[9/11 Advice] To the brave truth-sayers and honest seekers for truth

Eventually your under-the-radar 9/11 truth postings will come to the attention of the Disinformationalist Warriors who are assigned to monitor this liberal and alternative discussion forum.

Learn from my experiences creating "Hey-Suess Chronicles Volume 3: Semaphore for Truth", which documents my side of similar battles in this forum probably against the very same opponents you will face.

• Write for posterity... d-r-o-p __ b-y __ d-r-o-p.
• Write well so that it is a worthy record for future database archeologists to discover and to cherish that our age had true patriots and [name your religion here, like] Christians.
• Write first off-line and save the drops yourself, because why leave your precious words to the whims of someone else's database?
• Don't be afraid to save the file as revision A so that you have it, but in revision B based on A, you edit out the detours into ad hominem and the like.
• When you are attacked with libel, slander, and smear, your best course of action is always to ignore it. Failing that, take the highroad.
• When it persists, an alternative is to embrace it, like this example of being called a "compulsive liar." Gave me the freedom to put the [CompulsiveLiar] tag in my subject lines: [CompulsiveLiar] The Lie is that I am Lying.. After all, those who speak truth are not afraid to have their words verified.
• Thank your attackers for being Semaphores for Truth, not for their words, but those of the postings they attack and flag.

I'm just another Blues Brother on a mission from God. My directives concerning 9/11 Truth were clear. "Feed my sheep."

Ironic: 9/11 Disinfo EncinoM gets debunked by GuitarBill and NIST about free-fall

EncinoM's typo-infested first paragraph said (sic):

"Still defendign the debunked free fall myth, I know its the only myth he you last to prove that you are not crazy and the Griffin & Co. were not leading you by the nose, while ripping you off."

The myth of 9/11 free-fall, eh?

Nothing like the sweet irony of having your fellow 9/11 coincidence theorist and disinformation warrior debunk you.

Quote mining the NIST Report again?
Posted by: GuitarBill on Aug 3, 2009 2:21 PM

You can read the money-quote directly from the NIST report:

"[2] In stage 2, the North face descended at gravitational acceleration as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the North face. The free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 meters (105 feet), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 and t= 4.0 seconds."

EncinoM, if you have an issue with free-fall during the collapse of WTC-7, then your issue is with NIST. Take it up with them.

And take it up with a significant amount of video evidence that any high school physics student can calibrate and calculate into revealing free-fall. Refer to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

Now as for your misdirecting comment:

"First, you do not see the entire collapse in any of the videos, you do not see the damage on the opposite side and more importantly you do not hear an explosion. Every other controlled demolition has a very loud, very audible explosion, guess what is missing."

[1] You don't have to see the entire collapse to observe free-fall for a portion of it. That is the smoking gun. Deal with it.

[2] Yes, few people saw the damage on the opposite side, and fewer still made photographs. I didn't see any such photos until very recently.

Let's assume that those photos of damage weren't photoshopped and that the extensive damage was as NIST reported it, to the tune of 30% of the perimeter columns being severed, a huge portion of the side scooped out, and raging fires (?) weakening steel down to 35% its normal strength.

The damage and fires were asymmetric. Neither the fires nor the damage went 100% East-to-West North-to-South on a given floor, much less spanning across 8 floors.

Physics would suggest that if WTC-7 were to collapse, it would lean or topple in an asymmetric fashion into the path of least resistance, either the scooped out area or where the structural steel was weakened the most.

Stage 2 was a SUDDEN transition into negligible support (meaning zero resistance to gravity) across 8 floors resulting in observable, measurable, symmetric free-fall.

[3] Your statements about "every other controlled demolition [having] a very loud audible explosion" is a strawman and true only for "every conventional controlled demolition," This does not have to be true for "non-conventional controlled demolitions" like one using nano-thermite.

Once you entertain the hypothetical of a larger conspiracy, those suspected had the deep pockets and access to technology to practically put those buildings into orbit, which they almost did by pulverizing them into fine powder that drifted up into the atmosphere.

Once you enlarge the circle of conspirators, evidence like the BBC newscast talking about WTC-7's collapse 20 minutes early make more sense.

