9/11 - The Inside Job NEW INFO & UPDATES WHEN THEY HAPPEN

Matter-Eater Lad · August 2, 2006

http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/uploads/pentagon_nns_.jpg

theres alot of smoke for a cruise missle

http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/uploads/planepieces_nns_.jpg

funny looking 'missle wreckage' ( mustve been placed there after)

http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/uploads/downed-lamp-post_loc_.jpg

Super accurate cruise missle flattens lampost on route to the pentagon

And what about all the eye witnesses who say that saw a plane? Were they paid? were they all in on it? Why did no-one see a missle?

Ease up man, you're making him look bad again. he cant handle all the facts, his mind is made for theories.

GazeboflossUK · August 2, 2006

Ease up man' date=' you're making him look bad again. he cant handle all the facts, his mind is made for theories.[/quote']

I know all those sites already! I have read them!

GazeboflossUK · August 2, 2006

When The Explosives Were Placed: WTC South Tower Upper Floors Closed on 9/8 & 9/9

San Francisco Indymedia | April 23 2004

Many people have theorized the World Trade Center was wired with explosives, causing the unprecedented collapse following the impacts of two jumbo jets. In fact, NYC firefighters remarked that day that it seemed like bombs were going off in the buildings, just prior to the tower's collapse. One glaring question remains unanswered: exactly how and when could such a monumental undertaking be accomplished. Read on for the answer...

Feedback from the Progressive Review's Undernews for April 22, 2004.

WE RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING from someone who worked for Fiduciary Trust on the 90th, 94-97th floors of the South Tower:

"On the weekend of 9/8,9/9 there was a 'power down' condition in WTC tower 2, the south tower. This power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approx 36 hrs from floor 50 up. I am aware of this situation since I work in IT and had to work with many others that weekend to ensure that all systems were cleanly shutdown beforehand ... and then brought back up afterwards. The reason given by the WTC for the power down was that cabling in the tower was being upgraded ...

"Of course without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors and many, many 'engineers' coming in and out of the tower. I was at home on the morning of 9/11 on the shore of Jersey City, right opposite the Towers, and watching events unfold I was convinced immediately that something was happening related to the weekend work."

GazeboflossUK · August 2, 2006

I mean, you always say things like "I'll go with the experts on this" but really, your "experts" are just on the government pay-roll....

Look, the "WTC Construction and Project Manager" discusses the fact that the WTC towers were designed to take multiple hits from airliners and not collapse, comparing it to poking a pencil through fly netting, DeMartini was adament that the towers would not collapse. DeMartini died in the towers on 9/11, this interview clip was taken from video shot in January 2001.

WATCH the WTC Construction and Project Manager talk about it here

As well as this...

Here is someone else who you can't say doesn't know what he's talking about...

WTC Construction Certifiers Say Towers Should Have Easily Withstood Jet Fuel Temperatures

Kevin Ryan/Underwriters Laboratories | November 12 2004

The following letter was sent today by Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories to Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Underwriters Laboratories is the company that certified the steel componets used in the constuction of the World Trade Center towers. The information in this letter is of great importance.

Dr. Gayle,

Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly.

As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.

There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel…burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown’s theory."

We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.

The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse." The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.

However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building’s steel core to "soften and buckle." (5) Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C." To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.

This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.

There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at the crux of the crux of the crux. Either you can make sense of what really happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or we all face the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based on disinformation and “chatter”.

Thanks for your efforts to determine what happened on that day. You may know that there are a number of other current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth. I've copied one of these people on this message as a sign of respect and support. I believe your work could also be a nucleus of fact around which the truth, and thereby global peace and justice, can grow again. Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel.

1. http://www.boulderweekly.com/archive/102104/coverstory.html 2. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 61st edition, pg D-187 3. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofSteel.pdf 4. http://www.voicesofsept11.org/archive/911ic/082703.php 5. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACWTCStatusFINAL101904WEB2.pdf (pg 11) 6. http://www.forging.org/FIERF/pdf/ffaaMacSleyne.pdf

Kevin Ryan

Site Manager Environmental Health Laboratories A Division of Underwriters Laboratories

General Smut · August 3, 2006

When The Explosives Were Placed: WTC South Tower Upper Floors Closed on 9/8 & 9/9

San Francisco Indymedia | April 23 2004

Many people have theorized the World Trade Center was wired with explosives, causing the unprecedented collapse following the impacts of two jumbo jets. In fact, NYC firefighters remarked that day that it seemed like bombs were going off in the buildings, just prior to the tower's collapse. One glaring question remains unanswered: exactly how and when could such a monumental undertaking be accomplished. Read on for the answer...

Feedback from the Progressive Review's Undernews for April 22, 2004.

WE RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING from someone who worked for Fiduciary Trust on the 90th, 94-97th floors of the South Tower:

"On the weekend of 9/8,9/9 there was a 'power down' condition in WTC tower 2, the south tower. This power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approx 36 hrs from floor 50 up. I am aware of this situation since I work in IT and had to work with many others that weekend to ensure that all systems were cleanly shutdown beforehand ... and then brought back up afterwards. The reason given by the WTC for the power down was that cabling in the tower was being upgraded ...

"Of course without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors and many, many 'engineers' coming in and out of the tower. I was at home on the morning of 9/11 on the shore of Jersey City, right opposite the Towers, and watching events unfold I was convinced immediately that something was happening related to the weekend work."

