------------------------------------
PETANGON
-----------------------------------------
HIJACK PLANES
AND FLY THEM

MISSILE?
SMALLER PLANE OR DRONE?

BOMB IN BUILDING

REMOTE ACCESS DEMOLITION

-------------------------------------------------------
YOU SAID
If you really think what you are living under is remotely close to fascism you need to do a bit more reading and a little less weed. Unacceptable yes; fascism no.

-------------------------------------------------------


A 'MANAGED DEMOCRACY' IS
NOT DEMOCRACY
UN-DEMOCRACY IS FASCISM
PLAIN & SIMPLE

WHILE ONE REMAINS IN PRISON WE ALL REMAIN IN PRISON

THEY ARE BUILDING A PRISON FOR YOU & ME
AROUND THEIR PROSPERITY

A WALL - A SEPARATION BARRIER - AN E-BORDER

ALL SET IN PLACE AND MANAGED
BY A CORPORATE ENTITY

WAKE UP!
------------------------------------------------------------------
Why the hell don't you CT buffs ever consider that just because I disbelieve the claptrap from Jones & Rense that DOES NOT automatically mean I believe/support/adore/vote Bush & Blair.
------------------------------------------------------------------

YOU SEEM TO KNOW MORE THAN I DO ABOUT JONES AND RENSE
SHALL WE COMPARE NOTES?
 http://www.declarepeace.org.uk/captain/murder_inc/site/conspiracy.html


ALTHOUGH I TOO HAVE EXAMINED THESE PEOPLE
I WONT USE THEIR OUTPUT TO PUT OTHERS DOWN

YOU HOWEVER SEEM TO ENJOY USING
THAT PARTICULAR TRANSPARENCY
------------------------------------------------------------------



And I am the witless one; the one unable to look beyond the obvious?

Again. HAHAHAHAHA!

Yes, I'm very selective... of who I believe.

------------------------------------------------------------------

YOU DELUDING YOURSELF

THE INTERNET IS AN UPDATABLE MALLEABLE
ELECTRONIC LIBRARY

I WOULD LOVE TO SEE A LIST OF BOOKS
THAT YOU WOULD CENSOR FROM YOUR LIBRARY



Spook Plant

INDEED

Don't think for a moment that I'm an apologist for the bush/blair regime. I know as well as anyone that 9/11 was a heaven sent excuse for those butchers to go invading Arab countries in order to steal their oil. I would never claim to know the answers to all the questions on these major events. However I have a scientific background and what really winds me up is hearing idiotic science-phobic hippies who couldn't even join two wires together, spouting all sorts of pseudo science to offer their own warped explanation of major world disasters that their paranoid minds just can't handle.

"Firstly, I'm not sure we saw 200 metres a second when the planes hit the Twin Towers."
What on earth do you mean by that? Do you have the experience to judge those sorts of speeds just by looking at them? If the planes had been going appreciably slower, they would have dropped out of the sky before hitting their targets - it's called stalling - look it up. If they had been going appreciably faster - well they couldn't have physically unless they were in a steep dive - which all the real time footage shows - they were in approximately level flight.

"Did the plane take half a second to go through reinforced concrete."
Easily less than that. Have you ever seen those high speed films of a bullet hitting a solid target at several hundred MPH? A plane is a bullet but just larger. It's all over in milliseconds. The wings contain nearly all of a plane's fuel but are also fairly flimsy fore to aft. The fuel in them would have exploded as soon as they contacted the wall. They are also made of thin duralumin just like the main fuselage is. Once burning, dural burns so fiercely that it can't be put out with water so hardly surprising that there may have been little trace of the wings left afterwards. The fuselage itself clearly did penetrate the wall and being very thin skinned would also have been crushed massively like a concertina - possibly to less than a quarter of its original length. I/we don't know to what distance it penetrated, but you can be sure that any stump sticking out would have quickly burned away like the wings to aluminium oxide dust while enveloped by the fireball. You need to remember that the vast majority of plane crashes occur when they make a glancing blow into quite soft ground or woodland. This one was fairly unique in that it hit reinforced concrete smack on at about 400MPH. All manner of things outside experts normal experience can happen in such a situation. Solid metal components would likely smash into thousands of small fragments scattered over a wide area.

As for the engines - well the turbines are made of Titanium which also burns once it's hot enough. The turbines also spin at phenomenal speeds and therefore contain a huge level of kinetic energy so are very likely to fracture massively both themselves and the casing. Plane engines being heavy also have a habit of burying themselves quite deeply in any soft ground at crash sites.

So just who says that there were no scrape marks along the ground? It being a grizly crash site, I can't imagine the cops would have allowed too many souvenir hunters in to pick up objects and take photos immediately afterwards. I suspect that as with so many conspiracy theories, one whacko web site has stated - to fit in with what they want to believe - that there were no scrape marks and lo, everyone from then on quotes them as gospel.

Spoke Plant et al

As have been pointed out. Clearly, with people like you around, who of the thousands directly and indirectly involved in 911 would come forward as a whistleblower? But despite the "I'm no conspiracy nut. I believe the official gobbledygook" people like you, they have come forward. But, you didn't know that because Bush hadn't told you. People have been fired for trying to speak out about 911 while FBI translator Sibel Edmunds has had a legal gag on her by former Homeland Security Secretary, John Ashcroft.


 http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-5
May 2001: Clinton Impeachment Lawyer Learns About al-Qaeda Manhattan Attack Warning David Schippers, the House Judiciary Committee’s chief investigator in the Clinton impeachment trial, was hired to represent FBI agent Robert Wright in September 1999 (see August 3, 1999). After 9/11, Schippers will claim that he began privately informing congresspeople about Wright’s investigation into terrorism financing in the US in early 2001, but found little interest (see February-March 2001). Schippers appears to have had different sources than Wright who began telling him about attack warnings. Supposedly, the first warning was based on a secret February 1995 report which stated that bin Laden was planning three attacks on the US: the bombing of a federal building in the heartland of the US, shooting down or blowing up an airplane, and a massive attack in lower Manhattan. Schippers believes the first warning was a prediction of the April 1995 Oklahoma City bombing (see April 19, 1995) and the second was a prediction of the 1996 explosion of TWA Flight 800 (see July 17, 1996-September 1996). In some versions of this warning, the Manhattan attack was meant to be caused by a “dirty bomb” - explosives mixed with radioactive materials - but other accounts described the use of planes as weapons instead. He says one of his sources for this early warning was Yossef Bodansky, director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare. Schippers will claim that his sources continued to uncover further information. The Manhattan warning “had started out just a general threat, but they narrowed it and narrowed it, more and more with time,” until the “same people who came out with the first warning” tell him in May 2001 that “an attack on lower Manhattan is imminent.” Schippers speaks to several FBI agents directly, and hears that “there are [other agents] all over the country who are frustrated and just waiting to come out.” They are frustrated by “a bureaucratic elite in Washington short-stopping information,” which gives “terrorism a free reign in the United States.” Schippers later claims that some FBI agents later told him that before 9/11, “they had [Mohamed] Atta in their sights.” They also had attempted to “check out” the names and activities of “very strange characters training at flight schools.” He will claim that “FBI agents in Chicago and Minnesota” tell him “there [is] going to be an attack on lower Manhattan.” Schippers will later claim that he will attempt to contact Attorney General John Ashcroft and other politicians about this warning in coming months, but that they will show little interest (see July-Late August 2001). [Indianapolis Star, 6/18/2002; WorldNetDaily, 11/21/2001; Ahmed, 2004]

If you have a "sciebntific background", then you should know that the Conspiracy Theory fed to us by known LIARS, War Criminals, Radical Ideologues (www.newamericancentury.org), and Psychopaths (www.hare.com) violates several Natural Laws, the Law of Momentum, and Occam's Razor.

All we need now is the rest of the still-absent, compelling and key pieces of independently-originating and verifiable evidence which would exist if the "Let us kill Arabs with impunity, as planned (www.newamericancentury.org) ..." Conspiracy Theory doled out by the "Saddam has nukes!!" guys were true, stuff like the airport surveillance video, which would show "ze terrorists" boarding the planes, if they ever did ...

Do you CT loons attend courses on knee-jerk accussations or is a general failure to understand English symptomatic of paranoid delusions.

How many times do we have to say thet we think Bush & Blair AND Jones & Rense are bare-faced liars?

I'm aware of Schippers, as I am also aware of something very stinky under the rug regarding intel in the run up to 9/11. What I am not aware of is how any of the credible whistleblowing relates to the unfounded fantasies regarding demolitions, missles, thermite, Mossad etc etc etc.

The difference is people like us see there are questions unanswered and that we need a powerful independent investigation for them to be answered, but, people like you think you have found all the answers based on no credible evidence whatsoever. Furthermore, your answers make bugger all sense in the real world.

9/11 Truth is stupid. It has no evidence.

If you can't be bothered hitting the caps lock and forming proper paragraphs; I can't be bothered trying to read.

I doubt I'll miss anything important anyway judging by your nutty website.

Go do something useful. Your heart is inthe right place even if your head isn't.

actually

oh spooky witless one

your jibes and attacks only enable us to get
important info out into the open

it's not important that YOU oh spook per se read anything

just that others open their eyes and
their minds to a possibility or two

the psyops operations
that spooks and trolls engage in
only help in the end

thanks spooky!

Hi 6!

Good luck with your complete waste of time then. Given that 9/11 Truth has absolutely no material evidence, no corroborated confessions, no forensic evidence, no documentary and no witnesses, it's never going to achieve anything.

People will get very bored of it as soon as they suss that nothing can ever come of a case with no evidence.

"Spook Plant" says there is no evidence... this is absurd!

What about the inexplicable structual failure of WTC7? See:  http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/ for a detailed look at 7 World Trade Centre.

Even the US government investigators have admitted that they "had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7."  http://newyorkmetro.com/news/features/16464/index6.html

"The Twin Towers and WTC 7 are the only known cases of total structural collapse where fires played a significant role."

Who said that? Some conspiraloon nutter? No, Dr. Bement from NIST:  http://www.nist.gov/testimony/2002/abwtc2.html

What about the structual failure of the Twin Towers and Steven Jones's paper:  http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html and his presentation:  http://www.archive.org/details/byu_jones_911

Steven Jones cites numerous sources for evidence, but of course none of this means anything to "Spook Plant" because the government never lies, war is good, capitalism is the only answer...

"Spook Plant" would no doubt claim that the official Commision Report has all the truth people need... but in reality is has virtually none, David Ray Griffin does a fine job of demolising it in his book -- The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, you can see a presentation of this here:  http://www.archive.org/details/drgriffin and in this he claims that he can't find a single paragraph that is true in the official report...

It's clear for anyone with any ability for critical thinking that "Spook Plant" is talking crap...

People should make their own minds up -- check out the things linked to above and see what you think...

Great resources, "hemp". Good lookin' out.

"Do you CT loons attend courses on knee-jerk accussations ..."

Do you Plants all get the same baseline training in Disinformation, or are you all just the same guy?

"How many times do we have to say thet we think ..."

I don't care. Bush and Bliar have been proven to be LIARS. The rest is just your empty, over-repeated accusations. I don't know if you single out these two in order to make the 911 Truth Movement appear smaller and less diverse than it is, or you're simpy obsessed, but if you plan to continue, perhaps some support would be nice for a change. You're always harp-ing about "evidence", so how about living up to your own demands?

"What I am not aware of is how any of the credible whistleblowing relates to the unfounded fantasies regarding demolitions, missles, thermite, Mossad etc etc etc."

It may not, but those accusations are neither unfounded nor fantasies. There is a wealth of documentation and inconsistencies which make them compelling (yet unanswered) questions.

"The difference is people like us see there are questions unanswered and that we need a powerful independent investigation for them to be answered"

But you don't want ALL the questions being answered. You want to begin with a Conclusion.

"based on no credible evidence whatsoever."

Um ... That's what the Investigation part is all about ...

"9/11 Truth is stupid. It has no evidence."

Right, but you obviously feel compelled to make this same comment over and over and over and over and ... Who you trying to convince?

The fact remains that there has been no compelling evidence to support the Official Conspiracy Theory. In nearly five years. If the evidence existed, the Bush/PNAC Fascists would have held it out long ago.

Steve Jones isn't qualified to write on structural engineering.

Absolutely NO ENGINEERS back up the conspiratorial fantasy about 9/11. On the contrary, they have utterly debunked any theories:

Where can I find engineering studies concerning the World Trade Center that refute the claims that it was demolished by bombs or “controlled demolition?”
 http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_execsum.pdf
 http://wtc.nist.gov/media/Structural_Fire_Response_and_Collapse_Analysis.pdf
 http://www.firehouse.com/news/2002/4/30_APwtc.html

Where can I find engineering studies that offer evidence that structural steel from the World Trade Center was collected for analysis?
 http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery.htm#recover
 http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery2.htm
 http://wtc.nist.gov/media/Structural_Fire_Response_and_Collapse_Analysis.pdf
 http://members.fortunecity.com/911/wtc/WTC_apndxD.htm

Where can I find evidence that refutes the claim that World Trade Center Building 7 was “pulled” down intentionally by some official order?
 http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html

Where can I find engineering studies concerning the Pentagon that refute the claims that it was hit by a guided missile?
 http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/WTC/pentagon.php
 http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase1/
 http://www.asce.org/responds/

More information:
 http://architecture.about.com/library/weekly/aawtc-collapse.htm
 http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/wtc.php
 http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/WTC/structure.php
 http://enr.construction.com/news/buildings/archives/021104.asp
 http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/
 http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/WTC/Fire.html
 http://www.asce.org/pdf/3-6-02wtc_testimony.pdf
 http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
 http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc.php#why
 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/resources.html
 http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/
More links to real engineers refuting conspiracy theorists:

 http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
 http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc.php
 http://space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/wtc_science_010919.html
 http://www.teachersdomain.org/6-8/sci/engin/systems/collapse/
 http://mcleon.tripod.com/WTC1.htm
 http://www.hera.org.nz/PDF Files/World Trade Centre.pdf

___

Yup make your own minds up people. But at least look at both sides of the argument.

By the way, all this "beleiving the official version" kiddy slagging is just dull. The world is bigger than just your binary absolutist concpets.

"It may not, but those accusations are neither unfounded nor fantasies. There is a wealth of documentation and inconsistencies which make them compelling (yet unanswered) questions."

I have been asking for you to cough this stuff up many times and you just mysteriously disappear. Where is it? Is it as dodgy as your mindbending interpretation of 'Iraq Options'? Total sophistry.

Just because I examine these theories and proclaim they are not founded on any evidential data and just total speculation doesn't mean to say I'm starting with a conclusion.

I really am totally open to be proven wrong on anything. But proof is more than "I think..." or "Some guy thinks..." Proof is rooted in the empirical study of data, in forensics, in confessions, in statements that can be corroborated with data.

Anything else is just a leap of faith/prejudice.

So far all I can see is proof that something wrong happened with pre-9/11 intel. There's a case for proper investigation of why that happened and why certain things were ignored, but over above that I can't find anything stronger than a new born lamb evidentially.

Do I think the PNAC people are capable of mass murder? Yes, Iraq has proved they are. But what I think and the facts of Iraq are no proof of anything else whatsoever. Which is the same reasoning that someone's previous criminal record should never an issue in a cort case. It has no actual bearing.

Do I think a sprawling conspiracy of the CIA/FBI/MI5/FDNY/NYPD/NIST etc etc etc is involved. No. Because it's logistically absurd to even contemplate. They can't even keep a lid on the NSA snooping or the Downing Street documents let alone something as vast as 9/11. Again, my suspicions inform nothing and if someone can present evidence to the contrary I'm open to it. But a handful of daft conspiracy sites doesn't constitue proof- no matter how PREdisposed you are to the plausibility of the theories. The truth is you can spit through them.

As for the rest of your gibberish. Grow up or shut up!

The fact remains that there has been no compelling evidence to support the Official Conspiracy Theory. In nearly five years. If the evidence existed, the Bush/PNAC Fascists would have held it out long ago.

If you happen to come across it, then by all means, share with the class.

If not, I would expect that you'll support the calls for a real investigation, to determine just what happened, and who was responsible.

It would be a shame if we allowed people to profit, if they were involved, or directed our anger and violence at the wrong people ...

That'll be another admission you were talking keech then.

Jordan the anti-semite liar runs away when challenged for evidence.

Windbag defamer.