EncinoM sets the [CompulsiveLiar] crown upon his head

EncinoM, you are a fucking liar. A charlatan. A dirty trickster. EncinoM wrote:

"WTC 7 took 16-18 seconds to come down. You hold on to the 6 second myth, because after everything else has been debunked, all the truth movement has is building 7 and free fall. You discount the begining of the collapse, the NIST report regarding the large areas of damage and gashes in the lower floors and repeat your mantra of free fall."

You lie that I hold to a 6 second myth. The length of time in the overall collapse was never the issue. Use your fucking 16-18 seconds padded with 8.2 seconds of penthouse collapse, or use DECADES as per the Zen standard; I'll fucking support either one.

The fact remains that during whatever time span you use to measure its collapse came the fateful short time period that NIST has documented as Stage 2: 105 feet of gravitational acceleration. The mass of the building fell through 8 stories of its path of greatest resistance with NO FUCKING RESISTANCE (the very definition of free-fall.)

This missive to GuitarBill applies to you now.

A further lie is that I discount both the beginning of the collapse and the large areas of damage and gashes in the lower floors. I don't.

I'm just smart enough to know that in over-designed structures like these steel skyscrapers, such damage (if true) respresented a weakened structure, but NOT ZERO STRUCTURE over the entirety of 8 floors.

EncinoM wrote:

"I sleep soundly, I don;t write to defend lies, but to make sure that the memories of those who died in both OKC and on 9/11 are not tarnished by the snake oil salesmen and the mindless sheep that follow them."

Oh, how touching and patriotic of you. Too bad it is bullshit.

First of all, you do write to defend lies. Doesn't matter what 9/11 issue that concerned citizens have, you always happen to defend the government's more benign version even when it is a proven wrong.

Secondly, the cluster-fuck that is the US invasion of Iraq was sold to us by snake oil salesmen on the very memories of those who died on 9/11. They fucking lied us into it from WMD's to 9/11=Saddam=9/11. And when you scratch the surface of 9/11 before, during, and after, Afghanistan proves to be more snake oil sales from the sames salesmen.

Although things like the the USA PATRIOT Act appear to be knee-jerk reactions, this document was written up and ready for the 9/11 hammer to fall. Bush was violating FISA and spying on us ~before~ 9/11. Bush backed out of the International War Crimes Court from day 1, because they knew that their planned torture of detainees (to get false confessions about 9/11) would put them in violation.

In any event, if you truly believe those words about not letting snake oil salesmen tarnish the memories of those who died in OKC and on 9/11, you better open your fucking eyes and see who the salemen were.

More to the point, you better re-evaluate your performance in the role of a mindless sheep in following and defending such snake oil salesmen.

Are you trying to earn the [CompulsiveLiar] title away from GuitarBill?

I wrote:

"Because as you and GuitarBill prove, attacks on (planted) crack pot theories is a distraction to discredit the whole Truth Movement and the more reasonable and provable theories (like controlled demolition causing WTC-7 stage 2 gravitational acceleration)."

EncinoM responded:

"Bending the truth to fit your talking points."

No bending of truth, just you doing some revisionist history. In order to distract from WTC-7 8 stories (100+ feet) of NIST-documented free-fall, you have repeatedly brought up the overall collapse time of 16/18 seconds (which itself was obtained by the slight-of-hand of including 8.2 seconds of the East Penthouse collapse) just so that you could weasel your way into saying "the collapse did not occur at free fall speed."

EncinoM wrote:

"I am usually go after Griffin and S. Jones and their theories. Are these the crack pots of the truthiness movement that you are talking about? What about Gage, AE Truth and Gage's card board boxes or Loose Change? These are all highly cited to as "evidence"."

First of all, you shouldn't be "going after" anyone. Stick to the theories, thank you very much.

Secondly, it is very telling that your debunking of Gage's 2 hour presentation boils down to a 30-second demonstration (for the physics-challenged) that employs card-board boxes and isn't as far-fetched as you make it seem. Your focus on this makes me doubt that you have even viewed his entire presentation and -- like your parroting of GuitarBill about WTC-7 16/18 seconds of (overall) collapse times -- strikes me as you simply adhering to your government issued talking points.

You go on to erroneously claim:

"No evidence has come forth that supports any of the various MIHOP theories."

Contrary to your delusions, 105 feet of observable free-fall in the collapse of a 47-story building that fell essentially into its own footprint is evidence enough that the government's story is a lie and a new investigation is required.