And the same thing happened to the north tower? And you honestly think an aeroplane that crashes is only give of 250c heat? A raging inferno? Hundreds of gallons of Jet fuel will only give of slighty more heat than an over does when i cook a pizza? And what kept the fire going for nealry an hour?

Look a Jumbo Jet flying into a building is going to weaken it structually. Its not going to be as strong. Steel doesnt need to melt to fail, Ever seen ironworkers bending Iron? They heat it so they can shape it. the iron is still in one piece but while the heats on its not very strong, but its flexible. A skyscrapper is designed to be flexible but not that flexible.

You conspiracy theory nuts will find holes in anything, I bet you think Elvis is stilla live, Marilyan Monroe had a sex change, Man never went to he moon, the 2nd gunman on the grassy knoll, the list goes on!

Get a life!! Stop watching silly TV progrmmes

GazeboflossUK · August 3, 2006

Again......calling me silly......trying to discredit the info by saying "And you honestly think an aeroplane that crashes is only give of 250c heat"......which you know FINE WELL that I know that the fire would be higher in temperature...but still not enough to destroy every inch down to the floor.

Plus, I NEVER SAID THAT ABOUT THE PLANES NOT BRINGING IT DOWN, THE PEOPLE WHO BUILT AND CHECKED THE BUILDINGS SAID THIS!!!

Whatever you say against it is a proven lie.....trust me.

....and you actually told me to "get a life" and not to watch "silly TV progrmmes" didn't you???.........pathetic.

We'll see how silly it all is 'pal'.

GazeboflossUK · August 3, 2006

NORAD Tapes Only Intensify Implausibility Of 9/11 Official Story

"These guys are smart," statement completely inconsistent with flight instructors description of hijacker's skills

Paul Joseph Watson | August 2 2006

Newly released portions of NORAD tapes from 9/11 featured in a Vanity Fair article do little to answer skeptic's questions about the impotence of U.S. air defenses on 9/11 and if anything only increase focus on the incompatibility of the official version of events with what is actually known to have taken place on that day.

It is clear that the exercises revolving around hijacked airliners scheduled for that morning created so much noise in the system that controllers could not pinpoint the positions of any of the real airliners to orchestrate any kind of intercept.

Errant 'ghost' aircraft such as 'Delta 89' and American Airlines 11 which controllers weren't aware had already crashed into the World Trade Center north tower continually confuse NORAD officials and at one point after Flight 77 has hit the Pentagon, they even intercept their own aircraft.

Several exchanges between NORAD personnel outline the confusion that the drills caused and delayed the response of air defense procedures.

08:37:52

BOSTON CENTER: Hi. Boston Center T.M.U. [Traffic Management Unit], we have a problem here. We have a hijacked aircraft headed towards New York, and we need you guys to, we need someone to scramble some F-16s or something up there, help us out.

POWELL: Is this real-world or exercise?

BOSTON CENTER: No, this is not an exercise, not a test.

8:37:56

WATSON: What?

DOOLEY: Whoa!

WATSON: What was that?

ROUNTREE: Is that real-world?

DOOLEY: Real-world hijack.

WATSON: Cool!

"When they told me there was a hijack, my first reaction was 'Somebody started the exercise early,'" said mission-crew commander Major Kevin Nasypany.

The exercise of running numerous war games where planes would be mock-hijacked and crashed into high-profile targets is dismissed as a coincidence by the writer Michael Bronner, with no discussion of the astronomical improbability of the two scenarios colliding, in alliance with similar same target, same time drills which took place during the London bombings.

The tapes betray the fact that NORAD's attention to the fact that Flight 77 was heading towards Washington are virtually non-existent as they struggle to gain authorization to shoot down stray aircraft.

Despite the lies of Cheney in his subsequent TV interviews and statements given under oath to the 9/11 Commission, those shoot down orders never arrived, even after United 93 had crashed in Pennsylvania.

While NORAD struggled to comprehend what exactly was heading towards Washington, in Dick Cheney's PEOC bunker things were apparently a lot clearer. The testimony of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta is brought under more scrutiny by the NORAD tapes.

How could Cheney know exactly what was heading for Washington and give clear orders for its path to remain clear, while the very people mandated to defend the skies of America scrambled desperately to make sense of the chaos and get fighters in the positions they needed to be?

"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?"

Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta's testimony to the 9/11 Commission, May 23, 2003.

The impotence of NORAD in only having access to four fighters to cover the entire eastern seaboard of the US contradicts the fact that 35 USAF bases alone were within range of the hijacked flights but were never called upon or given as an option.

The quick response by NORAD to the golfer Payne Stewart's off-course aircraft in 1999 is often cited as contradicting with procedure on 9/11. In addition, there were 67 occasions where fighters were scrambled to intercept errant aircraft in the 9 month period before 9/11.

Other segments of the tapes only raise more questions and do not provide any answers to long-standing mysteries.

- How did the admittedly incompetent pilot hijackers turn off the transponders of all the aircraft? A procedure, according to professionals that we have talked to, is often beyond the capability of even the most experienced commercial pilots?

- In one portion of the tapes, NORAD personnel are heard to marvel at the excellence of the hijacker's strategy.

9:23:15

ANDERSON: They're probably not squawking anything [broadcasting a beacon code] anyway. I mean, obviously these guys are in the cockpit.

NASYPANY: These guys are smart.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yeah, they knew exactly what they wanted to do.

These guys are smart? Contrast this statement with those of the flight instructors when describing the skills of the alleged hijackers.

Mohammed Atta: "His attention span was zero."

Khalid Al-Mihdhar: "We didn't kick him out, but he didn't live up to our standards."

Marwan Al-Shehhi: “He was dropped because of his limited English and incompetence at the controls.”

Salem Al-Hazmi: "We advised him to quit after two lessons.”

Do the descriptions afforded to these men square with the chaos that their skills in evading detection brought to the NORAD control room? Or were the planes being controlled by some other means than morons who could barely get single engine Cessna's off the ground - but who apparently ran the world's most sophisticated air defense ragged for hours?

Does the panic that envelops the NORAD control room and the fear that new reports of hijacked planes will never end, coupled with speculation that anything (the White House and the Statue of Liberty are mentioned) could be a target, corroborate with the actions of President Bush's security detail?

Reports of numerous stray aircraft, bombs on planes, and truck bombs at the Pentagon fly and yet President Bush sits calmly in a Florida classroom apparently safe in the knowledge that he is not a target. Why wasn't the President hurried into the nearest underground bunker as soon as Card told him "America is under attack," unless Bush's people were confident of the exact targets beforehand, and that Bush himself wasn't one of them?

The writer of the Vanity Fair piece has taken the NORAD tapes on their own and attempted to forward them as proof that the official version of events is largely accurate, minus the proven lies about the non-authorization of shoot downs.

The problem is that the behavior of the errant planes, when overlaid with the activities of Cheney and Bush, standard intercept operating procedure (minus the intentional confusion of an untold number of blips from the NORAD drills) and the incompetent hijackers, simply does not corroborate.

Furthermore, the tape portions amount to a total of no more than 20 minutes of hand-picked cmmunications and it is admitted that the discussions of the higher brass are not recorded due to secrecy. Nothing is mentioned of the six tapes of air traffic control communications with the hijacked airliners that were deliberately destroyed by FAA managers.

The purpose of the Vanity Fair and a similar Washington Post article is to whitewash the entire affair and blame 9/11 on the incompetence of NORAD.

The NORAD tapes, far from dissolving so-called "conspiracy theories," only serve to support the weight of evidence that points directly towards a deliberate plan on September 11, 2001 to make the air defenses of the United States impotent and to enable the planes to find their targets.

General Smut · August 3, 2006

Burn to the floor??? I never said that! All the fire has to do is weaken the already weakend tower! Once one area failed then thatputs pressure on the other parts which will fail almost staright away - Think of metal fatigue.

The trade centre had a different layout to other skyscrappers - the floors were kinda suspended (theres a clever word for this but i cant remember it) When the top floors collapsed because of the weakend structure they all fell on top of each other. which put more pressure on the floors below and thats why they collapsed when they did.

And besides i dont know about you but every demolition ive seen on TV, not a single one has come close to the wtc for mess. Sure it was a big building, but a day later there was still dust coming from it. You could see it in space. Now ive seen demolitions in tv and real life the dust doesnt hang around for long.

Conclusion - Couldnt have been an explosion, and if it was, it was shockingly poor considering the best people where on the job!!

YOU quoted the guy saying the temperatures of the burning jet fuel were only 250c. I'm saying its hard to believe that a hundreds of gallons of jet fuel will only burn at a temperature only slighty higher then a oven when i cook a pizza!

General Smut · August 3, 2006

We all know the US miltary isnt as great as it thinks it is. They may have all the flashy equipment but they arent the smartest. They got beaten in war games with India!!

GazeboflossUK · August 3, 2006

No, no....look.....I meant that the fires were NO WHERE NEAR enough to cause the towers to crumble all the way to the floor in the absolutely ridiculous way that they did.

Yes I did post the article by the company that certified the steel componets used in the constuction of the World Trade Center towers and he said that the jet fuel used actaully can ONLY burn at those temperatures.....obviously other things in there were burning, papers and desks...etc. (Also 'thermate' was used in the charges to slice through the steel, making it fall.)

And the theory about the pressure causing the collapse is a lie too. The pressure then is said to cause the "pan-cake" effect where each floor is hit by the floor above and causes the fall.....BUT the pan-cake theory would have caused the buildings to fall down a heck of a lot slower.....not at almost scientific 'Free Fall' speeds.

Yes, this demolition wasn't really a "controlled" demolition as such (like build 7 was).....the towers had to be destroyed in such a way to help hide most of the explosive charges going off......you can still see alot of them.....but I think it would have been even harder to sell the story of the planes causing the collapse to the public if it had of fell like Building 7, down on it's own footprint.

There would have been too much exposure to all of the demo charges.

And your right....US military and planning isn't quite as great as it thinks it is - this wasn't the best inside job, far from it.....that's why we caught them out.

GazeboflossUK · August 3, 2006

Tower block fire aids 9/11 debate

BBC News

A high-rise block in Glasgow has been set alight in an attempt to understand how blazes affect buildings and ensure future safety in emergencies.

Jose Torero, professor of fire safety engineering at the University of Edinburgh, conducted the experiment on a 24-storey tower block in Dalmarnock.

