Tip Jar

Share the Love

Tip Jar
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

« Bush delivers the Horse's Head | Main | Oil and Osama and Obama and Putin: Who Will Win? »

Comments

Bill Giltner

I am loving this post and many others you have made.

I don't believe there is anything about the "truth" of what happened on 9/11 (in terms of what actual aircraft did or did not fly into said buildings, etc.) that would contradict any of your analysis of world politics and influences.

On the other hand, I think you would be a prime person to understand the level of trickery involved in the events of 9/11, and the tapping of the infiltration of the TV media that was part of the plot line that day.

I stand firmly behind the idea that much of the video shown live showing the WTC DT Lower Manhattan sky and skyscrapers, and some of the on-air commentary / interviews sold a story that was scripted and completely lacking any basis in reality.

Ponder

very good web-site. Very professional and uses science
http://911research.wtc7.net/

PW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCbKv9yiLiQ

Knowledge is free.

We are Anonymous.

We are Legion.

We do not forgive.

WE DO NOT FORGET.

Expect us.

Bokonon

Re: the rise of China.

One of the annual events that Australia used to attend was Four Power party talks, USA/Australia/Japan/India. This last week it was annouced that Australia would not be going this year, apparently as a result of a query from the Chinese ambassador.

Elaine Supkis

I see that I must write about the damn WTC structure. Unlike most people who use TV or film to try to understand things, I have hands-on knowledge about NYC skyscrapers. I worked in them, I worked around them and I am directly involved in knowing the WTC as a building, very intimately.

It weighed a tremendous amount due to its vast size but it was fragile, very fragile, a fatal combination. I HATED that building and after 1989, avoided it like the plague and begged all my friends to leave it and they all did, thank god.

Blunt Force Trauma

Ron Paul calls it quits:

http://ronpaul2008.typepad.com/ron_paul_2008/2008/02/message-from-ro.html

Elaine Supkis

Yup. But Huckabee just tore a big hole in McCain's ship's hull.

I have a lot to say about all this later.

JSmith

"Huckabee just tore a big hole in McCain's ship"

Not quite big enough to make him the nominee. Huck's staring mathematical elimination right in the face, but mathematics is the Devil's tool - there's no math in the Bible, so he's not caving in (yet.) He needs a lot more than some rubes in Kansas and Missouri.

On the nuclear threat... once upon a time, the US and Russia could deter each other through Mutually Assured Destruction: no one wanted to launch if it meant his own country going up a few minutes later.

Today... let's say for the sake of argument that we're running things in Iran or North Korea, and we have a warhead that will work and a missile that will just reach the US - Seattle or San Francisco, for instance.

Now, if we launch we lose Tehran or Pyongyang. But if the choice is trading Tehran or Pyongyang for Seattle or San Francisco... that might be a deal I'd advise taking.

And if we took out Seattle or San Francisco - given the weight of world opinion regarding the use of nuclear weapons, I'd say there's a fairly good chance the US would not launch a retaliatory strike. Launch a nuke and kill all those innocent people? In 1945, sure - but probably not now.

Elaine Supkis

Like with you, Huckabee made McCain look like a fool.

CT

Hi Elaine! While I'm commenting, I'll take this opportunity to thank you and Mark Whitney for making his articles available here. He's a great addition to your narrative.

The real reason I'm commenting - HTML police! ...

There is an unclosed quote in the link right after "Time to discuss PNAC and the odious creatures who make up that Zionist organization." .... this makes about 4 paragraphs missing from your article.

PW

JSmith,

That's ludicrous. Of course we would retaliate.

JSmith

"Like with you, Huckabee made McCain look like a fool."

Trees/forest, Elaine. So Huck won Kansas - so what? You're not looking at the scoreboard. Huck pretty much needs to win out the rest of the primaries to get nominated.

You think there are enough rubes out there so Huck wins every remaining contest?

JSmith

"That's ludicrous. Of course we would retaliate."

I'm not saying we wouldn't retaliate... I'm saying that I doubt we'd retaliate with a nuclear weapon.

Raymond in Niagara

Hi Elaine,

I recall in previous posts you spoke very highly of the research and writings of both Mike Ruppert (whom you state first learned of the peak oil issue through you) and Paul Craig Roberts, Reagan-era treasury official. You share with these thinkers a common focus, and high level of insightfulness, on trade, offshoring, deficits, neocons, geopolitics, criminal conduct of the elites, and all that stuff. I rely on all of you to be my guides through these matters, particularly yourself, lately. (Frankly, you make the rest of the internet redundant, except as a source of material for yourself. It’s not like your lengthy compelling postings leave me any time for the rest of the internet anyway.)