Until you can acknowledge the fact that free-fall could only have happened with additional (pre-planted) energy sources and therefore insider conspirators with foreknowledge, well... you're obviously in no frame of mind to consider the legion of other anomalies that the government's commissions and agencies have unsatisfactorily answered or outright ignored.

Of course another discussion that could have provided evidence into motive saw you tag-teaming into the realm of discrediting the messenger [anomymous sources not admissable in a court of law] and not the message. I'm still waiting for your analysis.

It isn't that no evidence has come forth. It is that you doggedly refuse to consider it. Coincidence or by employer directive?

EncinoM wrote:

"Your two post were long on words with little substance."

Translation:

I couldn't be bothered to read and understand the whole thing, even though the discussion on this article a day later has dwindled to you and I, and I had more than 33 minutes to ponder a response.

EncinoM wrote:

"[I]t still stands that an individual disgruntled with the government, feed a cancerous philososphy by the militia movement, attacked the federal building in Oklahoma."

Six words expose your subtle lies: an individual... attacked the federal building. And if it wasn't a lie, then it is surely proof that you know next to nothing about OKC (not even what Wiki says) and should probably investigate it more thoroughly with an open-mind, being ready of course to see parallels and connections with 9/11.

Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were the two who were scapegoated. Were you to investigate this, you'd learn that the manure-fed bomb in their U-haul truck was too far away from the federal building and not potent enough to cause the entirety of the observed destruction. Other (unexploded) explosives were found in the building, thereby enlarging the circle of conspirators.

I don't doubt that McVeigh was fed "a cancerous philososphy by the militia movement," but the additional factors you neglect to point out was that the militia movement itself was probably most definitely infiltrated by various government agencies and the feeding may have come from those instigators, who, if recent history is any indication, may have been responsible for supplying the knowledge and means.

EncinoM wrote:

"No matter how much you or Alex Jones wish to put the blame on the US government, the truth still stands."

Indeed. The truth still stands. The US government is not as benign to its citizens in these events as you are directed to defend it.

A personal question for you, EncinoM. I've read that the Predator fighter-jocks working state-side but commanding hell-fire onto Afghani and Iraqi targets suffer worse PTSD than those actually in combat, due to the major transition from stressful hours of real life-and-death (for the opponent) fighting to peaceful home life with wife and kids.

My question for you is how you balance in your mind and beliefs the disinformation that you craftily promote here versus the 9/11 truth that others expose and that your rational & logical self recognizes begrudgingly as true? Surely your belief system must be in internal conflict that you must write and defend lies?

Who provided aide and comfort to homeland enemies? Homeland agencies.

EncinoM wrote:

"LEts be honest the militia movement is not out to protect anyones liberties, but to enforce their desire to see a Christian Nation. They have a perverted view of liberty and the constitution."

You almost had me in 100% agreement with that entire paragraph. What sticks in my craw is the phrase "[they're] not out to protect anyone's liberties." I disagree, because at the very least, they are protecting their own liberties, and in doing so, are protecting mine.

But hey, in being honest about the militia movement, I'm admitting to their (radical fundamental) Christianization and perversion of liberty, which has always given me pause for concern. Moreover, they seem to exhibit xenophobia and racism in the name of Jeebus, and hypocritically support torture and illegal wars in misguided efforts to protect the homeland and its Constitution.

EncinoM wrote:

"They and their philosophy are what cause the carnage in Oklahoma and no amount of revisionist history can change that."

Let's you be honest as well, dear Mr. EncinoM, and admit that you have not truly researched OKC and all of the lingering questions and anomalies, much like 9/11. And for what research into either that you can claim, a pattern not just of accepting the government's version but also of actively defending it point-by-point comes out.

So in this honesty session, I can concur that the militia movement may have had a role in OKC (just like Saudi "Islamic terrorists" may have had a role in 9/11). But to attribute to them (and their philosophy) as causing the entirety of OKC is to give short-shrift to too many red-flags of that day. A role? Yes. The entire cause? No.

