NY Daily News - part of the 9/11 COVERUP!
Freedom Man
mass-media in covering up the 9/11 INSIDE JOB.
An editorial in the Sept. 4th Daily News condemns Van Jones, White House
green jobs advisor, for his signing of a 2004 statement by 911Truth.org
demanding a new investigation into the events of 9/11.
For his exercise of free expression, allegedly what "American freedom" is
all about, the Daily News asks on its editorial page: "Did Jones, in fact,
sign that statement? If so, what is he doing in the company of the President
of the United States?"
Jones, according to a local radio news and propaganda station, has been
fired. The message here is that only those that conform to the "official"
myths about 9/11 will be permitted in positions of authority. Any skeptics
that dare to question the lies will be persecuted and terminated.
So much for freedom of expression in America. I suspect that in this lies a
message to Obama from various fascist traitors that should he dare to so
much as think about "9/11 truth," even he too can be terminated. And no
doubt even with "extreme prejudice," as the murderous fascists call it.
Al Dykes
Freedom Man <lib...@once.net> wrote:
>Here is a perfect example of the participation of the government-controlled
>mass-media in covering up the 9/11 INSIDE JOB.
>
>An editorial in the Sept. 4th Daily News condemns Van Jones, White House
>green jobs advisor, for his signing of a 2004 statement by 911Truth.org
>demanding a new investigation into the events of 9/11.
>
Van Jones is an idiot and I'm glad he's been forced to resign. The
guy that vetted him should resign too.
He can say anything he wants as a private citizen.
I expect to see him show up on USENET any day now.
--
Al Dykes
News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
- Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
BDK
says...
LOL, the 911 kooktardery seems to have nothing to do with him leaving
his post, but I'm sure it didn't help him out any. Nobody wants someone
in an important position who shows signs, and 911 kooktardery is a huge
one, of mental imbalance.
--
BDK..
Leader of the nonexistent paid shills.
Non Jew Jew Club founding member.
Former number one Kook Magnet, title passed to Iarnrod.
Warhol
> In article <h80kib$8n...@news.eternal-september.org>, libe...@once.net
> says...
>
>
>
> > Here is a perfect example of the participation of the government-controlled
> > mass-media in covering up the 9/11 INSIDE JOB.
>
> > An editorial in the Sept. 4th Daily News condemns Van Jones, White House
> > green jobs advisor, for his signing of a 2004 statement by 911Truth.org
> > demanding a new investigation into the events of 9/11.
>
> > For his exercise of free expression, allegedly what "American freedom" is
> > all about, the Daily News asks on its editorial page: "Did Jones, in fact,
> > sign that statement? If so, what is he doing in the company of the President
> > of the United States?"
>
> > Jones, according to a local radio news and propaganda station, has been
> > fired. The message here is that only those that conform to the "official"
> > myths about 9/11 will be permitted in positions of authority. Any skeptics
> > that dare to question the lies will be persecuted and terminated.
>
> > So much for freedom of expression in America. I suspect that in this lies a
> > message to Obama from various fascist traitors that should he dare to so
> > much as think about "9/11 truth," even he too can be terminated. And no
> > doubt even with "extreme prejudice," as the murderous fascists call it.
>
> LOL, the 911 kooktardery seems to have nothing to do with him leaving
> his post, but I'm sure it didn't help him out any. Nobody wants someone
> in an important position who shows signs, and 911 kooktardery is a huge
> one, of mental imbalance.
> --
>
Why dont you explain to us here why no jews died on 911?
George
> Why dont you explain to us here why no jews died on 911?-
Jewish people did die on 911.
Another inconvenient fact for nazis and Holocaust deniers
Patrick Keenan
news:d3ae240d-02f7-4bdb...@y9g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
=========
Why don't you explain to us here why more than 250 is zero?
-pk
BDK
@y9g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, mol...@hotmail.com says...
LOL, if you think that's true, you're even crazier than I thought, and
that was pretty crazy. There are a lot of jews that died on 911, moron,
look at any victims list.
Why do you feel you have to resort to lies all the time?
Oh, never mind..
BDK
te...@dev.null says...
An inconvenient number (To someone like Wormhole) always equals zero.
It's the new kookmath.
Warhol
we are living in an age of lies... yidwish lies...
and now see yids beating up other yids... and so its begins...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JU92lAsw3UU&fmt=18
If a jew beats up another jew,
which one is the bad one?
BDK
@m11g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, mol...@hotmail.com says...
So what begins, Wormhole?
>
> If a jew beats up another jew,
>
> which one is the bad one?
Who cares?
So what does that have to do with your claim no jews died on 911?
Tap dancing is not one of your talents.
American Eagle
No they didn't.. Name them and post nonJewish sources.
>
American Eagle
Why don't you explain to us why your tongue doesn't catch fire when you
tell lies like that.
>
> -pk
>
>
Alexander
We have a Duet of liars now. Both Sopranos.
>
>
Warhol
The Implosion.... of the yidwish lies...
>
> > If a jew beats up another jew,
>
> > which one is the bad one?
>
> Who cares?
>
> So what does that have to do with your claim no jews died on 911?
>
> Tap dancing is not one of your talents.
> --
>
How did Jews know who did 911, so soon?
Highlights from the BBC's flagship news and current affairs programme,
Newsnight, broadcast less than 10 hours after the attacks on September
11.
Notable for statements by Richard Perle, who appears keen throughout
to imply a connection with Iraq and Iran — thus sticking to the
Project for the New American Century script, of which he is co-author.
Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds 935 false
statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two
years following the 2001 terrorist attacks. These statements were part
of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion
and, in the process, led the U.S. to war under decidedly false
pretenses.
935 LIES to start bloody and vicious wars to destroy Israel's enemies.
Richard Pearle is an agent of influence for Israel.
open the link .please... View 10 minute video
http://atheonews.blogspot.com/2009/09/israel-identified-its-enemies-as.html
The 9/11 hoax....
Warhol
You got screwed there.... Have you no shame?... You can't even
identify the source of the gossip you choose to disseminate, and you
don't care.
You continue to behave as a kenturkey old chicken, I think you are
getting your conspiracy theories confused. It was the Jews that did
not show up at the WTC on 9/11, remember?
Warhol
Israeli workers warned in advance...
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/odigo_9-11_warning.html?q=odigo_9-11_warning.html
911 Truth Forums:
* http://www.911truth.org/
* http://www.attackonamerica.net/
* http://www.911blogger.com
* http://www.stj911.org
* http://www.stoplying.ca/
* http://www.9eleven.info/
More Informative Links:
* http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/
* http://www.globalresearch.ca/
* http://www.propagandamatrix.com/
* http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/
* http://www.911readingroom.org/
* http://www.antiwar.com/
* http://www.truth911.net/
* http://www.wanttoknow.info/
* http://www.blackboxvoting.org/
The End of Peak Oil, Economics & 9/11
* http://www.fromthewilderness.com/
* http://www.peakoil.net/
* http://www.endofsuburbia.com/
* http://www.homepower.com/
* http://www.solari.com/
* http://www.whereisthemoney.org/
* http://www.communitycurrency.org/
Media & Downloads
* http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html
* http://www.snowshoefilms.com/
* http://www.911busters.com/
* http://www.libertybound.com/
* http://www.infowars.com/videos.html#MOT
* http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/
article3995.htm
* http://www.globalresearch.ca/globaloutlook/coverup.html
* http://www.911research.wtc7.net/
materials/posters/index.html
* http://www.innworldreport.net/
* http://911truthradio.com/
* http://www.911truthbristol.com/videos/films.html
* http://www.911tv.org/
Patrick Keenan
===
Yeah, sure. And that explains how more than 250 Jews, inclduing 4 Israeli
citizens died in the towers that day.
Your claim is that none died. But *hundreds* died.
So please explain to us here how it is that on your planet more than 250
equals zero.
-pk
Patrick Keenan
news:7gk1sjF...@mid.individual.net...
In reality, over 250 Jews including four Israelis died in the towers.
Can *you* support the claim that no Jews died, and explain how more than 250
equals zero?
You really, really aren't very good at this.
-pk
Patrick Keenan
================
So, why do you feel you have to resort to lies all the time?
It's because you have no facts, isn't it?
-pk
Patrick Keenan
"American Eagle" <A...@USA.com> wrote in message
news:7gk1o1F...@mid.individual.net...
> George wrote:
>> On Sep 7, 9:06 am, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Why dont you explain to us here why no jews died on 911?-
>>
>>
>> Jewish people did die on 911.
>> Another inconvenient fact for nazis and Holocaust deniers
>
> No they didn't..
Yep, they did. Between 240 and 400, including Israeli citizens.
And the percentage of Jews in the victim count is significantly above the
percentage of Jews in the US population.
And that pretty well puts paid to the proposition of prior knowledge or
warnings.
> Name them and post nonJewish sources.
Start here:
http://www.9-11heroes.us/victims-world-trade-center.php
http://www.america.gov/st/webchat-english/2009/May/20060828133846esnamfuaK0.2676355.html
http://www.america.gov/st/webchat-english/2009/April/20090430132244atlahtnevel4.020327e-02.html
-pk
Patrick Keenan
==================
Actually, hundreds of Jews *did* show up at the WTC on 9/11, so if you're
"remembering" this, you should seek medical counselling.
In the real world, between 250 and 400 Jews, including Israeli citizens,
died there.
You can find a partial list of names - 76 of them - here:
http://www.america.gov/st/webchat-english/2009/April/20090430132244atlahtnevel4.020327e-02.html
And you still haven't explained how at least 250 equals "none".
-pk
BDK
58f726...@x38g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, mol...@hotmail.com says...
> On Sep 7, 8:44Â am, BDK <TopSh...@sanity.com> wrote:
> > In article <fbe245ce-34f7-41bf-a7c2-385ac9ab90a6
> > @m11g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, mol...@hotmail.com says...
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Sep 7, 4:19Â am, BDK <TopSh...@sanity.com> wrote:
> > > > In article <d3ae240d-02f7-4bdb-a840-ab8bd1d7fa27
> > > > @y9g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, mol...@hotmail.com says...
> >
Seems like you jew hatin' kooks are the ones telling the whoppers.
>
>
> >
> > > If a jew beats up another jew,
> >
> > > which one is the bad one?
> >
> > Who cares?
> >
> > So what does that have to do with your claim no jews died on 911?
> >
> > Tap dancing is not one of your talents.
> > --
> >
>
>
> How did Jews know who did 911, so soon?
Because the Israeli's have a more competent spy network?
>
> Highlights from the BBC's flagship news and current affairs programme,
> Newsnight, broadcast less than 10 hours after the attacks on September
> 11.
????
>
> Notable for statements by Richard Perle, who appears keen throughout
> to imply a connection with Iraq and Iran â€=3F thus sticking to the
> Project for the New American Century script, of which he is co-author.
So what does this have to do with your "No jews died on 911" bullshit?
>
> Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds 935 false
> statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two
> years following the 2001 terrorist attacks. These statements were part
> of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion
> and, in the process, led the U.S. to war under decidedly false
> pretenses.
That's correct, the Bush admin used the attacks as an excuse to attack
Iraq. Bush was looking for one from day one.
>
> 935 LIES to start bloody and vicious wars to destroy Israel's enemies.
LOL, you're ignoring the much more obvious reasons Bush was so hat for
Hussein..
> Richard Pearle is an agent of influence for Israel.
So you claim. Other people's opinion differ.
>
> open the link .please... View 10 minute video
> http://atheonews.blogspot.com/2009/09/israel-identified-its-enemies-as.html
WHoo hoo. Another kookvid.
>
> The 9/11 hoax....
The 911 insanity.
Freedom Man
> LOL, the 911 kooktardery - < snip >
Why dont you explain to us here why no jews died on 911?
--------
While I do believe that Zionist-Israeli fanatics were part of the 9/11
conspiracy, of greatest concern to Americans is the fact that some holding
positions of power in "our" government were likewise, and these have not yet
been brought to justice.
As far as coverup shill BDK goes, just killfile and ignore him as I have. He
is obviously incapable of anything more than childish, name-calling
knee-jerk responses.
BDK
says...
So stop lying. Even someone as stupid as you are has to know that a lot
of jews died on 911. Why do you feel you have to lie all the time? I
guess you can't defend your viewpoint any other way, as is typical with
bigots.
Warhol
>
> And you still haven't explained how at least 250 equals "none".
>
> -pk
thats typical yidwish math... 400... 250... 76... equals ZERO...
Gallery of Infamy... the Jews that perped 911
http://theinfounderground.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5367#p20823
Israhellis were also warned in advance on 77 in London. It was in the
news all over the world that Scotland Yard warned Netanyahu in
advance, but now it's totally memory holed. Israhellis also ran the
security system in the London Underground on 77, just as they did all
the 911 airports, and again no security camera images. Another one
where Israhellis got warned in advance was the "Arab" terror attack
bombings in Jordan in 11/05 where all the Jews evacuated before, and
this was even in the Israhelli news, but now it too is totally memory
holed.
It seems the Mossad also masterminded the 7/7 London train bombings.
This is one of the most insightful, intriguing articles on the
connection. This should be a must read for the British...
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/londonarchive.html
and for your memory hole...
Odigo Says Workers Were Warned of 9/11 Attacks
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=77744
George
Conspiracy links removed.
Patrick Keenan
On Sep 7, 6:21 pm, "Patrick Keenan" <t...@dev.null> wrote:
> "Warhol" <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:81928c57-b1ac-4f6c...@e8g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 7, 1:50 am, George <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 7, 9:06 am, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Why dont you explain to us here why no jews died on 911?-
>
> > Jewish people did die on 911.
> > Another inconvenient fact for nazis and Holocaust deniers
>
> You got screwed there.... Have you no shame?... You can't even
> identify the source of the gossip you choose to disseminate, and you
> don't care.
>
> You continue to behave as a kenturkey old chicken, I think you are
> getting your conspiracy theories confused. It was the Jews that did
> not show up at the WTC on 9/11, remember?
> ==================
>
> Actually, hundreds of Jews *did* show up at the WTC on 9/11, so if you're
> "remembering" this, you should seek medical counselling.
>
> In the real world, between 250 and 400 Jews, including Israeli citizens,
> died there.
>
> You can find a partial list of names - 76 of them -
> here:http://www.america.gov/st/webchat-english/2009/April/20090430132244at...
>
> And you still haven't explained how at least 250 equals "none".
>
> -pk
thats typical yidwish math... 400... 250... 76... equals ZERO...
===========
Yes, that's your claim, which you can not support. You said no Jews were
killed, which is easily shown to be completely wrong.
Meanwhile, in the real world, hundreds died - and you pretend *none* did.
As to your claims that Jews were warned - clearly, since over 10% of the
victims were Jews, you are wrong.
Thanks for making so clear that you can not support your claims with facts.
-pk
Warhol
Hah on that same day evil yids said that 4000 yids died...
4000 Israelis worked at World Trade Center/ Only one Israeli death
by David Duke
Thousands of Israelis missing near WTC, Pentagon
The Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem has so far received the names of
4,000 Israelis believed to have been in the areas of the World Trade
Center and the Pentagon at the time of the attack. (The headline and
first sentence of the Jerusalem Post article) (33)
When George Bush made his speech before Congress, it turns out that he
made a significant error other than saying that the WTC attackers did
it because they hated freedom. Bush made a point to say that in
addition to thousands of Americans, 130 Israelis died in the WTC. The
implication was to say that Israel shared in our suffering, and that
we and Israel are in this thing together. Upon hearing the number of
130 Israeli dead, it seemed suspiciously low to me. If 4000 Israelis
were at the WTC and the WTC death toll was about 4500 (about 10
percent of the 45,000 people normally in the buildings at that time),
the Israeli toll should have statistically been around 400 and not
130.
source:
http://911review.org/companies/Odigo/Isreal_warned_attack_9-11.html
The Great escape of the 4000...
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/nl188.htm
Warhol
"I want to tell you something very clear. Don't worry about American
pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America and the
Americans know it."
- Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to Foreign Minister Shimon
Peres, October 2001
BY WAY OF DECEPTION, THOU SHALT DO WAR
Mossad Agents Arrested In Attempt To Bomb Mexican Congress
http://www.rense.com/general17/mossadagentsarrested.htm
Patrick Keenan
=================
Ah, so now you want to claim that David Duke is an "evil yid".
Not too surprising, given his behaviour in lying to, exploiting and fleecing
his supporters.
He repeatedly lied to them, took their money, and spent it on gambling and
whores. He ultimately pled guilty to tax evasion, probably so that the
actual details of how much he got, from who, and what exactly he spent it on
wouldn't come out in court.
All of his supporters would have been able to see exactly how he ripped each
of them off. Many weren't particularly pleased.
So, I will agree with you that he's certainly demonstrated that his word is
not to be accepted for anything.
Now, please explain to us here how it is that on your planet more than 250
equals zero.
You seem to be having a real problem with doing that. Why? Because you
recognise that your claim is false?
-pk
George
> Yes, that's your claim, which you can not support. You said no Jews were
> killed, which is easily shown to be completely wrong.
>
> Meanwhile, in the real world, hundreds died - and you pretend *none* did.
>
> As to your claims that Jews were warned - clearly, since over 10% of the
> victims were Jews, you are wrong.
>
> Thanks for making so clear that you can not support your claims with facts.
Nazis have several problems with their socalled thinking.
One is that the Jews run the world press.
The nazis make that claim in the media that they claim the Jews run
Second "The Jews run the worlds finances"
In the WTC 911 conspiracy nonsense the nazis make the claim that
there were no Jews there that day.
10% of the victims that day were Jewish.
After all if the Jewish are running the worlds financial market (as
the nazis claim) you'd expect them to be at the centre of the
business world..
There is a name for such compulsive lying
Warhol
No dont paint the picture wrong liar, I know you yids(rats) are only a
smoke curtain for their Masters of the Darkness... The King of the
Mongols and his servants as the frogs, scorpions, serpents...
Stupid yids have still have not understood that the great evil plot to
steal a heritage that dont belongs not to them, wont work and already
failed... Your Mongolian Ottoman King wont sit on the Holy Seat of the
Lion...
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Blog/?p=293
Old Testament prophet Ezekiel once said of the ancient city of Tyre,
"You have corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor and
power."
"Wine is strong, the King is stronger, women are strongest, the TRUTH
conquers all."
Rosslyn Chapel
Have nothing to do with the evil deeds of darkness,
but rather expose them. Eph:5:11
your plans of evil were already betrayed long before you yids recieved
a fake holy state for the things you are doing today... shall I
remember You some words of a good yid???
On June 17th 1896, on the Orient Express, that other wandering Jew,
Theodor Herzl wrote in his Diaries: “Nevlinski believes that the
Sultan’s only salvation lies in an alliance with the Young Turks - who
for their part are on good terms with the Macedonians, Cretans,
Armenians, etc., and in putting through reforms with their help. He
had given this counsel to the Sultan in a report.
I [Theodor Herzl] said, that in addition to this program he should
provide with Jewish help, the means to carry it out.”
“Let the Sultan give us that parcel of land [Palestine] and in return
we would set his house in order, regulate his finances, and influence
world opinion in his favour...”
http://www.islamicparty.com/satvoices/carved.htm
Evil ones are working on the restoration program to restore the Devil
himself to power... but believe me yids you and your master who has
given you the protocols are gone to regret it on that Cometh day of
the passover...
EL Malikiyya As Sharifiya Al Misbahiyya Es Saadia Ephesian wont never
fall in your evil hands... be sure of that, even with all the lies you
sold to the world with the great mongolian Hoax, the socalled 19th
century discovery of the fake holy land...
Because simply the Holy land aint at the East but in the west...
Warhol
dont me make laugh... learn first the math... maybe only One did die!
He was visiting from Israel and was not told about the plot!
911 the criminal enterprise and its pattern.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-3962883610962556504
Patrick Keenan
On Sep 7, 11:42 pm, George <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
> On Sep 8, 8:06 am, "Patrick Keenan" <t...@dev.null> wrote:
>
> > Yes, that's your claim, which you can not support. You said no Jews were
> > killed, which is easily shown to be completely wrong.
>
> > Meanwhile, in the real world, hundreds died - and you pretend *none*
> > did.
>
> > As to your claims that Jews were warned - clearly, since over 10% of the
> > victims were Jews, you are wrong.
>
> > Thanks for making so clear that you can not support your claims with
> > facts.
>
> Nazis have several problems with their socalled thinking.
> One is that the Jews run the world press.
> The nazis make that claim in the media that they claim the Jews run
>
> Second "The Jews run the worlds finances"
> In the WTC 911 conspiracy nonsense the nazis make the claim that
> there were no Jews there that day.
> 10% of the victims that day were Jewish.
> After all if the Jewish are running the worlds financial market (as
> the nazis claim) you'd expect them to be at the centre of the
> business world..
>
> There is a name for such compulsive lying
| No dont paint the picture wrong liar,
There's no mistake. You are the one making claims that you can't support -
because they are false.
Now, are you going to explain how a number larger than 250 is zero?
-pk
Patrick Keenan
I know the math. Between 250 and 400 died, and that isn't zero.
Your claim is that a number greater than 250 is zero, so I suggest you might
not really be wanting to make references to learning math.
| maybe only One did die!
So now, you're starting to admit that your claim is false. This is a good
start for you.
But the number is rather higher.
| He was visiting from Israel and was not told about the plot!
So, everybody knew but her? Mossad didn't bother to mention this to her as
she got off the plane?
Some of those murdred are named here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070211085836/http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/14-260933.html
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1894951/posts
The reality is that a small group of fanatics, whose interpretation of their
religion values death and excuses murder, identified and exploited a
weakness in US social structures. The result was mass murder.
For some reason, you seem to be siding with them and their values.
Do you even notice your estrangement from the truth?
Now, please explain how a number greater than 250 is zero.
Warhol
Hah are you George Now????????? ... I said to George that your plans
of evil wont work... you have failed in the mission for your beloved
lord of Darkness ...
“Let the (Ottoman)Sultan give us that parcel of land [Palestine] and
in return
we would set his house in order, regulate his finances, and influence
world opinion in his favour...”
Maybe you yids dont know yet... but its your own Master who's gone to
destroy you vermin... The Devil can't stand failures of your kind, who
even can't do the math correctly...
The Diabolical Protocols of Zion drawn in the Orient express have
failed...
The most quoted entry in Herzl's diaries is undoubtedly the sentence
in which he tries to sum up his assessment of the first Zionist
Congress, convoked at his invitation in Basel in August 1897:
"Were I to sum up the Basel Congress in one word--which I shall
guard against pronouncing publicly--it would be this: at Basel I have
founded the Jewish state. If I said this out loud today, I would be
answered by universal laughter. Perhaps in five years and certainly in
fifty, everyone would recognize this.7"
Warhol
>
> The reality is that a small group of fanatics, whose interpretation of their
> religion values death and excuses murder, identified and exploited a
> weakness in US social structures. The result was mass murder.
>
> For some reason, you seem to be siding with them and their values.
>
> Do you even notice your estrangement from the truth?
>
> Now, please explain how a number greater than 250 is zero.
its not by repeating lies they will become the truth you stinkin'
Failure...
you have got it bad boy....do you have any comprehension how phuvked
up you are??
I tried to contact Osama bin Laden but he was not in, he will be in
Crawford for a few more days.
and God Bless Amerika
http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff01072008.html
Henry
> LOL, the 911 kooktardery seems to...
...believe that gradual equals instant, partial equals
total, and random equals symmetric. They'll believe
whatever their ruling masters in and politicians tell
them without thought or question. What they won't do,
is read, think, or answer questions about their insane
cartoon conspiracy theory.
There's actually a pretty easy method to determine if
someone is a deluded nutjob, or a rational, logical, and
intelligent person.
If you ask the latter to defend or explain his/her beliefs,
the intelligent, rational person will cite hard evidence,
credible expert research, science, physics, etc., and do so
in a clear, logical, calm, and articulate manner.
OTOH, ask a nutjob to defend or explain its beliefs, and
the nutjob becomes offended, uncomfortable, and irrational,
and its "thought" process pretty much shuts down. The nutjob,
rather than defend its beliefs with evidence, research, or
logic, will do one of several things - change the subject,
shamefully run away confused and frustrated, or "attack"
the person who's challenged its beliefs with childishly comical
"insults", such as "You're a communist", "You're a janitor",
"Your mother smokes crack", "You're a desperate, squirming,
evasive, poor loser", etc..
What the nutjob is pitifully and comically incapable of doing,
is engaging in a calm, rational, open, and honest dialog of the
relevant facts, research, and evidence.
Let's give it a go, shall we? This little experiment is usually
quite revealing - and fun - unless, of course, you happen to be
a deluded and confused nutjob.... <vbg>
The demolitions shown in the video below both display all
the characteristics of controlled demolition, and none of
fire induced failure, yet followers of the government's 9-11
conspiracy theory try to tell us that one was caused by the
partial, gradual, and random weakening of a small percentage
of support columns due to gradual heating, and the other was
caused by the total, instant, and symmetric destruction of all
the support columns due to demolition. But obviously, partial
is not total, gradual is not instant, and random is not
symmetric. The contradiction is blatant and extreme. That's why
no one can produce even *one* example of a steel framed high rise
that dropped due to fire. Not one. Not ever. Not anywhere. It's
physically impossible.
Now, look at the buckled column in the photo linked below. That's
the sort of gradual bending and sagging that would be caused by
*extreme* heat. Of course, the fires in WTC7 never even got that
hot nor did they even make contact with most of WTC7's massive
hurricane and earth quake resistant steel frame.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI-3-6.jpg
Photo from: http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI.htm
Here is some more expert research. Please tell us where you believe
they are all mistaken as they use logic, physics, detailed evidence,
and common sense, to prove that random, gradual heating can not possibly
cause the free fall and symmetric drop of a steel framed high rise.
http://wtc7proof.blogspot.com/
http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html
Proof that WTC 7 was demolished professionally
(This is a summary of the argument presented here, complete with more
detailed source links, including Architects and Engineers for 9/11
Truth.)
WTC 7 was the third steel-framed skyscraper that was completely
destroyed on 9/11. Unlike the Twin Towers, it was not hit by a plane.
Its height was 174 meters, and it had 47 floors. It was located in a
block separate from the other WTC buildings, 110 meters from the closest
tower. The implosion of WTC 7 is shown below (note the dropping of the
penthouse).
Investigations. As this was one of the biggest building disasters in
world history, the remains of the skyscraper should have been
painstakingly investigated. If the building collapsed in seconds to the
ground as a result of fires ? as FEMA speculated in 2002 ? the
significance of the event for building safety, building codes, etc. is
enormous. It would have been easy to properly examine the debris from
the building, as it landed mostly within its own footprint. This was not
done, and the physical research material was quickly removed and
destroyed. According to NIST, the governmental agency that is still ?
well after 6.5 years from the event ? trying to come up with a plausible
report, ?no steel was recovered from WTC 7?. This can be seen as either
suspicious or absurd, and I don?t think building disasters are
investigated absurdly.
The speed of destruction. WTC 7 fell into a pile of debris in
approximately 6.5 seconds. The corresponding free fall time is 5.95
seconds, while an apple dropped from the roof would have taken 7 seconds
to fall to the ground (Kurttila 2005; the exact time varies with the air
resistance of the object). The 80 steel support pillars of the building,
therefore, did not in practice resist the destruction. However,
destroying the support structures throughout the floors of the 174-meter
building demanded energy that would have been away from pure kinetic
energy; in other words, gravitational destruction of those structures
would necessarily have slowed down the collapse. No slowing down
required by destruction work can have taken place within the short time
it took WTC 7 to collapse. To simplify: the roof came down as if mere
air (and not 47 stories) had separated it from the ground. This can only
be explained by the removal of structural resistance in a controlled
demolition. In controlled demolitions, the roofs of highrises typically
reach the ground in a time that is slightly longer than free fall. [1]
The sudden onset and symmetry of the destruction. WTC 7 dropped suddenly
straight down. This means that the 80 support pillars had to give in
simultaneously. To believe that random fires on separate floors and
damage to one side caused the sudden vertical collapse is to believe in
a miracle (as pointed out by professor David Ray Griffin). Moreover,
achieving the outcome of a controlled demolition by means of matches and
damaging one side of a highrise would mean that companies specialized in
controlled demolition would have to start thinking about new business ideas.
Hot debris. According to NASA?s thermal imaging, the surface temperature
of the WTC 7 debris pile exceeded 700 degrees Celcius ? five days after
the destruction. Residual temperatures like this cannot be explained by
fires or gravitational collapse. The latter can only result in a few
degrees' increase in temperature.
Molten and vaporized steel. As in the case of the Twin Towers, molten
steel was reportedly found in the remains of WTC 7. Some steel samples
that the researchers did manage to examine were also partially
vaporized. In a New York Times interview, professor Jonathan Barnett
points out that fires cannot explain this. Evidently, not even these
samples were kept, and NIST has ignored this finding. Molten steel can
be explained by explosives but not by fires, as their temperature simply
cannot rise anywhere close to the melting point of steel, let alone the
temperature required by vaporization.
Expert statements. The Dutch demolition expert Danny Jowenko, who owns a
demolition firm and has been in the business for 30 years, regards it as
certain that WTC 7 was demolished. His view is shared by numerous
architects, engineers and other demolition professionals ? see
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, http://www.ae911truth.org/, and
this page exemplifying people with demolition expertise who question the
official account.