He also hopes it will shed light on why the Twin Towers collapsed on 9/11.

Prof Torero said he believed the World Trade Centre in New York should have "withstood burnout" after it was hit.

The collapse of the towers in September 2001, after they were hit by hijacked aircraft, resulted in the deaths of almost 2,800 workers and 350 firefighters and emergency workers.

Prof Torero said: "It didn't even cross my mind the buildings would collapse.

"From my perspective, those buildings were designed to last structurally for between three to four hours, enough time to get everyone out who had survived.

The experiment took place in a block of flats on Millerfield Place and Allan Street.

In one room, more than nine miles of cable and sensors were installed.

He said: "The concept is that if we can get an accurate idea of what's happening inside the building I can lead people to safety and minimise the growth of the fire."

A BBC Horizon programme, to be broadcast in the next few months, is looking at Prof Torero's experiment.

This isn't in any way like what happened on 9/11 but I thought it was worth a post.

Matter-Eater Lad · August 4, 2006

We all know the US miltary isnt as great as it thinks it is. They may have all the flashy equipment but they arent the smartest. They got beaten in war games with India!!

very true, we have the technology but we have lost all our good generals. its scary. the day of america being the top military is almost over.

GazeboflossUK · August 4, 2006

NORAD Tapes Expose Lax Military Attitude On 9/11 Air Defense

NORAD Tapes Expose Lax Military Attitude On 9/11 Air Defense

"We'll get back to you on that," Navy ATC told ground ops as they pleaded for fighter support

Paul Joseph Watson | August 4 2006

NORAD tapes released this week which shed light on the negligence of the U.S. military in providing adequate air defense on 9/11 contain a conversation with a Navy air traffic control operator that provides another smoking gun for the assertion of a deliberate stand down policy on the morning of the attacks.

It's 09:34 on September 11, 2001.

At this point in the timeline, NORAD commanders were becoming increasingly frustrated at their impotence and inability to successfully intercept any of the stray aircraft. Erroneous reports of hijacked aircraft that never were and a report that a Cessna, not American Airlines Flight 11, has hit the WTC north tower, are adding to the confusion.

However, the NORAD ground ops know that something is headed towards Washington and they are chomping at the bit to turn around fighters that have been meandering in a stand-by position and send them in the direction of Baltimore.

From the Vanity Fair piece,

"At NEADS, a 28-year-old staff sergeant named William Huckabone, staring at his Green Eye, is the first to notice that the Langley jets are off course. His voice is a mix of stress and dread as he and the controller next to him, Master Sergeant Steve Citino, order a navy air-traffic controller who's handling the fighters to get them turned around toward Baltimore to try to cut off the phantom American 11. The navy air-traffic controller seems not to understand the urgency of the situation."

The conversation with Navy ATC takes place four minutes before Flight 77 hits the Pentagon.

9:34:12

NAVY A.T.C.: You've got [the fighters] moving east in airspace. Now you want 'em to go to Baltimore?

HUCKABONE: Yes, sir. We're not gonna take 'em in Whiskey 386 [military training airspace over the ocean].

NAVY A.T.C.: O.K., once he goes to Baltimore, what are we supposed to do?

HUCKABONE: Have him contact us on auxiliary frequency 2-3-4 decimal 6. Instead of taking handoffs to us and us handing 'em back, just tell Center they've got to go to Baltimore.

NAVY A.T.C.: All right, man. Stand by. We'll get back to you.

CITINO: What do you mean, "We'll get back to you"? Just do it!

HUCKABONE: I'm gonna choke that guy!

CITINO: Be very professional, Huck.

HUCKABONE: O.K.

CITINO: All right, Huck. Let's get our act together here.

The fighters never arrive, Flight 77 ploughs into the Pentagon.

Click here for the audio file.

From the tape, you can hear that the NORAD ground ops are furious with the attitude of the Navy air traffic controller at his listless, placid response to their plea for support.

The biggest attack on America since Pearl Harbor is an hour and twenty minutes underway, two planes have already crashed into the World Trade Center, untold more are known to have been hijacked, the President has been told that America is under attack, and military air traffic control who are in charge of the country's air defense fighters do not understand the urgency of the situation?

This is the 9/11 stand down in plain site.

Not only do the NORAD tapes prove that no shoot-down permission was ever granted by the top brass, but they also betray a laissez faire, suspiciously over-relaxed tone from military personnel who failed to assist NORAD in implementing any kind of rapid air defense procedure at every turn.

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

RELATED: NORAD Tapes Only Intensify Implausibility Of 9/11 Official Story

GazeboflossUK · August 7, 2006

Twin Towers wreckage turning up all over the place

Jerry Mazza | August 7 2006

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1074.shtml

And you thought all the 9/11 WTC wreckage was swept up in eight months and sent to be smelted in foreign countries or secret places in our own strange land, right? And that the rest of the rubble was buried in Fresh Kills (appropriate name), Staten Island. So did I. But now it turns out last remains of the Towers are being stored in an 80,000-square-foot hangar at JFK International Airport in New York. Ain’t that a kick in the head?

The previous fact comes from the fifth paragraph of an article Fragments of Twin Towers may return to Coatesville by Jennifer Miller at DailyLocal.com. It’s a story about Coatesville, Pennsylvania, wanting to get some WTC steel “trees” for the future National Iron & Steel Heritage Museum, to be built in the city’s Lukens National Historic District. The Graystone Society is the group propelling the museum project. Well, how nice.