The militia movement was used. Osama bin Laden's people were used. Neither had the ability by themselves to carry out completely what was observed without help, help which coincidentally points back to the same factions (and philosophies) within the U.S. government. The FBI and other agencies have a long history not just of infiltration into "radical" groups but also of instigation within those groups, moving them beyond aspirational to operational. Case in point is nearly every case of terrorists activities being thwarted today, whereby the government agent (whatever disguise employed) egged the "aspirant" into action with promises of assisting with the means: the very explosives and technology to do the dirty deed.

You throw out the claims of "revisionist history," but that is what you are doing in trying to keep the message tightly coupled to the original story-lines provided by the government even in the face of newly revealed evidence, parallels to other events, trend-lines, and blatant dots needing to be connected.

EncinoM wrote:

"Alex Jones, yourself and others need to creat the conspiracy theories to hide your own fault in feeding and hiding this cancer, allowing it to spread and attack. The militia movement has reappeared in the townhall meetings, they are now tea-bagging and bring guns to political debates."

Hmmm. Very crafty nonsense. Your cause-and-effect supposition is wrong.

If you want to call "[the militia movement] and their philosophy" a "cancer" based on their reappearance, their tea-bagging Republican talking points, and their gun-toting to town hall meetings, I'm probably in agreement.

But to say that 9/11 (and OKC and ...) conspiracy theories were created (out of thin air) in order to feed, hide, and spread this cancer? No. This is wrong for at least two reasons.

(1) Seven years under Bush of 9/11 conspiracy theories stoked by Alex Jones among others, yet no gun-toting tea-baggers were ever present in a Bush "Free-Speech Zone", much less one of his vetted-Republican-only town hall meetings. At best, they appeared on our border with Mexico in a misguided effort to stop immigration reform.

(2) The conspiracy probabilities stand on their own without the embrace of the militia movement. Sound scientific basis attracts even Christian Science pacifists. Their purpose in being discussed again and again by the likes of me is that God's Truth (on the order of 2+2=4 and planetary gravity keeps the Earth in orbit around the sun) is more important for our spiritual well-being in this life and the afterlife to be proclaimed from the mountain tops than erroneously believing and promoting any lie no matter how subtle (like 2+3=4.99, the Earth is flat, 9/11 was completely caused by foreign terrorists, and OKC was completely caused by the militia movement). Holding to the lie might momentarily profit us (with access to energy reserves) and might avoid the discomfort of (national) self-evaluation and painful correction to the tune of ousting all presently in government leadership (e.g., Congress), agency purges/reform, election reform, and maybe even State succession from the Republic.

When you lend your voice to discredit 9/11 messenger & message, the cancer that I think you feed and hide is avoidance of this national self-evaluation and correction.

EncinoM wrote:

"You and the truthers have been the ones to muddy the waters with crack pot theories. There is one onspiracy I do believe in, that the truth movement was created by Rove to distract the left and provide a fringe group to tar feather the anti-war prosters with."

Absolutely brilliant disinformation or sarcastic commentary!

Unfortunately, "Rove" was in the wrong sentence of that paragraph. Were he involved with the Truth Movement at all, it would have been like the influence of FBI infiltrators "to muddy the waters with crack pot theories."

Because as you and GuitarBill prove, attacks on (planted) crack pot theories is a distraction to discredit the whole Truth Movement and the more reasonable and provable theories (like controlled demolition causing WTC-7 stage 2 gravitational acceleration).

And certainly, because one of the rotten fruits of 9/11 that the Truth Movement exposes is the U.S. engagement in two foreign wars. If the Truth Movement can be seeded with crack pot theories, it can do double-duty in tarring and feathering the anti-war protesters.

Likewise, if you can put into one basket everyone from the truth movement, from Alex Jones' constituency, from the tea-bagging militia movement... why then you can further delay our much need national self-evaluation and correction.

[CompulsiveLiar] GuitarBill is the semaphore for 9/11 Truth

Mr. Bill,

Your posting is guilty of that dastardly AlterNet crime of changing the subject, something so offensive according to you that you have hung it around many an opponent's neck like a burning tire whether it was warranted or not to distract from your own misdeeds and belittle your opponents' salient points.

Have you watched the Core of Corruption videos for validity? I didn't think so. We'll be waiting with baited breath for your insightful review and skewing.

