Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Motives and Means

In answer to Russell, the Office of Naval Intelligence was the only occupant of the re-furbished Pentagon Wing. See link below.

Here's the most comprehensive report I've seen yet to justify 9/11 as an inside job, and thankfully ties in the criminality of former CIA Director G. H. W. Bush as both Vice President (to clueless Reagan) and President.


"[N]ot only were the buildings targets, but ... specific offices within each building were the designated targets. ... [T]he attacks of September 11th were intended to cover-up the clearing of $240 billion dollars in securities covertly created in September 1991 to fund a covert economic war against the Soviet Union, during which 'unknown' western investors bought up much of the Soviet industry, with a focus on oil and gas. The attacks of September 11th also served to derail multiple Federal investigations away from crimes associated with the 1991 covert operation.
~ E. P. Heidner

The above explains motives. Below, we have evidence of the perpetrator's means.

NIST's Final Report on WTC-7 divides the first 18 stories of collapse into 3 stages. Stage 2 fell 8 stories or 100+ feet at "gravitational acceleration."

The ramifications of free-fall in any stage of collapse in any of the WTC buildings is additional energy sources (like explosives) had to be planted. Therefore the circle of 9/11 conspirators was much larger than 19 hijackers sitting in airplanes and included insiders.

The lack of an explanation for the breaking the laws of physics is admittedly but one piece of evidence of a crime, but it is a glaring one and one that can't be easily covered up by political appointees and discussion thread instigators.

This single free-fall feature brings awareness to the lies, cracks open the door in our nation's collective disbelief, and shuts down the coincidence theorists, who with the eagerness of those cashing government paychecks all too vocally & viciously lump everything about 9/11 -- including the advertising, the lead-up, the execution, the cover-up, and the distasteful follow-up -- as just "unfortunate coincidences."

For further information into this high school physics, http://www.youtube.com/ae911truth

"Perhaps the greatest fantasy of the present moment is that there is a choice here. We can look forward or backward, turn the page on history or not. Don't believe it. History matters."
~ Tom Engelhardt

"Truth, through her eternal laws, unveils error. Truth causes sin to betray itself... Even the disposition to excuse guilt or to conceal it is punished. The avoidance of justice and the denial of truth tend to perpetuate sin, invoke crime, jeopardize self-control, and mock divine mercy."
~ Mary Baker Eddy (ca. 1865)

Sunday, September 13, 2009

Moral bubbles that need to be burst

Caleb emotionally wrote:

If in deed the Govt. were to be responsible for 911, then at some point there had to be a conversation between the president, and others that included what planes where to be used to crash into the towers.

One pary, "whoever", would suggest that the oh say fedex cargo planes be used to crash into the buildings and create the coverup. They would be easier to hijack, contain more fuel and serve the purpose. There would even be less chance of identification from a private airport.

Another person would have had to have said, No, I want to see planes filled with innocent men, women, and children crashed into the towers.

You see, I can't, and will never believe that conversation existed, It would be such a change in what would ultimately become a minor detail of 911 that the only reason for it would be a muderous lust for human blood. There could be no other excuse to use planes full of people.

What part of the conversation can't you believe? Before I poke a hole in the moral bubble you seem to have placed around the Bush Administration, allow me to take a detour into Iraq.

If we take the Bush Administration's statements and arguments at face value regarding the justification for invasion of Iraq, they would have us believe that Saddam not only had chemical and other weapons of mass destruction, but was prepared to use them on us. Therefore, in pre-emptive retaliation, the Bush Administration was prepared to march tens of thousands of U.S. service personnel directly into the resulting deadly chemical cloud, whose casualties could be calculated in numbers easily far greater than the civilian loss on 9/11.

Worse, the PNAC members who in great numbers later wielded influential positions in the Bush Administration had been lobbying (Clinton) for a long time for the U.S. to invade Iraq and listed in their "Rebuilding America's Defenses" document Iraq's dangers, a desire for a permanent military presence in the Middle East, and the value of a New Pearl Harbor to usher in speedily the military changes they desired.