Scot Huston, a “direct” descendant of the Luken family, president of the Graystone Society, and Gene DiOrio, Graystone Society vice president, traveled to that JFK hangar to meet with New York Port Authority officials about bringing some of the remnants back to Coatesville. That’s even sweeter.

But how about giving some steel “trees” to some 9-11 scientists and engineers? To see if the steel is still strong or if there is any evidence of explosives on them or to test their melting points. I mean since NYPA officials are accommodating these Coatesville folks, let’s remind them there is a 9-11 Truth Movement concerned with all these little details in little ole New York City, where the tragedy occurred. And this movement lives around the nation and the world as well.

So to me, further sharing of the “trees” for forensic research seems like a modest proposal, especially in light of some of the darker purposes for which the wreckage is being shared. Trust me. Nothing’s ever simple concerning 9-11.

Warship built out of Twin Towers Wreckage

Yes, you read correctly. This fact is from an article with the subhead’s title. Check the link and see the ship. It’s the greatest show on earth. This tale, which surfaced on May 22, 2006, from the London Times Online shows and tells us about The USS New York being built in New Orleans using some 24 tons of steel taken from the collapsed World Trade Centers.

In fact, “after a brief ceremony in 2003, about seven tons of steel were melted down and poured into a cast to make the bow section of the ship’s hull.” Are you waiting for the Empire-State building-like miniatures made of the Towers’ lost steel? That would be the final iron-y, wouldn’t it? Ah, but there’s more. And more. And more.

Like one shipyard worker, Tony Quaglino said: he “was going to go in October 2004 after 40 years here, but I put it off when I found out I could be working on New York. This is sacred and makes me very proud.” Glen Clement, a paint-superintendent said: “Nobody passes by that bow section without knocking on it. Everybody knows what it is made from and what it’s about.” Ah, but Glen, not everybody knows how the original steel got bent outa shape. May I suggest The 911 WTC Collapse: An Audio-Video Analysis. Really amazing stuff for all good Americans. It’s about what really happened. Please, check it out.

Returning to the ships, another site offers you a chance to play Anchors Away as you read about defense contractor Northrop Grumman being the builder with the reused bloody steel. Only they claim “the steel was to be shipped to Northrop’s shipyard in Pascagoula, Mississippi.” It ain’t New Orleans. But it ain’t far. This site claims the 684-foot ship should be ready for service in 2007. It will be the fifth USS New York. The site’s copy reads:

“The brand new assault craft with a capability of carrying around 800 marines and equipment is to be named the USS New York, in tribute to the almost 2,800 people who died in the attacks of September 11 2001.

“ . . . The ship will have the motto ‘Never Forget’” which sounds more like the Holocaust imperative, a little Israeli influence? Maybe it could be called the USS Infamy for the day that lingers in the mind, when all of our defense systems crumbled like the Towers. But let us not obsess. Let us learn and act and win minds and hearts. The copy continues . . .

“The recycled steel from the Twin Towers, if it meets quality standards, will be used to form the ship's ‘stem bar.’ That is part of the ship's bow, where the vessel cuts the water.” I love it, the “if it meets quality standards.” It got blown and burned to smithereens and it’s still going and these idiots are wondering if it’ll meet quality standards. The question is, do they? And catch this lack of standards.

“New York authorities have the awesome problem of disposing of the 1.62 million tons of rubble that went to the nearby Fresh Kills landfill from the World Trade Center site. Some memorial sculptures made from recycled steel have been commissioned by the city, and tribute sculptures have now been erected in many civic and private facilities throughout the country.”

“The awesome problem” they have is 1.62 million tons of steel and not a ton for testing? I mean it sounds like they don’t know what to do with it. Why not shove some of it up the perpetrators’ collective ass, after we put a nice point on it. And then let us test a few thousand tons of it, every which way we can. This is live evidence which can serve for justice to the dead.

Then let us return to the ship-building and Northrop Grumman, actually on the banks of the Mississippi, which survived Katrina, another irony: the South’s 911.

Northrop’s Building Four 911-themed Assault Ships at a Billion Each

Not only will we have a USS New York to go after bin Laden, ha ha, and memorialize the infamy, we will also have a USS Arlington, named after that section of the Pentagon where the missile, I mean, airliner hit. And we’ll have a USS Somerset, in memory of that place in rural Pennsylvania where United Flight 93 or some other plane was shot out of the air by two F-16’s and a white military jet.

Forget about the fighting with the terrorists. If they were there, they didn’t know what hit them either. Badaboom, the plane exploded right in the air, seen eight miles away by all kinds of eyewitnesses.

So our USS New York will be the $1 billion pork chop for the military-industrial complex, “one of a new generation of amphibious assault ships capable of landing a 700-strong Marines assault force on a coastline almost anywhere without the need for a port.” So watch out everybody, everywhere, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Far Rockaway. Here we come.

In fact, Woody Oge (not Ogre), Northrop Grumman’s director of ops in New Orleans, “was keen to play down suggestions that the ship might be used to spearhead invasions.” It went something like, yeah, we’re building it to deliver humanitarian assistance as much as for war. Why, one such ship, the USS Boxer (not named after Barbara) was dispatched to deal with the aftermath of Katrina. And we all know how good that turned out, right Woody? Barf.