And what do you have to say about whole2th's tie-in of corporate media williningly spinning the fabel even as the events of 9/11 were unfolding? Kindly explain to us how the BBC knew 20 minutes ahead of time that the WTC-7 would fail entirely and collapse. [And yes, its overall collapse time would be either 16-18 seconds or decades, the latter being the Zen standard that WTC-7 began its collapse as soon as one beam was placed on top of another during its construction. Of course, whichever standard for the overall collapse time you use, that pesky stage 2 (8 stories, 100+) of gravitational acceleration combines with lots of foreknowledge by various groups to blow up the size of the conspiracy well beyond the 19 dead patsy hijackers.]

What are you distracting us from? Could it be the Israeli connection to 9/11?

We in the 9/11 Truth Movement wish to express our gratitude that you play your role of 9/11 government troll so well! You are a most reliable semaphore for 9/11 Truth, not however for any of the words that you write (or have written for you to copy-and-paste) but in their words of the postings you flag for attack. Thank you!

OOoooh NOooo! Mr. Bill!!!

[CompulsiveLiar] GuitarBill, an untouchable government semaphore for Truth

Yes, if Mr. Bill worked for AlterNet, then I suppose his goal would be to gore participants into discussion. The more discussion, even if a flame war, the larger the numbers that AlterNet can boast to its advertisers. Of course, Mr. Bill could prompt people into discussion in less offensive ways. If he were an AlterNet employee, I can't see why they would put up with it and all of the associated "Report this comment" messages.

Me? I could be wrong (and unlike Mr. Bill, I'll admit when I'm wrong and apologize), but a part of me still believes he's a government troll. Through his employer's hacking skills or connections/pressure on AlterNet, AlterNet can't get rid of him. A version of him will always come back. Better the devil you know than the one you don't. AlterNet puts up with his meddling, because he does inspire controversy with his flame wars that brings traffic to the site.

Mr. Bill's persistent existence on this site in the face of many of his opponents (PFGetty and CynicI) getting banned is for me a clue as to his (nearly) untouchable status. They posted information and links "uncomfortable" to those in power. When he got wound up, Mr. Bill would post the most unflattering, below-the-belt, ad hominem attacks, often right from the subject line to smear and discredit in the eyes of anyone as much as skimming the forum.

The topics that trigger Mr. Bill are another aspect to my suspicious: 9/11, Israel, and vaccinations come to mind.

Mr. Bill is intractable and never wrong. He can never be convinced of any questionable anomaly (of 9/11). He attacks each and every one that is brought up as if he has the definitive answer (to copy-and-paste), and lo and behold, it always agrees with the government's more benign version. There is nothing that can put a foot in the door of his closed-mind to let in a ray of sunshine that would be his "9/11 ah-ha moment."

Mr. Bill's supporting material have three problems. (1) Some are themselves dubious and more ad hominem mocking of 9/11 truth than factual. (2) Mr. Bill refuses to acknowledge the glaring holes in the reports of the agencies and commissions. (3) He knowingly chooses dubious aspects to purposely muddy the waters and kick sand in our eyes: disinformation.

Case in point of #3: Mr. Bill is always saying "WTC-7 did not happen at free-fall speeds; it happened in 16-18 seconds," which represents the overall collapse time of WTC-7. Yet the very NIST reports that he has quoted over a dozen times talks specifically of stage 2 of WTC-7's collapse -- 8 stories, 100+ feet -- that happened at free-fall. His supervisors won't let him think outside the box to answer the question regarding the ramifications of free-fall in any stage of any collapse of any WTC building on 9/11 or what those ramifications are in a larger geo-political context.

A real person can say they were wrong and "sorry." A real person can say "that point got me to thinking differently." A real person with a real job probably can't dedicate the time-suck that his postings here represent. The consequences to posting privileges and the inflicted emotional pain would temper a real person from posting (over and over):

"you anti-American, terrorist apologizing, conspiracy spewing, lying, degenerate piece of offal."

A real person has little to gain with alias-ASS-ociating jihads Prophit0=CynicI.

But don't take my word for it. Mr. Bill calls me a "Compulsive Liar" from the subject line to steer readers away from me. It makes Mr. Bill a semaphore for Truth, not for his words but their words in the postings he attacks.

OOoooh NOooo! Mr. Bill!!!

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.

http://www.israelshamir.net/Contributors/Collateral_Damage_911.pdf

"[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)

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)

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?"

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.