The point is, this very group had already thought about sending great numbers of U.S. personnel into the chemical jaws of harm's way before they stole an election. So clearly, what are a few more civilian casualties to tie a national emotional bow around their endeavors? This is prick one into their fabled moral bubble.

Prick two is that there is little moral difference between flying a Fed Ex plane into a building and flying a civilian plane, because the attacks were planned for a time of day with the buildings were occupied. Civilians on the ground were going to be sacrificed anyway. What's a few more sitting in passenger seats?

Prick three is for you to Google "Operation Norwood" that was a (rejected) proposal during the JFK administration, but proof that such conversations you fear do regularly take place and were happening prior to 9/11.

Prick four is that there were at least four military exercises taking place on 9/11 (under the command of Vice-President Cheney) that most coincidentally were practicing the very types of hijacking scenarios that the true events of 9/11 turned out to be. Because they were practicing it, you can't very well say that they never thought about, never discussed it, and never acted on it [which the leader of the opposing forces in the military game did.]

I will spare you the Alice-in-Wonderland rabbit hole about no-planes (Google "September Clues") due to my own waffling on the matter. But if your argument about morals in the Bush Administration were valid and how commercial passenger planes could not be used due to its distasteful "murderous lust for human blood," it would be another straw for co-opting corporate media and faking the airplane crashes.

Caleb wrote:

There is a line drawn in the sand at some point where we recoil and say that a thing is so beyond comprehension that it could not have ever happened. And at some point we also recoil from persons who can believe these things. Persons who have a thought pattern so alien from our own that we simply can not listen to them.

Exactly. But some of the dots you are personally not connecting include the line that the very same 9/11 suspects re-drew in our moral sands regarding torture, detention without trials, and remotely flown Predator drones raining down hell-fire on Afghani, Iraqi, and Pakistani civilians.

Whereas you may have morals, don't project your same values on those particular leaders, because they regularly proved their ability to give lip-service to such standards, but their true actions contradicted that.

A final prick to your moral bubble is to assume that only those who swallow the government's coincidence theories on 9/11 and acted in bloody vengence on at least two innocent countries as a result are honoring the 3000 people who died that morning. Were their spirits talking to us through this forum, I'm sure they'd be applauding the 9/11 Truth Movement and cheering both its patriotism and [name your religion here, like] Christianity in speaking Truth to lies.

"Though error hides behind a lie and excuses guilt, error cannot forever be concealed. Truth, through her eternal laws, unveils error. Truth causes sin to betray itself, and sets upon error the mark of the beast. Even the disposition to excuse guilt or to conceal it is punished. The avoidance of justice and the denial of truth tend to perpetuate sin, invoke crime, jeopardize self-control, and mock divine mercy."
~ Mary Baker Eddy (ca. 1865)

Friday, September 11, 2009

I've answered your hypothetical, now you answer mine.

Here is how you answer a hypothetical. You state up front "for the sake of discussion" and "assuming this, that, and the other thing", and then you proceed to think outside your normal narrow-minded box, put yourself into an unfamiliar point-of-view, and simply answer the question to the best of your ability.

As part of his own non-answer to my question (which to him would have been a hypothetical), EncinoM throws out his own hypothetical regarding the difficulty of wiring buildings for demolition.

Here's how I'll answer EncinoM:

In going into the details of building occupancy, security, challenges of rigging the building for demolition, etc., your hypothetical seems to make many assumptions regarding the perpetrators and the demolition methods available. Everything you mentioned would indeed be a near insurmountable challenge for an outsider, not to mention a foreigner (from Afghani caves who then died in a jet crash).

Think outside the box.