And even though the hurricane whooped through the shipyard last summer, the half-done New York survived intact. But a lot of black and white people drowned and lost their homes forever and a day. And some workers are living at the shipyard in the bebop “Camp Katrina.”

Earl Jones, one of the working dudes says that after eight months the Ninth Ward still isn’t rebuilt. “The insurance company won’t even talk to us. We’re having to hire lawyers to chase ‘em. I don’t like this, but I don’t want to be out of work.”

Mr. Jones in his infinite workingman’s wisdom says he does not want his old home enshrined in a billion dollar fighting machine. Me either, Mr. Jones. Not one frigging bit. But he does say, re his crib, a small check from the insurance company might help. Good luck, my brother, good luck.

Hey, all you 9-11 Truth fighters, let’s get our hands on some of that steel. I know the way to Kennedy. Pick you up tomorrow morning. Let’s go picket the airport till they show us. What do we have to lose but our loss? And what do we have to gain but the cold blue steel to win?

GazeboflossUK · August 8, 2006

Fakes On A Plane - Conspiracy buffs craft their own online WTC movies

by Ed Halter

Villagevoice.com

GazeboflossUK · August 8, 2006

An indictment of Mr. Conspiracy

Some Internet sites say Oliver Stone's 'WTC' fails to address what really happened on 9/11.

Tina Daunt / LA Times | August 8 2006

Editor's note: Once again there are basic mistakes in this article that we must correct. Alex Jones has a daily radio show on the GCN network that is nationally syndicated as well as being broadcast over the internet. Furthermore Jack Blood is not affiliated with prisonplanet.com, he has his own radio show on the GCN network and his own website. This comes after the Village Voice referred to Alex Jones' New film Terrorstorm as "Terror War".

Memo to Oliver Stone: Conspiracy investigators have a bone to pick with you.

The filmmaker's latest release, "World Trade Center," does not engage in any of the cloak-and-dagger mumblings that have made the rounds, particularly on the Internet, in the wake of the 9/11 tragedy. All this has conspiracy theorists very disappointed. They figured if anyone would be willing to — as they see it — challenge the "official" version of events, it would be Mr. "JFK" himself.

"Oliver Stone, having done 'Nixon' and 'JFK' and other movies that have been quite revealing, had a chance to use his power to ask a few very damning questions," said Prisonplanet.com radio show host Jack Blood, who is urging a boycott of the film. "Instead, what we have is an establishment movie that certainly condones and endorses the cover story that was given to us by the government on 9/11."

Stone has a simple answer: He wanted to tell the story of two Port Authority officers who tried to save lives that day but ended up fighting for their own. Politics wasn't involved.

Alex Jones, who has an Internet radio show on Infowars.com and Prisonplanet.com, said he doesn't fault Stone for making a movie that honors the heroes of 9/11. "He is allowed to make a movie about this microcosm that was such a big part of 9/11," said Jones. "We know that the police and firefighters were heroes, and I agree with that. But there is concern in the 9/11 truth community that the movie will be used to bolster the official story."

To be sure, there are plenty of alternate views on the events of 9/11.

Some believe the CIA was in on the attacks. Others wonder if bombs had been planted inside the towers. Still others think the U.S. government knew the attacks were coming but chose not to act. In March, actor Charlie Sheen said in an interview with Jones that he too questions the "official 9/11 story."

"It seems to me like 19 amateurs with box cutters taking over four commercial airliners and hitting 75% of their targets, that feels like a conspiracy theory. It raises a lot of questions." Sheen added: "There was a feeling, it just didn't look like any commercial jetliner I've flown on anytime in my life, and then when the buildings came down later on that day, I said to my brother, 'Call me insane, but did it sort of look like those buildings came down in a controlled demolition'?"

Sheen also told Jones he wanted an independent investigation of the events leading up to 9/11. "It is up to us to reveal the truth. It is up to us because we owe it to the families; we owe it to the victims. We owe it to everybody's life who was drastically altered horrifically that day and forever. We owe it to them to uncover what happened."

Now with Stone in the mix, there's even more intrigue. Some theorists theorize: Maybe the director himself is part of the 9/11 plot.

"Was Stone used by the Illuminati as an unknowing pawn to whitewash the 9/11 conspiracy theories to the masses?" wondered blogger John Conner. "Was he approached with the project and coerced into a commitment to occupy his time in attempts to thwart any other 9/11 angle from being used? Is Stone a pawn in the game? Perhaps Stone didn't know at the time, and found out too late. Perhaps production had begun, and he was already on board when he found the 9/11 rabbit hole."

The questions just add fodder to the debate.

"At some point you will see a Hollywood film that looks at alternative views of the official 9/11 story," said Jones. "It's just who's got the courage to do it."

GazeboflossUK · August 9, 2006

9/11 Hit Pieces Get Just Plain Stupid: Part 1

Writing "nonsense," and giving the word its own paragraph is not a satisfactory rebuttal

Paul Joseph Watson | August 9 2006

Recent advances in the public profile of the 9/11 truth movement, owed in part to C-Span's airing of the American Scholars Symposium and Oliver Stone's World Trade Center movie, have provoked a slurry of new hit pieces against 9/11 truth activists. Most are characterized by their twilight zone illogicality and inability to get basic facts correct.