The testimony of first responders. Several rescue personnel have
testified to being told that WTC 7 would be brought down.
[1] Another way of looking at this:
1) In a vacuum, an object falls the height of WTC 7 in 5.95 seconds. An
object falling in a vacuum does not crush, twist or displace anything ?
not even air. If WTC 7 had collapsed in 5.95 seconds, not even air (let
alone the rest of the building) would have separated its roof from the
ground.
2) WTC 7 collapsed into a rubble pile in approximately 6.5 seconds.
3) As an object falling freely does not crush or twist anything, the
time available for gravitational crushing or twisting of the building's
~80 steel columns throughout its 47 floors is slightly over 0.5 seconds
(6.5 - 5.95 seconds) ? or, if you like, ~0.01 seconds per floor ( 0.5 / 47).
4) The 0.5 seconds is not enough even in theory for a total
gravitational collapse of a 174-meter highrise. Ergo, the structural
resistance was removed by means of explosives.
Let us know if you disagree with anything written below, and
if so, what and why. The writer proves that gradual weaken due
to heat couldn't possibly have caused WTC7's sudden, free fall,
and symmetric drop, and he uses a clear, logical combination of
evidence, basic physics, and common sense to do it.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/f/LeggeLastTry4.pdf
"If you think about the nature of the collapse, supposedly due to
fire weakening the steel, you will agree that it would only be
necessary to follow the early stages of the collapse to determine
its character. If heat is the cause, the steel will weaken gradually
and will start to sag in the region where the fire is most intense.
At that moment the steel will have almost enough strength to hold up
the weight of the building, but not quite. So we have the force of
gravity acting downwards, trying to produce an acceleration of 32
feet per second per second, and the force of the hot steel pushing
upwards, a force a bit less than that of gravity. Let us say we are
looking at it at the moment when the strength has declined to the
point where the steel is capable of pushing upwards with 90% of the
force required to hold the building up against gravity. There would
thus be a net downward force of 10% of gravity. Now acceleration is
proportional to force and we have a net force of 10% of gravity
so we would see an acceleration downwards of 3.2 feet per second
per second.
When you graph the data you find that the fall did not start with a
motion which could be ascribed to a small net force of that order.
The downward acceleration of the roof was very close to free fall
right from the start, 30 feet per second per second, and continued
at that rate until out of sight. There is no hint of a slow start.
This tells us that the steel supports went from adequate strength to
virtually no strength in an instant. For reasons stated above this is
absolutely impossible if the loss of strength is due to the application
of heat."
--
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org
Henry
> Conspiracy links removed.
There's actually a pretty easy method to determine if
someone is a deluded nutjob, or a rational, logical, and
intelligent person.
If you ask the latter to defend or explain his/her beliefs,
the intelligent, rational person will cite hard evidence,
credible expert research, science, physics, etc., and do so
in a clear, logical, calm, and articulate manner.
OTOH, ask a nutjob to defend or explain its beliefs, and
the nutjob becomes offended, uncomfortable, and irrational,
and its "thought" process pretty much shuts down.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI-3-6.jpg
Photo from: http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI.htm
http://wtc7proof.blogspot.com/
http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/f/LeggeLastTry4.pdf
--
--
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.911truth.org
Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed
to raging infernos for hours on end.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html
On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which
had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry
at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled
demolition.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
http://wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm
Ever wonder who benefits from the 700 MILLION
U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq?
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21
"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things
that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...
BDK
says...
> BDK wrote:
>
> > LOL, the 911 kooktardery seems to...
>
> ...believe that gradual equals instant, partial equals
> total, and random equals symmetric. They'll believe
> whatever their ruling masters in and politicians tell
> them without thought or question. What they won't do,
> is read, think, or answer questions about their insane
> cartoon conspiracy theory.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHA! Tap dancing again?
>
>
> There's actually a pretty easy method to determine if
> someone is a deluded nutjob, or a rational, logical, and
> intelligent person.
> If you ask the latter to defend or explain his/her beliefs,
> the intelligent, rational person will cite hard evidence,
> credible expert research, science, physics, etc., and do so
> in a clear, logical, calm, and articulate manner.
> OTOH, ask a nutjob to defend or explain its beliefs, and
> the nutjob becomes offended, uncomfortable, and irrational,
> and its "thought" process pretty much shuts down. The nutjob,
> rather than defend its beliefs with evidence, research, or
> logic, will do one of several things - change the subject,
> shamefully run away confused and frustrated, or "attack"
> the person who's challenged its beliefs with childishly comical
> "insults", such as "You're a communist", "You're a janitor",
> "Your mother smokes crack", "You're a desperate, squirming,
> evasive, poor loser", etc..
> What the nutjob is pitifully and comically incapable of doing,
> is engaging in a calm, rational, open, and honest dialog of the
> relevant facts, research, and evidence.
> Let's give it a go, shall we? This little experiment is usually
> quite revealing - and fun - unless, of course, you happen to be
> a deluded and confused nutjob.... <vbg>
But often, a kook is just that, a kook.
So much nonsense. So much kooktardery.
ALL the above bullshit has all been shot down in flames, many times in
the past. Google it, and stop chugging the awful tasting clueless flavor
Kook-Aid.
Henry
>> ...believe that gradual equals instant, partial equals
>> total, and random equals symmetric. They'll believe
>> whatever their ruling masters in and politicians tell
>> them without thought or question. What they won't do,
>> is read, think, or answer questions about their insane
>> cartoon conspiracy theory.
>> There's actually a pretty easy method to determine if
>> someone is a deluded nutjob, or a rational, logical, and
>> intelligent person.
>> If you ask the latter to defend or explain his/her beliefs,
>> the intelligent, rational person will cite hard evidence,
>> credible expert research, science, physics, etc., and do so
>> in a clear, logical, calm, and articulate manner.
>> OTOH, ask a nutjob to defend or explain its beliefs, and
>> the nutjob becomes offended, uncomfortable, and irrational,
>> and its "thought" process pretty much shuts down. The nutjob,
>> rather than defend its beliefs with evidence, research, or
>> logic, will do one of several things - change the subject,
>> shamefully run away confused and frustrated, or "attack"
>> the person who's challenged its beliefs with childishly comical
>> "insults", such as "You're a communist", "You're a janitor",
>> "Your mother smokes crack", "You're a desperate, squirming,
>> evasive, poor loser", etc..
>> What the nutjob is pitifully and comically incapable of doing,
>> is engaging in a calm, rational, open, and honest dialog of the
>> relevant facts, research, and evidence.
>> Let's give it a go, shall we? This little experiment is usually
>> quite revealing - and fun - unless, of course, you happen to be
>> a deluded and confused nutjob.... <vbg>
>> The demolitions shown in the video below both display all
"OTOH, ask a nutjob to defend or explain its beliefs, and
the nutjob becomes offended, uncomfortable, and irrational,
and its "thought" process pretty much shuts down. The nutjob,
rather than defend its beliefs with evidence, research, or
logic, will do one of several things - change the subject,
shamefully run away confused and frustrated, or "attack"
the person who's challenged its beliefs with childishly comical
"insults", such as "You're a communist", "You're a janitor",
"Your mother smokes crack", "You're a desperate, squirming,
evasive, poor loser", etc..
What the nutjob is pitifully and comically incapable of doing,
is engaging in a calm, rational, open, and honest dialog of the
relevant facts, research, and evidence."
Thanks for proving my point - even though it wasn't quite
what you had in "mind".. <chuckle>
=========================================================
Don't miss the comments after the article. Followers of
the "official" reality defying conspiracy theory resort to
name calling and hysterics, while those with an open mind
prefer discussing the actual facts and evidence....
or:
George
> George wrote:
> > Conspiracy links removed.
>
> There's actually a pretty easy method to determine if
> someone is a deluded nutjob, or a rational, logical, and
> intelligent person.
Your envy has been noted.
However it is 9/11 and after 8 years all we have from the conspiracy
theorists is
..... nothing....
I repeat that there are no explosive sounds on any of the video
soundtracks taken that morning after the aircraft impacts
Demolition requires months of weakening the structure and placement of
explosives -- at the BOTTOM (ground floors) of the structure.
BDK
says...
I just wasn't feeling like playing your little game, kooktard. Google
your claims, and read the posts, and whine. Then maybe talk to a REAL
EXPERT, maybe like an engineer, who, after he finishes laughing, can
explain (Possibly) to you all the problems in your little scenarios.
But not a single one of you kooks ever do talk to an engineer. I have to
wonder why that is? Aren't you confident you're right?
Just go look it up!
wrote:
It's been a long time since I last wandered through, but has anyone
who's claiming CD explained how the aircraft hit the towers at exactly
the location the charges were previously planted, or how the charges
would have survived the impact to be detonated later? Are they
claiming secret ninja teams hefting bags and bags of explosives went
into the impact zone and planted them in the right places
post-airliner or something?
Henry
> However it is 9/11 and after 8 years all we have from the conspiracy
> theorists is ..... nothing....
Well, they certainly don't seem to be capable of addressing the
facts, evidence, and expert research, but they still make a lot
of stupid noises. Watch, I'll challenge you to address the
evidence, and you won't be able to do it. You'll either
change the subject or run away confused and humiliated....
The demolitions shown in the video below both display all
the characteristics of controlled demolition, and none of
fire induced failure, yet followers of the government's 9-11
conspiracy theory try to tell us that one was caused by the
partial, gradual, and random weakening of a small percentage
of support columns due to gradual heating, and the other was
caused by the total, instant, and symmetric destruction of all
the support columns due to demolition. They can't have it both
ways. That's why no one can produce even *one* example of a steel
framed high rise that dropped due to fire. Not one. Not ever. Not
anywhere. It's physically impossible.
Look at the buckled column in the photo linked below. That's the
sort of gradual bending and sagging that would be caused by
*extreme* heat. Of course, the fires in WTC7 never even got that
hot.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI-3-6.jpg
Photo from: http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI.htm
Here is some more expert research. Please tell us where you believe
they are all mistaken as they use logic, physics, detailed evidence,
common sense, and expert research to prove that random gradual
heating can not possibly cause the free fall and symmetric drop of
a steel framed high rise.
Here's what the experts say about WTC7. Let us know if you dispute
any of it, and why.
Henry
> 9-11...@experts.org says...
>> BDK wrote:
>>> 9-11...@experts.org says...
>>>> You believe that gradual equals instant, partial equals
>>>> total, and random equals symmetric. You'll believe
>>>> whatever your ruling masters and politicians tell
>>>> you without thought or question. What you won't do,
>>>> is read, think, or answer questions about your insane
>>>> cartoon conspiracy theory.
> I just wasn't feeling like playing your little game, kooktard.
'
In other words, you're incapable of reading, thinking, or
defending your insane cartoon conspiracy theory with anything
more than childish drivel - not unlike a gullible young child
who has just been told that Santa isn't real. <vbg>
Thanks for proving my point - twice - even though it wasn't
Henry
> It's been a long time since I last wandered through, but has anyone
> who's claiming CD explained how the aircraft hit the towers at exactly
> the location the charges were previously planted, or how the charges
> would have survived the impact to be detonated later?
No need for the jets to hit exactly where the charges were
planted, and any columns that were severed by the jet impacts
would not need to be severed by demolition.
> Are they
> claiming secret ninja teams hefting bags and bags of explosives went
> into the impact zone and planted them in the right places
> post-airliner or something?
Tell us how the Cave Man managed to shut down NORAD and
convince Cheney to issue a stand down order. <chuckle>
http://www.911truth.org/article_for_printing.php?story=20070402105006226
3. Norman Mineta's mind-blowing testimony before the 9/11 Commission
concerning the last fifty miles of flight of the plane that hit the
Pentagon and Dick Cheney's orders about it, are matters of no apparent
concern to Dunbar and Reagan. Thus, were one to rely on their telling,
one would be unaware that Mineta was directed to the Presidential
Emergency Operations Center in the White House sometime after the second
plane hit the South Tower. One would not learn that he found Cheney in
charge and being informed by a young man as to the path of the plane
that hit the Pentagon. Nor would one know that Cheney was notified
periodically that the plane was fifty miles out, thirty miles out,
twenty, and ten. Avoiding the entire episode, Dunbar and Reagan
obviously make no mention of the young man's inquiry of Cheney upon the
final progress report, "Do the orders still stand"? Cheney's response,
turning abruptly to the young man and asking pointedly if he (the young
man) had heard anything to the contrary -- a fact of considerable
importance for an understanding of the entire event -- therefore is not
discussed in the pages of Debunking. As a consequence of this avoidance,
one will find no examination of the ramifications of this testimony. One
finds no query concerning the nature of the orders referred to, and no
speculation concerning Pentagon defenses and their failure to deploy.
There is no reference to the failure of the 9/11 Commission to find out
who the young man was, or how many other people were in the room, and
what their reactions were. There is no discussion of how the incident is
simply eliminated from history by the adoption of an alternative
chronology that contradicts a string of accounts and offers no
explanation of why Norman Mineta, now holder of the Presidential Medal
of Freedom, bestowed upon him by President Bush, would make up such an
amazing tale or have such an elaborately embroidered faulty memory. None
of these are matters for Dunbar and Reagan."
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/HowTheyGetAwayWithIt.html
"The young man's reports to Cheney of the airliner's impending
approach is followed by his urgent question whether "the orders still
stand?" The young man was questioning the order. That question had to be
about whether the order NOT to destroy the approaching plane still
stood. Given the two prior attacks against the Twin Towers using the
commercial airliners as weapons, an order to destroy the plane
approaching the Pentagon would be the only order to give and would not
be subject to question by the young man as the plane approached.
Furthermore, had Cheney's order been to fire on the plane approaching
the Pentagon (which first came near the White House), the anti-aircraft
capacity of the Pentagon (or White House), would have sufficed to take
out that plane, and certainly to have attempted to take out that plane.
Since the Langley/Norfolk jets are at least 10 minutes away and out of
range, Cheney's order is about the on-site Pentagon or White House
defenses. Neither a shoot-down nor an attempted shoot-down occurred, and
since Mineta does not speak of a last-second change in orders by Cheney,
the only supportable conclusion is that Cheney's order was NOT to defend
the Pentagon, an order so contrary to both common sense and military
defense that it, and it alone, explains the questioning by the young man."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8788
With regard to the morning of 9/11, everyone agrees that at some time
after 9:03 (when the South Tower of the World Trade Center was struck)
and before 10:00, Vice President Dick Cheney went down to the
Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC), sometimes simply called
the ?bunker,? under the east wing of the White House. Everyone also
agrees that, once there, Cheney was in charge---that he was either
making decisions or relaying decisions from President Bush. But there is
enormous disagreement as to exactly when Cheney entered the PEOC.
According to The 9/11 Commission Report, Cheney arrived ?shortly
before 10:00, perhaps at 9:58? (The 9/11 Commission Report [henceforth
9/11CR], 40). This official time, however, contradicts almost all
previous reports, some of which had him there before 9:20. This
difference is important because, if the 9/11 Commission's time is
correct, Cheney was not in charge in the PEOC when the Pentagon was
struck, or for most of the period during which United Flight 93 was
approaching Washington. But if the reports that have him there by 9:20
are correct, he was in charge in the PEOC all that time.
Mineta?s Report of Cheney's Early Arrival
The most well-known statement contradicting the 9/11 Commission was made
by Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta during his public testimony
to the 9/11 Commission on May 23, 2003. Saying that he "arrived at the
PEOC at about 9:20 AM," Mineta reported that he then overheard part of
an ongoing conversation, which had obviously begun before he arrived,
between a young man and Vice President Cheney. This conversation was
about a plane coming toward Washington and ended with Cheney confirming
that "the orders still stand." When Commissioner Timothy Roemer later
asked Mineta how long after his arrival he overheard this conversation
about whether the orders still stood, Mineta replied: ?Probably about
five or six minutes." This would mean, Roemer pointed out, "about 9:25
or 9:26."
This is a remarkable contradiction. Given the fact that Cheney,
according to Mineta, had been engaged in an ongoing exchange, he must
have been in the PEOC for several minutes before Mineta?s 9:20 arrival.
If Cheney had been there since 9:15, there would be a 43-minute
contradiction between Mineta?s testimony and The 9/11 Commission Report.
Why would such an enormous contradiction exist?
One possible explanation would be that Mineta was wrong. His story,
however, is in line with that of many other witnesses.
Other Reports Supporting Cheney's Early Arrival
Richard Clarke reported that he, Cheney, and Condoleezza Rice had a
brief meeting shortly after 9:03, following which the Secret Service
wanted Cheney and Rice to go down to the PEOC. Rice, however, first went
with Clarke to the White House?s Video Teleconferencing Center, where
Clarke was to set up a video conference, which began at about 9:10.
After spending a few minutes there, Rice said, according to Clarke:
"You're going to need some decisions quickly. I'm going to the PEOC to
be with the Vice President. Tell us what you need." At about 9:15,
Norman Mineta arrived and Clarke "suggested he join the Vice President"
(Against All Enemies, 2-5). Clarke thereby implied that Cheney was in
the PEOC several minutes prior to 9:15.
In an ABC News program on the first anniversary of 9/11, Cheney?s
White House photographer David Bohrer reported that, shortly after 9:00,
some Secret Service agents came into Cheney's office and said, "Sir, you
have to come with us." During this same program, Rice said: "As I was
trying to find all of the principals, the Secret Service came in and
said, "You have to leave now for the bunker. The Vice President's
already there. There may be a plane headed for the White House." ABC?s
Charles Gibson then said: "In the bunker, the Vice President is joined
by Rice and Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta" ("9/11: Interviews
by Peter Jennings," ABC News, September 11, 2002).
The 9/11 Commission?s Late-Arrival Claim
The 9/11 Commission agreed that the vice president was hustled down to
the PEOC after word was received that a plane was headed towards the
White House. It claimed, however, that this word was not received until
9:33. But even then, according to the Commission, the Secret Service
agents immediately received another message, telling them that the
aircraft had turned away, so "no move was made to evacuate the Vice
President at this time." It was not until "just before 9:36" that the
Secret Service ordered Cheney to go below (9/11CR 39). But even after he
entered the underground corridor at 9:37, Cheney did not immediately go
to the PEOC. Rather:
Once inside, Vice President Cheney and the agents paused in an area of
the tunnel that had a secure phone, a bench, and television. The Vice
President asked to speak to the President, but it took time for the call
to be connected. He learned in the tunnel that the Pentagon had been
hit, and he saw television coverage of the smoke coming from the
building. (9/11CR 40)
Next, after Lynne Cheney "joined her husband in the tunnel," the
Commission claimed, "Mrs. Cheney and the Vice President moved from the
tunnel to the shelter conference room" after the call ended, which was
not until after 9:55. As for Rice, the Commission added, she ?entered
the conference room shortly after the Vice President? (9/11CR 40).
The contradiction could not be clearer. According to the Commission,
Cheney, far from entering the PEOC before 9:20, as Mineta and others
said, did not arrive there until about 9:58, 20 minutes after the 9:38
strike on the Pentagon, about which he had learned in the corridor.
Cheney's Account on Meet the Press
The 9/11 Commission's account even contradicted that given by Cheney
himself in a well-known interview. Speaking to Tim Russert on NBC?s Meet
the Press only five days after 9/11, Cheney said: "After I talked to
the president, . . . I went down into . . . the Presidential Emergency
Operations Center. . . . When I arrived there within a short order, we
had word the Pentagon's been hit." Cheney himself, therefore, indicated
that he had entered the PEOC prior to the (9:38) strike on the Pentagon,
not 20 minutes after it, as the Commission would later claim.
Dealing with the Contradictions
How did the 9/11 Commission deal with the fact that its claim about the
time of Cheney's arrival in the PEOC had been contradicted by Bohrer,
Clarke, Mineta, Rice, several news reports, and even Cheney himself? It
simply omitted any mention of these contradictory reports.
Of these omissions, the most important was the Commission?s failure to
mention Norman Mineta?s testimony, even though it was given to the
Commission in an open hearing---as can be seen by reading the transcript
of that session (May 23, 2003). This portion of Mineta?s testimony was
also deleted from the official version of the video record of the 9/11
Commission hearings in the 9/11 Commission archives. (It can, however,
be viewed on the Internet.)
During an interview for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in 2006,
Hamilton was asked what "Mineta told the Commission about where Dick
Cheney was prior to 10 AM." Hamilton replied: ?I do not recall? ("9/11:
Truth, Lies and Conspiracy: Interview: Lee Hamilton," CBC News, 21
August 2006). It was surprising that Hamilton could not recall, because
he had been the one doing the questioning when Mineta told the story of
the young man's conversation with Cheney. Hamilton, moreover, had begun
his questioning by saying to Mineta: "You were there [in the PEOC] for a
good part of the day. I think you were there with the Vice President."
And Mineta's exchange with Timothy Roemer, during which it was
established that Mineta had arrived at about 9:20, came immediately
after Hamilton?s interrogation. And yet Hamilton, not being able to
recall any of this, simply said, "we think that Vice President Cheney
entered the bunker shortly before 10 o'clock."
Obliterating Mineta?s Problematic Testimony
To see possible motives for the 9/11 Commission?s efforts to obliterate
Mineta?s story from the public record, we need to look at the
conversation he reported to the Commission. He said:
During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there
was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, ?The
plane is 50 miles out." "The plane is 30 miles out.? And when it got
down to "the plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the Vice
President, "Do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President turned
and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand.
Have you heard anything to the contrary""
Mineta's story had dangerous implications with regard to the strike on
the Pentagon, which occurred at 9:38. According to the 9/11 Commission,
the military did not know that an aircraft was approaching the Pentagon
until 9:36, so that it ?had at most one or two minutes to react to the
unidentified plane approaching Washington? (9/11CR 34). That claim was
essential for explaining, among other things, why the Pentagon had not
been evacuated before it was struck---a fact that resulted in 125
deaths. A spokesperson for Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, when asked why
this evacuation had not occurred, said: ?The Pentagon was simply not
aware that this aircraft was coming our way? (Newsday, Sept. 23, 2001).
Mineta?s testimony implied, by contrast, that Cheney and others knew
that an aircraft was approaching Washington about 12 minutes before that
strike.
Even more problematic was the question of the nature of "the orders."
Mineta assumed, he said, that they were orders to have the plane shot
down. But the aircraft was not shot down. Also, the expected orders,
especially on a day when two hijacked airliners had already crashed into
buildings in New York, would have been to shoot down any nonmilitary
aircraft entering the ?prohibited? airspace over Washington, in which
?civilian flying is prohibited at all times? (?Pilots Notified of
Restricted Airspace; Violators Face Military Action,? FAA Press Release,
September 28, 2001). If those orders had been given, there would have
been no reason to ask if they still stood. The question made sense only
if the orders were to do something unusual---not to shoot the aircraft
down. It appeared, accordingly, that Mineta had inadvertently reported
Cheney's confirmation of stand-down orders.
That Mineta's report was regarded as dangerous is suggested by the
fact that the 9/11 Commission, besides deleting Mineta?s testimony and
delaying Cheney?s entrance to the bunker by approximately 45 minutes,
also replaced Mineta?s story with a new story about an incoming
aircraft. According to The 9/11 Commission Report, here is what really
happened:
At 10:02, the communicators in the shelter began receiving reports from
the Secret Service of an inbound aircraft. . . . At some time between
10:10 and 10:15, a military aide told the Vice President and others that
the aircraft was 80 miles out. Vice President Cheney was asked for
authority to engage the aircraft. . . . The Vice President authorized
fighter aircraft to engage the inbound plane. . . . The military aide
returned a few minutes later, probably between 10:12 and 10:18, and said
the aircraft was 60 miles out. He again asked for authorization to
engage. The Vice President again said yes. (9/11CR 41)
The 9/11 Commission thereby presented the incoming aircraft story as
one that ended with an order for a shoot down, not a stand down. And by
having it occur after 10:10, the Commission not only disassociated it
from the Pentagon strike but also ruled out the possibility that
Cheney's shootdown authorization might have led to the downing of United
Flight 93 (which crashed, according to the Commission, at 10:03).
Given the fact that the 9/11 Commission's account of Cheney's descent
to the bunker contradicted the testimony of not only Norman Mineta but
also many other witnesses, including Cheney himself, Congress and the
press need to launch investigations to determine what really happened.
BDK
No, I'm just not going to expend the effort it takes to hunt down the
posts that debunk the nonsense above. Someone else will do it. As the
number one shill, I have other duties.
Hint: Number 2 above is totally whacked. You poor kooks can't even tell
time!
I have better things to do, like read birthtard stuff. They are one of
the few forms of kooktards even more deranged than you troofers are.
That's something special in itself.
BDK
says...
> Just go look it up! wrote:
>
> > It's been a long time since I last wandered through, but has anyone
> > who's claiming CD explained how the aircraft hit the towers at exactly
> > the location the charges were previously planted, or how the charges
> > would have survived the impact to be detonated later?
>
> No need for the jets to hit exactly where the charges were
> planted, and any columns that were severed by the jet impacts
> would not need to be severed by demolition.
>
>
> > Are they
> > claiming secret ninja teams hefting bags and bags of explosives went
> > into the impact zone and planted them in the right places
> > post-airliner or something?
>
> Tell us how the Cave Man managed to shut down NORAD and
> convince Cheney to issue a stand down order. <chuckle>
Chuckle is right, NORAD's mission didn't include domestic flights back
then, kooktard. You need to stop reading, and swallowing, the nonsense
on the holy kookpages you worship.
What really needs to be investigated is what made you poor bastards into
kooktards. That might actually accomplish something.
Henry
You're already twice certified as not job. How many times
yo going for, kooker? <g>
Henry
> In article <h8ddgq$hm2$1...@ruby.cit.cornell.edu>, 9-11...@experts.org
> says...
>> Just go look it up! wrote:
>>
>>> It's been a long time since I last wandered through, but has anyone
>>> who's claiming CD explained how the aircraft hit the towers at exactly
>>> the location the charges were previously planted, or how the charges
>>> would have survived the impact to be detonated later?
>> No need for the jets to hit exactly where the charges were
>> planted, and any columns that were severed by the jet impacts
>> would not need to be severed by demolition.
>>> Are they
>>> claiming secret ninja teams hefting bags and bags of explosives went
>>> into the impact zone and planted them in the right places
>>> post-airliner or something?
>> Tell us how the Cave Man managed to shut down NORAD and
>> convince Cheney to issue a stand down order. <chuckle>
> Chuckle is right, NORAD's mission didn't include domestic flights back
> then, kooktard.
Actually, it did, but regardless, Cheney gave a stand down order,
nutjob. One thing that all magic fire/Super Arab cartoon conspiracy
kooks seem to have in common is a comical inability to read or think.
George
> George wrote:
> > However it is 9/11 and after 8 years all we have from the conspiracy
> > theorists is ..... nothing....
>
> Well, they certainly don't seem to be capable of addressing the
> facts, evidence, and expert research, but they still make a lot
> of stupid noises. Watch, I'll challenge you to address the
> evidence, and you won't be able to do it. You'll either
> change the subject or run away confused and humiliated....
Yeah riiiiight.
There were no explosions after the impacts. There are no explosive
sounds on any of the video soundtracks.
The NIST report is the best available explanation of the events of
9/11..
It is up to the kooks to better explain those events that include
their claims.
Aint going to happen
Animal03-
Poor hank the bottle washer returns many months after being bitch
slapped by the facts.......only to repeat the same debunked myths that
resulted in his last bitch slapping..........
Animal03-
Not only was there no explosive sounds, there was no seismic evidence of
explosives either......a little fact that kooktards like hank the bottle
washer always ignore.
BDK
You want to try that one again, in English, Hankie?
BDK
says...
Wow, I called him Hankie, not even realizing it was him! I wonder where
he's been all this time? Attending advanced bottle washing training
classes?
I wonder if any of the profs at work know about Hankie's kooktardism? I
hope not, or Hankie might be out the door.
BDK
says...
> BDK wrote:
> > In article <h8ddgq$hm2$1...@ruby.cit.cornell.edu>, 9-11...@experts.org
> > says...
> >> Just go look it up! wrote:
> >>
> >>> It's been a long time since I last wandered through, but has anyone
> >>> who's claiming CD explained how the aircraft hit the towers at exactly
> >>> the location the charges were previously planted, or how the charges
> >>> would have survived the impact to be detonated later?
> >> No need for the jets to hit exactly where the charges were
> >> planted, and any columns that were severed by the jet impacts
> >> would not need to be severed by demolition.
>
> >>> Are they
> >>> claiming secret ninja teams hefting bags and bags of explosives went
> >>> into the impact zone and planted them in the right places
> >>> post-airliner or something?
>
> >> Tell us how the Cave Man managed to shut down NORAD and
> >> convince Cheney to issue a stand down order. <chuckle>
>
> > Chuckle is right, NORAD's mission didn't include domestic flights back
> > then, kooktard.
>
> Actually, it did, but regardless, Cheney gave a stand down order,
> nutjob. One thing that all magic fire/Super Arab cartoon conspiracy
> kooks seem to have in common is a comical inability to read or think.
Hankie! Where you been? Seriously, I had hoped you might have become
sane and just moved on. I guess it was too much to hope for. Kooktardery
is usually a chronic condition.
You poor kooktardic bastard!!