  • IF the true perpetrators weren't outsiders but were insiders,
  • IF they were building tenants (like the CIA, not a hypothetical),
  • IF they had influential ties on the board of directors of the companies running security details,
  • IF they had been planning and working on this a long time,
  • IF they had deep pockets with respect paying for (outsourced) experts and non-conventional demolition methods,

THEN everything you bring up in your hypothetical is a, *ho-hum*, minor inconvenience: something to think about, plan for, and implement on the graveyard shift under the guise of housecleaning or maintenance when few would notice or care. Nothing more.

Case in point, nano-thermite explosives, as is being suggested now, was not something necessarily that bomb sniffing dogs would catch. Wireless technology may be more expensive, but solves a good portion not only of the rigging issue, but also of tell-tale wiring remnants in the debris pile. Some believe that certain floors were targeted, therefore rigging withstanding jet impacts did not have to be an issue.

Tons of explosive material? True with conventional demolition methods, but easily solved with extended preparation time or large crew sizes, or both. Is it true with non-conventional demolition methods? Doesn't matter except that if false, then prep times or crew sizes can be reduced.

There, I've addressed your hypothetical question. Now you answer my (not so hypothetical) question:

"What are the ramifications of free-fall in any stage of collapse in any of the buildings destroyed on 9/11 both in the context local to the event and in the greater context of geo-political concerns?"

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

Panic about PNAC and your inefficient quote-mining and poor reading comprehension

GuitarBill laments in his quote-mining:

Source: PNAC: Rebuilding America's Defenses.

So, the report states that integrating information technologies into the military will take a long period of time, unless an unexpected attack reveals our technological inferiority, in the same way Pearl Harbor led to the huge expansion of our Navy.

Not one word of the report urges regime change in Iraq, or anywhere else, for that matter.

Wrong, GuiltyBilly. Your quote-mining didn't snag enough content.

* PNAC saw Iraq (South Korea, and Iran) as a threat for acquiring ballistic missiles.

* PNAC wanted to project American force into the Gulf region with permanent military bases regardless of Saddam Hussein's regime, but that the unresolved Iraqi conflict provided immediate justification.

* PNAC wanted to transform the military with respect to global missile defenses, control of space and cyberspace, and conventional forces (like using contractors and mercenaries). However, such change to the military would not happen quickly without a catalyst and needed to occur within the larger framework of U.S. national security strategies.

Connect the freakin' dots. With 9/11 as the catalyst, PNAC (who by then had become influential members of the Bush Administration) could and did achieve its shopping list.

Ooops, GuitarBill. Looks like your disinformation campaign took another downward turn, because how the military exhibited its control of cyberspace as part of the wishlist is something for us all on AlterNet to consider... and certainly for us to connect the dots with you.

If outer space represents an emerging medium of warfare, then “cyberspace,” and in particular the Internet hold similar promise and threat. And as with space, access to and use of cyberspace and the Internet are emerging elements in global commerce, politics and power. Any nation wishing to assert itself globally must take account of this other new “global commons.”

The Internet is also playing an increasingly important role in warfare and human political conflict. From the early use of the Internet by Zapatista insurgents in Mexico to the war in Kosovo, communication by computer has added a new dimension to warfare.

Here is his link again plus expanded sections from the document.

From PNAC: Rebuilding America's Defenses.

Section III REPOSITIONING TODAY'S FORCE states (emphasis added):

The current American peace will be short-lived if the United States becomes vulnerable to rogue powers with small, inexpensive arsenals of ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads or other weapons of mass destruction. We cannot allow North Korea, Iran, Iraq or similar states to undermine American leadership, intimidate American allies or threaten the American homeland itself.


The presence of American forces in critical regions around the world is the visible expression of the extent of America's status as a superpower and as the guarantor of liberty, peace and stability. Our role in shaping the peacetime security environment is an essential one, not to be renounced without great cost: it will be difficult, if not impossible, to sustain the role of global guarantor without a substantial overseas presence. ... Whether established in permanent bases or on rotational deployments, the operations of U.S. and allied forces abroad provide the first line of defense of what may be described as the "American security perimeter."