Wisconsin Sheboygan Press

This has to be my favorite 9/11 hit piece of all time, even topping Betsy Hart's 'argument' that 9/11 skeptics are wrong because they fear Muslims. It is the most inept and manifestly ridiculous attempt at arguing for the official line that I have ever encountered.

Amazingly it's written by the entire editorial staff - their best and brightest - which must mean that the rest of their journalists are a mixture of kindergarten kids and Rhesus monkeys.

Maturely titled, 'We've had enough of 9/11 conspiracy theorists', this pathetic excuse for an article dismisses WTC demolition evidence by proudly announcing, "Our opinion remains steadfast that it was a terrorist attack that brought the towers down."

Maybe my memory is a little faded but I don't seem to remember 'terrorist attack' appearing on the periodic table. I don't think even an extensive Google search will give you any results about a noun melting steel.

Here's another pearl of wisdom.

"The conspiracy theorists claim, in part, that the twin towers collapsed because of internal explosions and not as a result of the hijacked airlines plowing into them. To back this contention, they say the government deliberately reacted slowly to the reports of hijacked planes."

Like some kind of dodgy cut and shut car sold by criminals, the esteemed editorial staff have decided to weld together two different strands of the 9/11 skeptic's argument that are not even directly related to each other. By bizarrely claiming the skeptics say the NORAD stand down made the buildings collapse creates straw man reasoning.

I can't even adequately lower myself to their demented moronic level of thinking to fully communicate how utterly stupid and retarded their claims sound.

So Mr. Professor, what caused the collapse of the towers and Building 7, which wasn't hit by a plane, the first time any steel building had collapsed from fire damage in history? "It gotta be 'dem 'dirty low down stinkin' terrorists dat done dem cole-apses, uh huh and 'dat's for damn sure."

It gets worse - in one instance they try to scientifically disprove claims that the government's version of 9/11 is a lie by typing the word,

"Nonsense"

And giving that word its own paragraph.

Cue their heavyweight historical 'fact' that also proves 9/11 was carried out by 19 dunderheads with box cutters that couldn't even fly Cessna's.

"Every major event creates enough doubting space for those who are always looking under beds. There were those who believed that President Franklin Roosevelt either caused or allowed the bombing of Pearl Harbor to happen in 1941 because he wanted the country to be pulled into World War II."

Really? Now c'mon, next you'll be telling me that whole Watergate conspiracy crap actually happened.

Iran Contra?

Nonsense.

And that old conspiracy theory about Station H - a radio intercept station that picked up Admiral Yamamoto's order for the Pearl Harbor attack. Or the declassified McCollum Memo - an eight stage plan to provoke a Japanese attack that was implemented at every stage by President Roosevelt.

Our illustrious editors wrap it all up by throwing their toys out of the pram and saying they don't want to hear any more about it. Unfortunately, following the publication of this expose they'll be hearing more about it. A lot more.

Send a letter to the editor of the Sheboygan Press and politely inform them of the fact that they've just been exposed as inept idiots who couldn't win a debate with a 3-year-old.

Coming soon in part 2: Big city papers scoff at 9/11 skeptics, but have trouble getting names right. Is prison planet.com a radio show hosted by Jack Blood? Is Alex Jones' new film called TerrorWar? The bottomless pit of sloppy research continues.

GazeboflossUK · August 9, 2006

September 11 -- what year? 30 percent of Americans in poll don't know

AFP | August 10 2006

Comment: If 30 per cent are virtually oblivious to the event itself, and 36 per cent believe government complicity enabled the attack, then that leaves only 34 per cent of Americans who actually believe the official version of events.

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Some 30 percent of Americans cannot say in what year the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against New York's World Trade Center and the Pentagon in Washington took place, according to a poll published in the Washington Post newspaper.

While the country is preparing to commemorate the fifth anniversary of the attacks that claimed nearly 3,000 lives and shocked the world, 95 percent of Americans questioned in the poll were able to remember the month and the day of the attacks, according to Wednesday's edition of the newspaper.

But when asked what year, 30 percent could not give a correct answer.

Of that group, six percent gave an earlier year, eight percent gave a later year, and 16 percent admitted they had no idea whatsoever.

This memory black hole is essentially the problem of the older crowd: 48 percent of those who did not know were between the ages of 55 and 64, and 47 percent were older than 65, according to the poll.

The Post telephone survey was carried out July 21-24 among 1,002 randomly selected adults. The margin of error is plus or minus three percentage points.

General Smut · August 10, 2006

You beat me too it!

Final proof if needed that america wasnt behind 9/11

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/09082006/323/september-11-year-30-percent-americans-don-t-know.html

They're too stupid.

Matter-Eater Lad · August 10, 2006

You beat me too it!

Final proof if needed that america wasnt behind 9/11

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/09082006/323/september-11-year-30-percent-americans-don-t-know.html

They're too stupid.

hahaha ouch. the goverment isnt smart enough, and is to big to pull something of this scale off. that along with lots of evidence is the reason why i dont believe the other theories.

GazeboflossUK · August 10, 2006

Haha, you guys actually believe that because in a poll 30 percent of people didn't know what year 9/11 was that it's "Final proof if needed that america wasnt behind 9/11"

The fact that you said "America wasn't behind it" from a poll that was carried out to random public members asking what year it was shows such stupidity.....I'm sorry but it really does.

And saying "the goverment isn't smart enough" is JUST as bad.

Everyday, reading your posts makes me feel SO good about myself but really worried for the world.

It's amazing your guys actually can get about without bumping into things more.

Incredible.

GazeboflossUK · August 10, 2006

Debunking Popular Mechanics' 9/11 Lies

Debunking Popular Mechanics' 9/11 Lies

Nepotism, bias, shoddy research and agenda-driven politics

Paul Joseph Watson| August 10 2006

Popular Mechanics has re-entered the media circus in an attempt to continue its 9/11 debunking campaign that began in March of last year. A new book claims to expose the myths of the 9/11 truth movement, yet it is Popular Mechanics who have been exposed as promulgating falsehoods while engaging in nepotism, shoddy research and agenda-driven politics.

It comes as no surprise that Popular Mechanics is owned by Hearst Corporation. As fictionalized in Orson Welles' acclaimed film Citizen Kane, William Randolph Hearst wrote the book on cronyism and yellow journalism and Popular Mechanics hasn't bucked that tradition.

The magazine is a cheerleader for the sophistication of advanced weaponry and new technology used by police in areas such as crowd control and 'anti-terror' operation. A hefty chunk of its advertising revenue relies on the military and defense contractors. Since the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq and in the future Iran all cite 9/11 as a pretext, what motivation does the magazine have to conduct a balanced investigation and risk upsetting its most coveted clientele?

Popular Mechanics' March 2005 front cover story was entitled 'Debunking 9/11 Lies' and has since become the bellwether reference point for all proponents of the official 9/11 fairytale.

Following the publication of the article and its exaltation by the mainstream media as the final nail in the coffin for 9/11 conspiracy theories, it was revealed that senior researcher on the piece Benjamin Chertoff is the cousin of Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

This means that Benjamin Chertoff was hired to write an article that would receive nationwide attention, about the veracity of the government's explanation of an event that led directly to the creation of Homeland Security, a body that his own cousin now heads.

This is unparalleled nepotism and completely dissolves the credibility of the article before one has even turned the first page.

The arguments presented in the article have been widely debunked by the 9/11 truth community as an example of a straw man hatchet job - whereby false arguments are erected, attributed to 9/11 skeptics, and then shot down.

One of the most glaring errors in the Popular Mechanics hit piece appears in the 'Intercepts Not Routine' section where it is claimed that, "In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999."

As Jim Hoffman points out in his excellent rebuttal, "This bold assertion flies in the face of a published report of scramble frequencies that quotes the same Maj. Douglas Martin that is one of PM's cited experts!"

"From Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols 462 times, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001, Martin said."

The article also makes no mention whatsoever of the numerous war games scheduled for the morning of 9/11 which confused air defense personnel as to the true nature of the attack as it unfolded, as is documented by the recent release of the NORAD tapes.[/ur]

A section on the collapse of the World Trade Center fails to address firefighters and other individuals who reported numerous explosions before the towers fell, squibs of debris seen shooting out of the towers well below the collapse point, and the fact that the towers fell only slightly slower than absolute free fall.

The article was released before analysis conducted by BYU physics Professor Steven Jones discovered traces of thermite in steel samples taken from the World Trade Center.

"Using advanced techniques we're finding out what's in these samples - we're finding iron, sulphur, potassium and manganese - these are characteristic of a variation of thermite which is used to cut through steel very rapidly, it's called thermate," said Professor Jones.

The article regurgitates pancake and truss theories yet fails to acknowledge the comments of WTC construction manager Frank DeMartini (below) who before 9/11 stated that the buildings were designed to take multiple airliner impacts and not collapse.

The article also completely fails to answer why pools of molten yellow metal were found underneath both towers and Building 7 subsequent to the collapses.

The classic crimp implosion of Building 7, which was not hit by a plane, is glossed over as the piece again tries to mislead its readers into believing that over engineered steel buildings collapse from fire damage - an event unprecedented in world history aside from three examples in one single day.

Commenting on his own interview for the magazine piece, Alex Jones said that initially he thought it was a fake interview or a crank call. Jones has given hundreds of TV and print interviews and thousands of radio interviews but his experience with Benjamin Chertoff was like no other.

"People from school newspapers sound more credible and serious," said Jones.

Jones had to call Popular Mechanics' office and verify that Chertoff actually worked for them. In the course of doing so he was erroneously told by Editor in Chief James Meigs that the story was not going to be a hit piece and that it was simply intended to explore the different theories surrounding 9/11.

In addition, Popular Mechanics highlighted an article that Jones had posted on his website about incendiary devices in the World Trade Center.

Jones' websites feature a cross-section of mainstream and alternative media articles. An article written by Jones himself is clearly labeled as such.

The magazine had contacted the individuals featured in the article who told them that they had never spoken to Jones. The article was clearly attributed to its orginal author - Randy Lavello - and not Alex Jones. When Jones asked Popular Mechanics if they were going to contact the individuals again and ask if they had spoken with the original author, they dropped the subject.

As part of a PR campaign to sell its newly packaged dross, the book 'Debunking 9/11 Lies,' Popular Mechanics' James Meigs appeared on the O'Reilly Factor (watch below).