Both of these gentlemen are (or in the case of Ruppert, was, before his breakdown) quite vocal about their positions on the "9/11 Truth" issue. At one conference I attended in 2005 in NYC, James Howard Kunstler put some distance between himself and Ruppert by announcing "I'm allergic to conspiracy theories;" Roberts' views can be read in the excerpt from his March 26 2007 column at the end of this comment. (By the way, have you ever run into Mr. Kunstler in there in upstate New York?)

So with regard to this one issue, would you lump Ruppert and Roberts in with the irritating “truthers” who are more contemptible than those who believe in chemtrails and alien abductions; otherwise, Ruppert and Roberts are to be referred to and quoted respectfully and approvingly? Please resolve.

Here is that excerpt from Paul Craig Roberts (I note that Antiwar.com links to all of his columns EXCEPT those that talk about 9/11):
“The two WTC towers did not collapse. They blew up and disintegrated, as did WTC 7. There is an enormous energy deficit in every account that rules out the use of explosives. Gravitational energy is insufficient to explain the pulverization of the buildings and contents and the severing of the 47 massive center core steel columns in each of the towers into convenient lengths to be picked up and loaded onto trucks; much less can gravitational energy account for the pulverization of the top floors of the towers and ejection of steel beams hundreds of feet horizontally just prior to the disintegration of the floors below.
Damage caused by airliners and short-lived limited fires cannot explain the disintegration of the buildings. The massive steel skeletons of the towers comprised a gigantic heat sink that wicked away whatever heat the limited fires produced.
NIST’s final report stated that of the steel available to it for examination, "only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 degrees Celsius" (482 degrees Fahrenheit). The self-cleaning ovens in our home kitchens reach temperatures higher than this, and the ovens do not melt or deform.
Steel begins to melt at 1,500 degrees C or 2,800 degrees F. Temperatures of 250 degrees C would have no effect on the strength of steel. The explanation that the buildings collapsed because fire weakened the steel is speculative. Open air fires do not produce temperatures sufficient to deprive steel of its structural integrity. Steel framed buildings have burned 22 hours in raging infernos, and the steel skeletons remained standing. The WTC fires in the towers lasted about one hour and were limited to a few floors. Moreover, it is impossible for fire to account for the sudden, total and symmetrical disintegration of powerfully constructed buildings, much less at free fall speeds that are obtainable only with controlled demolition.
Griffin provides quotes from firefighters, police, and tenants, who heard and experienced a series of explosions prior to the disintegration of the towers. Such witness testimony is generally ignored by defenders of the official conspiracy theory.
Molten steel was found in underground levels of the WTC buildings weeks after the buildings’ destruction. As everyone agrees that the fires did not approach the melting point of steel, a possible explanation is high explosives used in demolitions that produce 5,000 degree temperatures. The possibility that explosives were used remains unexamined except by independent researchers.
Contradictions in the official conspiracy theory leap off the pages and hit the reader in the face. For example, the evidence that Flight 77, a Boeing 757, crashed into the Pentagon is the government’s claim to have obtained from the wreckage enough bodies and body parts to match the DNA for each person on the passenger list and flight crew. Simultaneously, the absence of passenger luggage, fuselage, wing and tail sections--indeed the absence of a 100,000 pound airliner--is attributed to the vaporization of the airplane due to the high speed crash and intense fire. The incompatibility of vaporized metal but recovered flesh and blood stood unnoticed until Griffin pointed it out.
Another striking inconsistency in the official conspiracy theory is the difference in the impact of airliners on the Pentagon and the WTC towers. In the case of the Pentagon, the emphasis is on why the airliner caused so little damage to the building. In the case of the WTC towers, the emphasis is why the airliners caused so much damage.
Perhaps it is merely a coincidence that just prior to 9/11 Cathleen P. Black, who has family connections to the CIA and Pentagon and is president of Hearst Magazines, the owner of Popular Mechanics, fired the magazine’s editor-in-chief and several senior veteran staff members and installed James B. Meigs and Benjamin Chertoff, a cousin of Bush administration factotum Michael Chertoff. It was Meigs and Benjamin Chertoff who produced the Popular Mechanics report that Griffin has eviscerated.
In his conclusion Griffin reminds us that the 9/11 attack has been used to start wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, to plan an attack on Iran, to curtail constitutional protections and civil liberties in the US, to radically expand US military budgets and the power of the executive, and to enrich entrenched vested interests. Griffin is definitely correct about this regardless of whether a believable case can ever be made for the government’s version of the 9/11 conspiracy.

larry, dfh

The main thing that was gained from invading Afghanistan was the opium. We invaded in the fall, and the next harvest was a bumper crop. As have been all others since. American cities are flush with cheap heroin. I suspect the overthrow of Aristide by the French/US had something to do with the increased amounts of heroin available. The gov't learned to appreciate the drug trade from the Viet Nam war, and they have never let go of it. The same is true for Colombia.
Also, the main accountant for the DoD is an outfit in Israel. Coincidence that billions and billions are 'unaccounted for'?
And the Cold War and MAD: this was largely a hoax cooked up by the CIA/KGB to perpetuate the 'need' for these organizations.