Since the collapse of the Soviet empire, this perimeter has expanded slowly but inexorably. ... In the Persian Gulf region, the presence of American forces, along with British and French units, has become a semipermanent fact of life. Though the immediate mission of those forces is to enforce the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq, they represent the long-term commitment of the United States and its major allies to a region of vital importance. Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.

And Section V CREATING TOMORROW'S DOMINANT FORCE states (emphasis added):

To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs. Information technologies, in particular, are becoming more prevalent and significant components of modern military systems. These information technologies are having the same kind of transforming effects on military affairs as they are having in the larger world. The effects of this military transformation will have profound implications for how wars are fought, what kinds of weapons will dominate the battlefield and, inevitably, which nations enjoy military preeminence.


Any serious effort at transformation must occur within the larger framework of U.S. national security strategy, military missions and defense budgets. ... A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence, would be at odds with larger American policy goals and would trouble American allies.

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions.

In general, to maintain American military preeminence that is consistent with the requirements of a strategy of American global leadership, tomorrow's U.S. armed forces must meet three new missions:

* Global missile defenses. ...

* Control of space and cyberspace. Much as control of the high seas - and the protection of international commerce - defined global powers in the past, so will control of the new "international commons" be a key to world power in the future. An America incapable of protecting its interests or that of its allies in space or the "infosphere" will find it difficult to exert global political leadership.

* Pursuing a two-stage strategy for of transforming conventional forces. ... This process must take a competitive approach, with services and joint-service operations competing for new roles and missions.

Tuesday, September 8, 2009

The WTC 7 did too fall at free fall rates.

Here's GuitarBill trying to get out of a speeding ticket.


Officer: Do you know how fast you were going?

GB: Look, Officer. I have right here a receipt from McDonalds in town X with a time stamp of exactly 1 hour ago. Town X is 60 miles from here on this interstate highway. Therefore, I was only going 60 miles an hour.

Officer: Is that your final answer, because I was on your bumper going 90 for at least a quarter mile before you noticed me?

GB: This receipt proves it.

Officer: Okay, I'll be happy to take that receipt as evidence.

GB: Hey, how come you're still writing me up a ticket?

Officer: Several actually. Between here and town X are four construction zones each about 5 miles long and each with reduced speed limits of 30 mph. So, driving 60 miles an hour as you claim, then you've got four tickets with fines doubled for speeding through those four construction zones...

GB: I didn't speed through those zones.

Officer: In which case to make up the time to travel this distance in an hour, you'd have to travel 120 mph in the five non-construction zone areas. Should have shut up when you had the chance of a single 90 mph speeding ticket. What do you know? With this handy receipt, I can work the numbers that has you speeding both in construction and non-construction zones. Let's run the numbers on the speeds to maximize my police department's revenue.


So here we have the evidence, not just of 9/11 being an inside job, but of you, dear Mr. Bill -- Oh, No! Mr. Bill!!! -- being a liar and 9/11 government troll paid to spread disinformation.

Why didn't you copy-and-paste the quote I asked you to? You did it all the time before. Was it because that's the smoking gun that your disinformation handlers no longer allow you to bring up because you've screwed the pooch on it?

And why didn't you answer the questions?

Why couldn't you step out of your little iddy-biddy box to consider the questions about the ramifications of free-fall in WTC-7 and in the overall political context of 9/11 even as a hypothetical? How many times have I asked you?

Just like apologies aren't in your vocabulary, neither are deviations from the NWO talking points.

Why didn't NIST label the collapse of the east penthouse Stage 0A and Stage 0B? [Stage 0A was penthouse (1 story) that fell at gravitational acceleration and was followed by a long Stage 0B where nothing was observed falling on the external structure.] Or if they were so important and would have given such a really long collapse time, why weren't all stages re-indexed with the east penthouse becoming Stage 1?

Because NIST didn't want to point out that the very first stage high up in the building far from any fires fell for no reason and in free-fall. They didn't want to highlight the penthouse at all, because in any other recorded controlled demolition, collapsing penthouses in the earliest of stages followed by a lull (Stage 0B) is an indication of explosives taking out underlying infrastructure.

Geez, NIST had it bad enough that the three stages they did identify had stage 2 glaring at them with 8 stories of free-fall. Why couldn't you stick with their weasel-words that said the first 18 stories of collapse (not including the penthouse) happened at 40% greater than gravitational acceleration?

So, Mr. Bill, you're wandering off script and into stupid waters with the east penthouse.

I'll concede that your math might be correct, but your conclusions and analysis are purposely misleading, false, and meaningless. You prove yourself the liar.

Friday, September 4, 2009

Proof of the disinformation warrior's performance objectives...

I made the following comment in a posting on Sep 3, 2009 12:36 PM.

"From what anyone can easily observe in the time stamps of the postings, the government disinformation trolls must have a line item in their performance evaluations to "respond to targeted themes or posters within a 1/2 hour if possible." You can tell when GuitarBill starts getting overwhelmed, because his content gets reduced to an insulting subject line and a body with repeated copy-and-paste info (e.g., talking points) and lame links aimed at debunking 9/11 truth."

And what do we observe not even 10 minutes later, Posted by GuitarBill on Sep 3, 2009 12:46 PM:

"Well, if it isn't Max, the "no planer" nut. So how's insanity treating you, Max? Still working with your lunatic buddy, Dr. Judy Wood, on that star wars conspiranoid theory? Really Max, how's insanity treating you? Nutter."

I rest my case.

Notice how GuitarBill wastes no time in libeling me right from the subject. Notice how he attempts to associate me with fringe elements of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Let the record show that GuitarBill went into 9/11 first even before his lame signature links.

Stage 2 documented in NIST's Final Report on WTC-7 is sufficient to convince anyone on the planet who had high school physics (or more) that 9/11 was an inside job. NIST admits that 8 stories (>100 feet) of WTC-7 fell in 2.5 seconds at gravitational acceleration. How the building's infrastructure suddenly transition from support (even if weakened) to nothing over those 8 floors is the glaring hole in the official 9/11 fairy-tale that the likes of GuitarBill defends, because short of Allah circumventing his own laws of the universe, it means that another energy source (ala explosives) was present to remove the material over 8 stories to affect that observable and recorded freefall.

We don't need to go any further down this rabbit hole, but as long as you bring up no planes (ala Google "September Clues") and Dr. Judy Wood, there is something to be said about their analysis, which does not take away from NIST's admission of WTC-7 freefall, and which has merit to those earnest and honest seekers of truth.

GuitarBill, if you've truly had three years of college physics, then surely your review of Dr. Wood's evidence would show where her conclusions have merit. I have seen the pictures of very suspicious burned out cars in the vicinity of the towers that were not hit by burning falling debris. [This would have been covered in the electromagnetic fields and waves portion of your education.]

I don't rule out nano-thermite, cruise missiles, unconventional (nuclear) weapons, or the psychological operation of fake airplanes foisted on us by corporate media. They do not have to be mutually exclusive. From what well research supposition I have read into the motives of insiders for 9/11, the perpetrators had very deep pockets and were hell-bent on making it happen to the point of:

- stealing an election to get into power. - contracting with Mossad to garner plausible deniability. - staging multiple confusing wargames. - implementing overkill in the destruction (can you say, pulverization? freefall? Coincidences?) - covering-up for their misdeeds (like letting captured Israeli's and bin Laden family members to leave after 9/11) - distracting from their misdeeds with patriotic military actions.

Collateral Damage of 9/11 (PDF)

"[T]he attacks of September 11th were intended to cover-up the clearing of $240 billion dollars in securities [and] also served to derail multiple Federal investigations away from crimes.
~ E. P. Heidner