Elaine Supkis

Lord help us all.

You know, Popular Mechanics wasn't the only ones to run stories about why those damn flimsy towers which I hated with a passion due to their poor construction, why they collapsed. I know Kunstler and like me, he is getting rather annoyed with all this stuff about magic bombs, etc.

And this is too stupid for words. Why in the name of all the devils on earth, would they have to DESTROY the buildings? The planes hitting were more than enough to terrorize Americans!

I happen to know both Ruppert and Kunstler. We all have chatted in the past. We all know that there are many conspiracies out there that are real. But the obsession with 9/11 while ignoring even more important things is dangerous as well as futile.

I see the people doing this wrecking absolutely everyone. The need to have group-think concerning the technical side of 9/11 has slammed the door shut on organizing any response to the POLITICAL REALITIES that are DRIVING US INTO WWIII.

These involve the developing bankruptcy of the US and Israel using nuclear bombs. And launching a war takes little excuse.

If people just said, 'Bush did everything' and then launched a massive drive to impeach him and arrest him, I would be ecstatic. But this is not happening. David Swanson is trying desperately to get us to push Congress to impeach but AIPAC is happy with Bush.

So no impeachment. So I attack AIPAC, not Bush. He is now immaterial to me. But not AIPAC. I am totally against Hillary due to AIPAC. And AIPAC is trying to get both Ron Paul and Kucinich out of office and thus, kill off the last few people who are anti-Zionist!


THIS is an important battle. But the 9/11 truth people are abandoning both men when they need support the most!


We have little time on this planet. Each of us can do whatever we can. The Zionists are buying up all our media so they can encase us in a cement tomb where no real news can penetrate and the propaganda will be on the level of 1984 by Orwell. We have to fight AIPAC and Zionism!

And that is nearly impossible if we get bogged down in all sorts of details that don't matter anymore.

Elaine Supkis

I remember the Vietnam War. I would go to meetings with proposals for further action so we could push our anti-war agenda.

God help us! These damn meetings would end up being about the stupidest things! Internal squabbles over power positions. The meaning of words. All sorts of junk. One time, I actually got on a chair and yelled at Horrowitz, 'Damn Albania! I want to just get a demonstration going!'

I got called names. People threatened to beat me up. I was hammered on mercilessly for not supporting all sorts of stupid mind games. The movement collapsed, of course. What stopped that long, long war was our near-bankruptcy.

The present war will stop the same way. And I do wish everyone could focus on that. As well as stopping AIPAC. Good grief, time is running out.

JSmith

"There is an enormous energy deficit in every account that rules out the use of explosives..."

OK... let's run with this for a minute.

Where, when, and how were the explosives placed? Someone had to have seen something - placing demolition charges takes time, and you heva to get to the structural members to do it. That involves removing walls and ceilings (and putting them back when you're done, in this case.)

But no one has mentioned seeing anything suspicious going on in two buildings that were populated by thousands of people, pretty much 24-7. Nope - nobody saw nothin'! (I wonder why - could they all have been "in on it"?)

All the "explosives" theorists have is after-the-fact speculation about "energy deficits", and absolutely no pre-collapse evidence of what would be a non-trivial amount of work.

Elaine Supkis

Correct, Smith. Having been around the demolition of skyscrapers, yes, they have to remove all sorts of infrastructure to use these explosives. And these things are extremely loud. Deafeningly loud. Not snapping, groaning noises like collapsing buildings make..and I have heard that sound, it is terrifying to all people in construction trades.

More than one cement/steel structure has failed due to bad design, by the way. People forget these things.


But demolition is more like being on a battlefront in war: a thousand howitzers howling at the same time and that 'crump' sound they make. It hurts the ears.

CT

Hi Elaine... hoping you'll fix the html error soon. The missing paragraphs re: PNAC are quite valuable to setting the context of your argument. Other readers: do "view source" in your web browser, and then ctrl-f (find-in-page) for "Understanding". If you're using firefox, it colour-codes the text, so all the missing portion should be in blue.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad