Restoring scientific integrity.

Sunday, July 11th, 2010 @ 11:53 am | Politics

Maybe fire the Bush hacks who were screwing up things before?

In keeping the Bush Interior Department managers and policies in place, Ruch said, Obama appointees have “turned a blind eye toward federal court rulings that said Bush-era lease reviews were environmentally deficient, as well as a GAO report documenting how agency scientists were routinely stifled and ignored.”

It’s important that President Obama give scientific integrity more than lip-service. I’ll grant that the man has too many plates spinning at the moment to deal with some minutae, and Obama is still trying to get scores of appointees through the obstructionist Senate, but it shouldn’t take more than a single conversation to set this problem straight. Fire the old hacks, let scientists work unimpeded by political concerns, enjoy the results.


97 Responses to “Restoring scientific integrity.”

  1. cbmc Says:

    In its April 2005 “Action Report,” the Medical Board published the following re Wolman’s license status: “Violated the terms and conditions of his [sic] board-ordered probation by failing to enroll in a clinical education program and failing to pay cost recovery and probation monitoring fees. Revoked, stayed, given an additional year of probation… with terms including, but not limited to, obtaining a practice/billing monitor; prohibited from ordering prescribing dispensing, administering or possessing any controlled substances except those on Schedules III, IV, and V and the ADD medications Ritalin and Adderal; and prohibited from issuing an oral or written recommendation or approval for marijuana.”

    I can discredit everybody else you quote on your ridiculous quest if you like blu

    nobody with a brain buys into truther trash

    anybody who buys into it…forfeits credibility

    it’s really that simple

  2. blubonnet Says:

    I’ll leave the logic to those I respect.

  3. blubonnet Says:

    And another thing, I’d hope you’d at least be up enough on what’s going on to know about the AMERICAN BEHAVIORAL SCIENTIST regarding the state of denial so many in this country are in with the peer reviewed study like all professional journals require, to realize that the professionals, observers of and those that analyze the human psyche, in their entire February 2010 issue, covered that state of denial of so many like yourself (selves) here and actual science, and even basic visible evidence (even those that are outside the field of science can tell with the greatest of ease if they even had the objective capacity and honesty with themselves to look) can see the incendiary materials in action, and simple awareness of its behavior, explosives material, that is. I dare you to look. Find it on the internet. Align it with the words of the NIST (Bush “scientists” you support) and see which scientists’ analysis makes most sense, the many hundreds of those independent science based professionals or the Bush ones. YOU decide by looking. You up for it? I didn’t think so. Coward. Do you even have cajones? Have you ever seen them? Do you know what they are? Do you know what having them means? Oh, no? Oh, okay, hide behind Bush’s “science” teams. Bush has shown himself to be so honest. His scientists must be too. Never mind. Bush must be right.

  4. blubonnet Says:

    By the way, if you want to discredit the many professionals with the science background to speak with authority, calling out the government cartoon, you have a whole lot of work cut out for you because there are thousands. Lucky you though, you found a boo boo one of the professionals made, and so now the basic science which NIST missed, you will call BS on, simple high school physics, which by the way is still true in all of physics, in college too (surprise) those laws, that somehow magically, didn’t exist on the day the planes struck. Laws of physics, according to NIST all broken. Magic. How about that!

  5. cbmc Says:

    all of your credible experts are worthless; you’re just delusional. that’ll always be true no matter how long your posts get or how many of them you put up in a row, or how laughably you try to argue that anybody who doesn’t buy into truther ranting is somehow pro-Bush. there is one divide: 9/11 truthers on the one side; sane people on the other.

  6. blubonnet Says:

    You still obviously are buying the propaganda. This is a wortless discussion. I’ve looked intensely at both sides. You have not. You’ve only looked at those that are bought by the defense industry. You haven’t the capacity to comprehend it. I’m done. But so are you. As more evidence that is peer reviewed by highly credible professional journals continues to amass far exceeding the defense industry/Pentagon bull shit, your reputations which you are so worried about will become even more pathetic.

    The line about the Libs being still angry about the theft of elections is a riot. Especially when there are plenty on both sides of the political divide that trust their own eyes which align with the science of independent scientists that have risked everything to speak out. Have fun on your sinking stinking ship that will continue to go into waters that are full of delusions and GD Pentagon owned lines. Assholes. Bye.

  7. cbmc Says:

    just checking…blubonnet still believes whatever anybody who says “it’s a conspiracy!” has to say


  8. AJKamper Says:

    I’m still fascinated by this “You’ll be sorry” business. Like we’re supposed to be SHAMED into believing blu’s side of the story.

    I’m sorry, but no. And, for that matter, holy projection, Batman.

  9. blubonnet Says:

    Well, I’m trying to understand why, when the laws of physics, Newton’s laws of gravity and motion and mass didn’t fit into the Bush/NIST “science” team’s explanations. Maybe you can tell me, after studying the videos of the pulverizations, and studying the NIST explanations, and studying the independent scientists(not getting paychecks from Pentagon, many do without your or my knoledge, by the way). There is a high school physics teacher that explains, excessively, when it is so obvious, it isn’t necessary to explain. This is ten minutes only. Tell me why he is wrong, if you think he is.!

  10. blubonnet Says:

    This physicist in his hour long lecture here, presenting the evidence is asking other scientists that stand behind the Bush “scientists” to please go to his peer reviewed pieces and rebut them. He has issued the challenge. He has not gotten any takers. Maybe you know some that would. Here he is.

  11. Jeremy B Says:

    Good lord, did I just wander into a whole lot of crazy.

    blubonnet, you’re (re)posting some obvious nonsense and then deriding everyone for not believing it. You’re not privy to a wealth of knowledge that we’re willfully ignoring; we’ve all heard it and still think it’s b.s. Don’t take it personally, okay?

    cmbc, it’s been just over a week. Are you sure you’re up to the task of keeping this going until 2025?

  12. Henry Whistler Says:

    It’s okay, the world ends in 2012. Because obviously the Mayans were supposed to do nothing but keep making calendars.

  13. cbmc Says:

    Tell me why he is wrong, if you think he is.

    sure, no sweat: because he is insane, and has been spending too much time reading conspiracy theories, which tend to feed into themselves

    no-one needs to engage a conspiracy theorist any more than one needs to engage a person who makes claims like “I am a house” or something – such people are to be pitied, not seriously addressed

  14. AJKamper Says:

    Okay, here’s a two-step answer as to why I, a non-engineer and non-scientist, believe one group over the other. Interestingly, the same can be used for climate change or creationism.

    1) Argumentation style. All these Truther arguments aren’t created with any idea of internal consistency. They don’t have an overarching theory that actually explains all the data we see. Instead, it’s this crazy piecemeal: this “The one thing I have found here doesn’t fit the theory! Therefore, it’s wrong, and my theory is better!” As exhaustive reports have shown, you can find data that contradict the conspiracy argument all over the place. Simply put, in a poorly-understood system (like airplanes running into skyscrapers) there are going to be data that strike us as odd or don’t precisely fit with what we would expect. But simply pointing those out, without an incredibly strong theory that DOES explain all the data, makes it seem pretty weak.

    Anti-climate-change works the same way: rather than actually having a theory that explains the data, it merely looks to poke holes in what is there; this is the sign of a deeply flawed theory.

    2) Human nature. This was mentioned in the link HW posted above (which is pretty good, I might add), but deserves extra focus. The view of the government required by these Truthers is this incredible combination of omnipotence and incompetence, able to completely manage this incredible operation, force the press and thousands of independent scientists to stick to the party line, without ONE breaking silence or revealing the coverup… but at the same time do things like broadcast a countdown over the WTC7 loudspeakers before its destruction.

    It’s simply NOT HOW PEOPLE WORK. Especially in government. In my view, that’s the real disconnect from reality: the failure to realize that people are generally incompetent, especially in organizations, and the answer most likely to lead to truth is that with the fewest moving parts.

  15. blubonnet Says:

    Obviously you all did not comprehend Newton’s laws of physics. You scream “crazy” when professional journals studying the human psyche, have concluded the the American people, and staggering mass discount not only with what they can see with their own eyes, but basic physics, which according to Bush “scientists” doesn’t exist by, bypassing all characteristics, fully indicating explosives, in fact a highly sophisticated incendiary know as nano-thermite. Pentagon employees get paid to bullshit the masses, and I would hope you know of Cass Sunstein, who is behind Obama, in putting out these “talkers”. That is public knowledge. You don’t believe in basic physics if you believe NIST, Bush’s boys that put it out, when another peer-reviewed professionals’ science journal, BENTHAM, (Ican’t remember the whole name of the physics journal) but I’ll bring the link. examined all evidence of the scientists on the side of the Truth movement, concluded it was solid and worthy of publishing among peers of high caliber. That was the conclusive evidence of nano-thermite, irrefutable in all points presented. Yet some continue to believe Bush “scientists”.

    It is confirmed by professionals, the characteristic of CRAZY is owned by the ones that believe the government BS. Simple physics explained, with visual documentation clears any doubt in your mind that something wasn’t right. Simple observation of the pulverizing descent (supposedly by NIST caused by fire) in near free fall speed, it just so happens that only explosives can do that (ONLY explosives). We are not accusing anyone, but the proof is ample for anyone that wants to look. The question is, of course, how would it get there.

    The scientists with the Truth movement, are only going to bring you the science. They cannot know the levels of development the Pentagon has grown into. The Pentgon has more money for defense, right now, than all the rest of the defense programs put together than the rest of the planet.

    Haven’t you heard scholars in the Liberal community speak of the bizarre neo-con PNAC document? Rupert the media monrchy operation he has helped finance the PNAC think tank. How to get the people to go along with the take over of the middle east? PNAC stated specifically, “what is needed, is a catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor”. Yes, it said that. Lucky them. They got their war. These people don’t have souls.

    Are you all fake Liberals here?

  16. blubonnet Says:

    This was a short summary, an intro, if you will, to the article, in the Physics journal,..

    Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
    pp.7-31 (25) Authors: Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen
    doi: 10.2174/1874412500902010007


    We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.

    Keywords: JScanning electron microscopy, X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy, Differential scanning calorimetry, DSC analysis, World Trade Center, WTC dust, 9/11, Iron-rich microspheres, Thermite, Super-thermite, Energetic nanocomposites, Nano-thermite
    Affiliation: Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, DK-2100, Denmark.


  17. blubonnet Says:

    Again, you offer ZERO in the take down of what has been brought to you though. But, if you say crazy over and over and over and over, you won’t have to think about it maybe, but you just have to keep on saying it over and over and over. We will let you be the case study for the professional journals on the denial the psyches of so many choose to stay locked into. techniques are plentiful. Getting angry, and finding some lame excuse to exit the conversation sometimes helps hold denial in tact. Laughing and laughing and laughing, and saying crazy over and over, you’ll be just fine. They will bring you food in trays with jello and your potatoes mashed really really well, and your meat well pulverized for easy digestion. Bye for now.

  18. blubonnet Says:

    You have no right, NONE to call the Truth movement conspiracy theorists. Hell yes conspiring took place, but only evidence is acknowledged. NO theorizing AT ALL. Just forensics, physics, it’s laws observed in motion, and called out for what it is.

  19. Henry Whistler Says:

    Right on, AJ. Link spamming and rants about high school physics and IT COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED THAT WAY, accusing diehard liberals of being Bush fans, and trumpeting the names of anybody with a degree who agrees with them just make it all the more clear what’s going on in these folks’ heads. It sure as hell isn’t dispassionate analysis.

  20. blubonnet Says:

    “anyone with a degree” you say? Most of the people that are on our side with degrees are not willing to speak up, since people like you scream “crazy” and also government jobs are always sought after. However, here are a smaller percentage of those that have spoken out.

  21. blubonnet Says:

  22. blubonnet Says:

  23. blubonnet Says:

  24. blubonnet Says:

    Yet, more of the science community…

  25. blubonnet Says:

    You believe in Bush science when the most blatant misrepresentations of fact are obvious. While no one is willing to confront the physics aspects of the matter. So, what is your standard for reality? Do you have any?

    Are you going to run from this ample assortment of testimony too?

  26. Henry Whistler Says:

    See, I knew she had more links! She’s got professors and pilots and doctors and there would be so many more, and we just refuse to see.

    Someday this method is sure to work on me. Keep this up for a couple more years, blu. I’m bound to crumble to your arguments of authority soon.

  27. blubonnet Says:

    Well, it just keeps growing, the disputing of the government. The physicist, Steven Jones presentation, early on, the link I’d left is fully indisputable, by my friend the orthopedic surgeon, for example. Any rational human being though can see it.

    I had a friend of mine who is an engineer see one of the presentations, (again, a mere sprinkling of the thousands now aware, we are waiting for the rest of the public to catch up. The science is in. My engineer friend knew it was true, what the scientists on our side have made clear. The number keeps growing, among the honest. Give up the rationalizing for the government.

  28. blubonnet Says:

    Excellent presentation. YOU decide though.

  29. Henry Whistler Says:

    Gosh, it’s almost like we have decided.

  30. AJKamper Says:

    Oh dear God. Did I just hear blu say that Cass Sunstein is the mastermind pulling the strings here?

    HAHAHAHAHA! Yes! The danger that is Cass Sunstein! Regulatory law! Animal law! Behavioral economics! AAAAND 9/11 coverups!

    Meanwhile, this does nothing to disprove my point; there’s no actual theory, no REAL explanation that deals with all the data, just holes-poking. And no understanding of the government works.

    These are people for whom religion is not enough, who have turned to conspiracies to act as their own Godlike figures.

  31. blubonnet Says:

    AJKamper has no evidence, just THEORY. Pseudo-science being called out for what it is by the real physicist, that would be Dr. Steven Jones, you are asked specifically, please counter with science, your math. What have you got to counter Dr. Steven Jones?

    Don’t tell me, Kamper that you are not aware of Cass Sunstein’s recently passed laws indicating the propaganda campaign which is paid for by tax dollars? Gee, maybe you could get a job doing that…oh, maybe you already do. Whatever, you’re either an idiot or a shill. You offer nothing but guffaws. Nothing tangible. On the other hand Steven Jones offers a myriad of pieces of verifiable evidence. Just tell us how you are smarter than the physicist in video. Go ahead. We will be waiting. You seem to have all the answers. Jokes don’t count for evidence.

  32. blubonnet Says:

    WND Exclusive
    Top Obama czar: Infiltrate all ‘conspiracy theorists’
    Presidential adviser wrote about crackdown on expressing opinions
    Posted: January 14, 2010
    12:30 am Eastern

    By Aaron Klein
    © 2010 WorldNetDaily

    Cass Sunstein

    In a lengthy academic paper, President Obama’s regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, argued the U.S. government should ban “conspiracy theorizing.”

    Among the beliefs Sunstein would ban is advocating that the theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud.

    Sunstein also recommended the government send agents to infiltrate “extremists who supply conspiracy theories” to disrupt the efforts of the “extremists” to propagate their theories.

    In a 2008 Harvard law paper, “Conspiracy Theories,” Sunstein and co-author Adrian Vermeule, a Harvard law professor, ask, “What can government do about conspiracy theories?”

    “We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories.”

    In the 30-page paper – obtained and reviewed by WND – Sunstein argues the best government response to “conspiracy theories” is “cognitive infiltration of extremist groups.”

    The problem they are having is that all of us are non-violent, so they can’t accuse us of anything.

  33. blubonnet Says:

    Saying global warming is a fraud, IS a fraudulent though. I’m with you on that. It’s a fact about global warming. The dirty Rs and their deception is forever in operation.

  34. AJKamper Says:

    You don’t think I have evidence that the WTC’s went down because they got hit by a 747? Because I have evidence that, you know, they got hit by a 747. If you have a complete theory that explains ALL the data… not missing one, self-consistent, then plunk it down. But this holes-digging thing won’t suffice.

    As for Sunstein, once you realize (I’ve read one of his books, one edited by him, and a couple of other papers) that he’s a) a genius, b) really creative, and c) a bit full of himself, you realize that he pretty much turns whatever strange thought crosses his mind into an academic paper and gets it published. (He’s in fact the most prolific author in the legal community.) He also wrote an animal-rights paper that, I’m sorry, is pretty much crap and for the same reason: though some people take it as such, they’re not so much serious statements as way of exploring possible alternatives of looking at the law. He’s been writing this sort of thing for a while. I was pretty disappointed by the his ideas on conspiracy theories myself–at best, remarkably tone-deaf. “What would be the best way to stop conspiracy theorists? I KNOW! A government conspiracy!”

    Of course, that’s an academic paper, not a “law.” That’s the sort of basic mistake which makes people like me not trust people like you.

  35. blubonnet Says:

    You think I didn’t notice a plane hit it? Besides the point. I don’t know if a simple mind can grasp ALL the data. That is what I’m asking you to do.

    So, it’s okay with you that he is hiring people to counter the points made by those of the Truth community? Like you didn’t know that? That makes him a propaganda minister. But, if you read an article I’d left up on comment #12 you will see that we have been there for quite some time already though. That is a very well researched paper, as you can see by notations following it.

    And if you can’t look at the video I’ve left, of the Professor of Physics, Dr.Steven Jones, apparently you are hiding from the ample evidence.

    Also, you do know, don’t you that WTC7, 47 floors, was NOT hit by a plane, and yet went down in a perfect implosion, barely touching surrounding structures, in it’s magical descent. Just think, if NIST were right, all anyone would have to do, is start a fire in a steel and cement structure, and it would be enough to bring a profound, perfect implosion. It would become pulverized.

    The other two towers that went down that day though, also, although not the same methodology had all characteristics of explosions.

    You are going to be really embarrassed after you see Dr.Steven Jones presentation, and that you have been defending the Bush appointed team that covered this, with its “explanations”. Or you can be oblivious and keep sounding like a blithering ass, without knowing the facts that went down that day. Your choice. Is truth a consideration with you, or saving face. Unless you start looking you lose in both of those categories.

  36. blubonnet Says:

    NORAD Exercise a Year Before 9/11 Simulated a Pilot Trying to Crash a Plane into a New York Skyscraper–The UN Headquarters

    * military exercises
    * NORAD

    The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) held a major training exercise in October 2000 that included the scenario of a person stealing a large jet plane, which they planned to crash into the United Nations headquarters building–a 39-story high-rise in New York, just a few miles away from the World Trade Center. Furthermore, a NORAD exercise in June that year included one scenario in which a plane was hijacked with the intention of crashing it into the White House, and another in which a transcontinental flight was hijacked with the intention of crashing the plane into the Statue of Liberty, only a short distance from where the WTC stood.

    The existence of these exercise scenarios was revealed in August 2004 by General Richard Myers, at that time the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, during a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Senator Mark Dayton (D-MN) asked, “Did NORAD”– the military organization responsible for defending U.S. airspace–“conduct exercises or develop scenarios, prior to September 11, 2001, to test a military reaction to an aircraft hijacking which appeared destined to result in a suicide crash into a high-value target?” In response, Myers outlined “five exercise hijack events” that NORAD had practiced for between November 1999 and October 2000, which all “included a suicide crash into a high-value target.” [1] Yet the details of these chilling scenarios, which were like premonitions of the attacks on New York and Washington that lay ahead, failed to receive the public attention they deserved.

    The scenario that included an attempt to crash a plane into the UN headquarters was practiced for twice–on October 16 and October 23, 2000–as part of an exercise called Vigilant Guardian. This annual exercise was conducted by NORAD, and all of the organization, including its headquarters and its three air defense sectors in the continental United States, participated. [2]

    The scenario practiced for on October 16 was that, “Due to recent arrests involving illegal drug trafficking in Maine, an individual steals a Federal Express plane and plans a suicide attack into the United Nations building in New York City.” The October 23 scenario, according to Myers’s summary, was almost identical. It was based around “weapons of mass destruction directed at the United Nations,” and in it, “an individual steals a Federal Express aircraft and plans a suicide attack on the United Nations building in New York City.” [3] (At the time of this exercise, Federal Express was flying mostly the MD-11 and the DC-10, both large jet aircraft. Presumably one of those planes was the type considered in the scenarios. [4])

    The next Vigilant Guardian–for the year 2001–was actually being conducted at the time the 9/11 attacks occurred. [5] One can only imagine what NORAD personnel must have thought when the real-world events of September 11 so closely resembled a scenario they had encountered in the previous instance of that day’s exercise–a suicide pilot trying to crash a large jet plane into a New York skyscraper.

    On June 5, 2000, the Continental United States NORAD Region (CONR) was conducting an exercise called Falcon Indian, in which its three air defense sectors in the continental U.S. took part. [6] Two scenarios were practiced for that day in which hijackers planned to crash an aircraft into a well-known, “high-value” target in New York or Washington.

    One scenario involved a Learjet being hijacked, and “maintaining tight formation with [a] Canadair airliner, loaded with explosives,” according to Myers’s summary. (It is unclear from that summary whether it was the Learjet or the Canadair plane that had explosives on board.) The hijackers “planned to crash” the Learjet “into the White House.” In the other scenario, a “Communist Party faction” hijacked an aircraft bound from the western to the eastern United States. The hijackers had “high explosives on board,” and intended “to crash into the Statue of Liberty.” [7]

    The fifth scenario Myers described was from an earlier Falcon Indian, held in November 1999. Again, NORAD’s three air defense sectors in the continental U.S. took part in the CONR exercise. And, again, the exercise included a scenario based around the hijacking of a transcontinental aircraft flying from the western to the eastern United States. In the simulation, a China Airlines plane bound from Los Angeles to JFK International Airport in New York was “hijacked east of Colorado Springs by five terrorists.” If the plane was not intercepted by the U.S. military, the hijackers intended “to crash into [the] United Nations building.” [8]

    Just a few months before Richard Myers revealed the existence of these five exercise scenarios, USA Today and CNN reported that NORAD had conducted exercises in the years before 9/11 that simulated hijackers crashing aircraft into buildings in the United States. Some of the scenarios that had been practiced for were described. It is unclear whether any of them correspond with the five later outlined by Myers, although, from what has been reported, it appears they were separate scenarios, additional to those in Myers’s list.

    USA Today reported that “in the two years before the September 11 attacks,” NORAD conducted exercises simulating “hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.” In one exercise, “One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center.” Another exercise involved fighter jets performing “a mock shootdown over the Atlantic Ocean of a jet supposedly laden with chemical poisons headed toward a target in the United States.” These two scenarios were included in “regional drills, not regularly scheduled continent-wide exercises,” according to NORAD, and the planes in the simulations were coming from a foreign country, rather than from within the U.S. [9]

    CNN reported, “Sometime between 1991 and 2001, a regional sector of the North American Aerospace Defense Command simulated a foreign hijacked airliner crashing into a building in the United States as part of [a] training exercise scenario.” That scenario involved the airliner “being hijacked as it flew into U.S. airspace from abroad.” The exercise “was conducted at one regional sector, and was not conducted at the [NORAD] headquarters.” The identity of the building hit by the aircraft was classified, but military officials said that it “would be recognizable if identified, but was not the World Trade Center or the Pentagon.” [10]

    How could it have happened that the organization responsible for defending U.S. airspace repeatedly practiced scenarios that so closely resembled the 9/11 attacks in the years leading up to those attacks? And considering that the existence of these plane-into-building training scenarios has largely gone unreported, might there have been other, similar scenarios practiced for by NORAD–or other U.S. military organizations–that we do not yet know of? A new investigation into 9/11 is clearly urgently required. And the role of these training scenarios is one of many aspects of the attacks that must be thoroughly examined.

    [1] Senate Committee on Armed Services, Implications for the Department of Defense and Military Operations of Proposals to Reorganize the United States Intelligence Community. 108th Cong., 2nd sess., August 17, 2004.
    [2] Ibid.; William M. Arkin, Code Names: Deciphering U.S. Military Plans, Programs, and Operations in the 9/11 World. Hanover, NH: Steerforth Press, 2005, p. 545.
    [3] Senate Committee on Armed Services, Implications for the Department of Defense and Military Operations of Proposals to Reorganize the United States Intelligence Community.
    [4] Greg Schneider, “FedEx to Buy 10 Airbus Super-Jumbo Jets.” Washington Post, January 17, 2001.
    [5] William M. Arkin, Code Names, p. 545.
    [6] Senate Committee on Armed Services, Implications for the Department of Defense and Military Operations of Proposals to Reorganize the United States Intelligence Community; William M. Arkin, Code Names, p. 362.
    [7] Senate Committee on Armed Services, Implications for the Department of Defense and Military Operations of Proposals to Reorganize the United States Intelligence Community.
    [8] Ibid.
    [9] Steven Komarow and Tom Squitieri, “NORAD Had Drills of Jets as Weapons.” USA Today, April 18, 2004.
    [10] Barbara Starr, “NORAD Exercise Had Jet Crashing into Building.” CNN, April 19, 2004.

    submitted by “shoestring” from 911 Blogger.

  37. Henry Whistler Says:

    Here’s more idiot thinking tucked away in a long article.

    “How could it have happened that the organization responsible for defending U.S. airspace repeatedly practiced scenarios that so closely resembled the 9/11 attacks in the years leading up to those attacks?”

    Because they were preparing for such an attack? Osama bin Laden didn’t invent the idea. I believe a work of fiction or two had a similar notion.

    “…might there have been other, similar scenarios practiced for by NORAD–or other U.S. military organizations–that we do not yet know of?”

    Oh, gosh, there might have been training scenarios!

  38. blubonnet Says:

    Yeah, and NORAD failed how many times that day? What was it Condaleeza Rice said? Oh “nobody could have imagined it”.

    But the point is, that NORAD worked perfectly scores of times prior to that day. Anyone have any reasoning as to why it failed numerous times, when it counted the most?

    It’s just one more piece in the myriad of odd incidents. That’s all. It is the science that is the most absurd though.

  39. blubonnet Says:

    This is good…

    Learn about WTC Building 7
    WTC Building 7 Collapse: NIST Reality Check

    Posted on 26 May 2010 | Filed Under: NIST, Top 9/11 Articles, WTC Building 7

    WTC Building 7 Collapse: NIST Reality CheckWTC Building 7 Collapse: NIST Reality Check

    As we approach the 9th anniversary of the tragic events of September 11, 2001, let’s all take a moment to compare the NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) official model of the Building 7 collapse to… reality.

    Before watching this video, remember the NIST model you will see in the video is the actual final model NIST came up with to explain, publicly, how this building collapsed.

    NIST Reality Check: The Verdict

    Did NIST pass your reality check?

    Our verdict is clear. NIST deliberately lied and distorted facts. They want us to believe their official version of the story and not only can we clearly see it is false and against basic science, they have actually lied to us in plain sight, probably hoping we would somehow forget about Building 7. We haven’t and we won’t.

    The final NIST report on Building 7 should be officially dismissed and recognized as a piece of lies. NIST officials should be prosecuted. We are not talking about some remote and unimportant building. We’re talking about a 47-story skyscraper, the third building to collapse in New York City on 9/11. Should we demand accountability and a real investigation or are we capable of being satisfied by the official NIST explanations? Will they get away with this?

    It is time for a new, independent and real investigation into the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 and the Twin Towers that would take into account the probable use of explosives, including nano-thermite to bring the 3 skyscrapers down.

    Please support the work of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (, of Firefighters for 9/11 Truth (, sign our petition in support of a new investigation and please support our 2010 budget so we can make all of our upcoming projects become reality.

    It’s time for us to say that we have enough of official lies.

    What is your verdict? Leave us your comments below.

  40. blubonnet Says:

    If you don’t want to be the last one to be recognized as a good ball player, time to look honestly. The information is more than verifiable and abundant. We are not talking about a class of people with integrity, or regard for human life. It is the Pentagon buddies. They get to play war, make money galore, and decide who kills who, when it’s their auntSue, of the third generation of war profiteers, so to speak, it’s generational. What historical icons do you recall that scowled at the reality that within our government exists a big back scratching game among the elites, at which their biggest opportunity for a cash cow, is a multi-dimensional operation, a war, and some have called it lucky, within the government/defense industries/oil biz, and their income is in connstant suction mode from it, while the rest of the populations, are either having their own blood spilling due to these people that took over their country, or banksters/government in recent years, with the media system, laying groundwork for whatever kind of compliance is needed of the public. Patriotism is well honed mechanism for the duplictious multi-nationally operating defense industry firms, Carlyle/Bush and friends, for example.

    Anyhow, what I started to say, is that this is one of my favorite sites. WORLD for 911 Truth…

  41. blubonnet Says:

    Incidentally, those MSM companies all have gatekeepers at each network, to control what information is allowed to be given out on MSM. Carlyle Group of course had one as well. “Beware the influence, either sought or unsought of the military industrial complex”, well don’t let me bore you with my numerous quotations of which I have many. The regulars over at CSPT have heard them all before. They still don’t believe that there is a deceptive defense industry. Amazing, huh? Hippies like Eisenhower saying such things. There are more, lots. They have just gotten so big and so expansive, both in their cravenness and there reach into all utility of access to your pool of things to fill your mind. MEDIA. For God’s sake, I hope you read that article I left up early on, on the media control, and its inception in CIA post WWII. Nazi technology was desired of the US, so some Nazis were exempt from prosecution, because of their sciences, and manipulation capacities. I often wonder if GHWBsh, and the CIA, would be possibly in its genesis. I have no proof of such things though. So, I would not declare it true. Interesting though how the Bush family/Nazi banking story (true, I’d hope you know of it), and Nazi invested bankers, guess who, Prescott Bush. GWB’s grandpappy. Strange ties all of these. Well, in any event, the point I’m making is that the guy, General Smedley Butler who wrote “War is a Racket” was so right. It’s a mafia like outfit that interweaves into politics. It’s hideous beyond my verbal capacity.

  42. blubonnet Says:

    THE TOP 40

    … An outline in simple talking points …

    We are continuing to compile the best documentation links for every single point on this page, and intend to post the updated version as soon as possible, and create teaching tools and more from the info. This is a significant and time-consuming process–if you have useful links, please send them to janice[at]911truth[dot]org. Thanks for your help!
    If you use the search function with title key words, you will discover that is home to articles backing virtually every point made below. Much of the basic research is available at the Complete 9/11 Timeline (hosted by, the 9/11 Reading Room (, and the NY Attorney General Spitzer petition and complaint ( For physical evidence discussion, see Point 7.


    1) AWOL Chain of Command
    a. It is well documented that the officials topping the chain of command for response to a domestic attack – George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Myers, Montague Winfield – all found reason to do something else during the actual attacks, other than assuming their duties as decision-makers.
    b. Who was actually in charge? Dick Cheney, Richard Clarke, Norman Mineta and the 9/11 Commission directly conflict in their accounts of top-level response to the unfolding events, such that several (or all) of them must be lying.
    2) Air Defense Failures
    a. The US air defense system failed to follow standard procedures for responding to diverted passenger flights.
    b. Timelines: The various responsible agencies – NORAD, FAA, Pentagon, USAF, as well as the 9/11 Commission – gave radically different explanations for the failure (in some cases upheld for years), such that several officials must have lied; but none were held accountable.
    c. Was there an air defense standdown?

    3) Pentagon Strike
    How was it possible the Pentagon was hit 1 hour and 20 minutes after the attacks began? Why was there no response from Andrews Air Force Base, just 10 miles away and home to Air National Guard units charged with defending the skies above the nation”s capital? How did Hani Hanjour, a man who failed as a Cessna pilot on his first flight in a Boeing, execute a difficult aerobatic maneuver to strike the Pentagon? Why did the attack strike the just-renovated side, which was largely empty and opposite from the high command?

    4) Wargames
    a. US military and other authorities planned or actually rehearsed defensive response to all elements of the 9/11 scenario during the year prior to the attack – including multiple hijackings, suicide crashbombings, and a strike on the Pentagon.
    b. The multiple military wargames planned long in advance and held on the morning of September 11th included scenarios of a domestic air crisis, a plane crashing into a government building, and a large-scale emergency in New York. If this was only an incredible series of coincidences, why did the official investigations avoid the issue? There is evidence that the wargames created confusion as to whether the unfolding events were “real world or exercise.” Did wargames serve as the cover for air defense sabotage, and/or the execution of an “inside job”?

    5) Flight 93
    Did the Shanksville crash occur at 10:06 (according to a seismic report) or 10:03 (according to the 9/11 Commission)? Does the Commission wish to hide what happened in the last three minutes of the flight, and if so, why? Was Flight 93 shot down, as indicated by the scattering of debris over a trail of several miles?


    6) Did cell phones work at 30,000 feet in 2001? How many hijackings were attempted? How many flights were diverted?

    7) Demolition Hypothesis
    What caused the collapse of a third skyscraper, WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane? Were the Twin Towers and WTC 7 brought down by explosives? (See “The Case for Demolitions,” the websites and, and the influential article by physicist Steven Jones. See also items no. 16 and 24, below.)


    8) What did officials know? How did they know it?
    a. Multiple allied foreign agencies informed the US government of a coming attack in detail, including the manner and likely targets of the attack, the name of the operation (the “Big Wedding”), and the names of certain men later identified as being among the perpetrators.
    b. Various individuals came into possession of specific advance knowledge, and some of them tried to warn the US prior to September 11th.
    c. Certain prominent persons received warnings not to fly on the week or on the day of September 11th.

    9) Able Danger, Plus – Surveillance of Alleged Hijackers
    a. The men identified as the 9/11 ringleaders were under surveillance for years beforehand, on the suspicion they were terrorists, by a variety of US and allied authorities – including the CIA, the US military”s “Able Danger” program, the German authorities, Israeli intelligence and others.
    b. Two of the alleged ringleaders who were known to be under surveillance by the CIA also lived with an FBI asset in San Diego, but this is supposed to be yet another coincidence.
    10) Obstruction of FBI Investigations prior to 9/11
    A group of FBI officials in New York systematically suppressed field investigations of potential terrorists that might have uncovered the alleged hijackers – as the Moussaoui case once again showed. The stories of Sibel Edmonds, Robert Wright, Coleen Rowley and Harry Samit, the “Phoenix Memo,” David Schippers, the 199i orders restricting investigations, the Bush administration”s order to back off the Bin Ladin family, the reaction to the “Bojinka” plot, and John O”Neil do not, when considered in sum, indicate mere incompetence, but high-level corruption and protection of criminal networks, including the network of the alleged 9/11 conspirators. (Nearly all of these examples were omitted from or relegated to fleeting footnotes in The 9/11 Commission Report.)

    11) Insider Trading
    a. Unknown speculators allegedly used foreknowledge of the Sept. 11th events to profiteer on many markets internationally – including but not limited to “put options” placed to short-sell the two airlines, WTC tenants, and WTC re-insurance companies in Chicago and London.
    b. In addition, suspicious monetary transactions worth hundreds of millions were conducted through offices at the Twin Towers during the actual attacks.
    c. Initial reports on these trades were suppressed and forgotten, and only years later did the 9/11 Commission and SEC provide a partial, but untenable explanation for only a small number of transactions (covering only the airline put options through the Chicago Board of Exchange).

    12) Who were the perpetrators?
    a. Much of the evidence establishing who did the crime is dubious and miraculous: bags full of incriminating material that happened to miss the flight or were left in a van; the “magic passport” of an alleged hijacker, found at Ground Zero; documents found at motels where the alleged perpetrators had stayed days and weeks before 9/11.
    b. The identities of the alleged hijackers remain unresolved, there are contradictions in official accounts of their actions and travels, and there is evidence several of them had “doubles,” all of which is omitted from official investigations.
    c. What happened to initial claims by the government that 50 people involved in the attacks had been identified, including the 19 alleged hijackers, with 10 still at large (suggesting that 20 had been apprehended)?,0,1825231.story

    THE 9/11 COVER-UP, 2001-2006

    13) Who Is Osama Bin Ladin?
    a. Who judges which of the many conflicting and dubious statements and videos attributed to Osama Bin Ladin are genuine, and which are fake? The most important Osama Bin Ladin video (Nov. 2001), in which he supposedly confesses to masterminding 9/11, appears to be a fake. In any event, the State Department”s translation of it is fraudulent.
    b. Did Osama Bin Ladin visit Dubai and meet a CIA agent in July 2001 (Le Figaro)? Was he receiving dialysis in a Pakistani military hospital on the night of September 10, 2001 (CBS)?
    c. Whether by Bush or Clinton: Why is Osama always allowed to escape?
    d. The terror network associated with Osama, known as the “base” (al-Qaeda), originated in the CIA-sponsored 1980s anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan. When did this network stop serving as an asset to covert operations by US intelligence and allied agencies? What were its operatives doing in Kosovo, Bosnia and Chechnya in the years prior to 9/11?

    14) All the Signs of a Systematic 9/11 Cover-up
    a. Airplane black boxes were found at Ground Zero, according to two first responders and an unnamed NTSB official, but they were “disappeared” and their existence is denied in The 9/11 Commission Report.
    b. US officials consistently suppressed and destroyed evidence (like the tapes recorded by air traffic controllers who handled the New York flights).
    c. Whistleblowers (like Sibel Edmonds and Anthony Shaffer) were intimidated, gagged and sanctioned, sending a clear signal to others who might be thinking about speaking out.
    d. Officials who “failed” (like Myers and Eberhard, as well as Frasca, Maltbie and Bowman of the FBI) were given promotions.

    15) Poisoning New York
    The White House deliberately pressured the EPA into giving false public assurances that the toxic air at Ground Zero was safe to breathe. This knowingly contributed to an as-yet unknown number of health cases and fatalities, and demonstrates that the administration does consider the lives of American citizens to be expendable on behalf of certain interests.

    16) Disposing of the Crime Scene
    The rapid and illegal scrapping of the WTC ruins at Ground Zero disposed of almost all of the structural steel indispensable to any investigation of the collapse mechanics. (See also item no. 23, below.)

    17) Anthrax
    Mailings of weapons-grade anthrax – which caused a practical suspension of the 9/11 investigations – were traced back to US military stock. Soon after the attacks began in October 2001, the FBI approved the destruction of the original samples of the Ames strain, disposing of perhaps the most important evidence in identifying the source of the pathogens used in the mailings. Were the anthrax attacks timed to coincide with the Afghanistan invasion? Why were the letters sent only to media figures and to the leaders of the opposition in the Senate (who had just raised objections to the USA PATRIOT Act)?

    18) The Stonewall
    a. Colin Powell promised a “white paper” from the State Department to establish the authorship of the attacks by al-Qaeda. This was never forthcoming, and was instead replaced by a paper from Tony Blair, which presented only circumstantial evidence, with very few points actually relating to September 11th.
    b. Bush and Cheney pressured the (freshly-anthraxed) leadership of the Congressional opposition into delaying the 9/11 investigation for months. The administration fought against the creation of an independent investigation for more than a year.
    c. The White House thereupon attempted to appoint Henry Kissinger as the chief investigator, and acted to underfund and obstruct the 9/11 Commission.

    19) A Record of Official Lies
    a. “No one could have imagined planes into buildings” – a transparent falsehood upheld repeatedly by Rice, Rumsfeld and Bush.
    b. “Iraq was connected to 9/11” – The most “outrageous conspiracy theory” of all, with the most disastrous impact.

    20) Pakistani Connection – Congressional Connection
    a. The Pakistani intelligence agency ISI, creator of the Taliban and close ally to both the CIA and “al-Qaeda,” allegedly wired $100,000 to Mohamed Atta just prior to September 11th, reportedly through the ISI asset Omar Saeed Sheikh (later arrested for the killing of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, who was investigating ISI connections to “al-Qaeda.”)
    b. This was ignored by the congressional 9/11 investigation, although the senator and congressman who ran the probe (Bob Graham and Porter Goss) were meeting with the ISI chief, Mahmud Ahmed, on Capitol Hill on the morning of September 11th.
    c. About 25 percent of the report of the Congressional Joint Inquiry was redacted, including long passages regarding how the attack (or the network allegedly behind it) was financed. Graham later said foreign allies were involved in financing the alleged terror network, but that this would only come out in 30 years.

    21) Unanswered Questions and the “Final Fraud” of the 9/11 Commission:
    a. The September 11th families who fought for and gained an independent investigation (the 9/11 Commission) posed 400-plus questions, which the 9/11 Commission adopted as its roadmap. The vast majority of these questions were completely ignored in the Commission hearings and the final report.
    b. The membership and staff of the 9/11 Commission displayed awesome conflicts of interest. The families called for the resignation of Executive Director Philip Zelikow, a Bush administration member and close associate of “star witness” Condoleezza Rice, and were snubbed. Commission member Max Cleland resigned, condemning the entire exercise as a “scam” and “whitewash.”
    c.The 9/11 Commission Report is notable mainly for its obvious omissions, distortions and outright falsehoods – ignoring anything incompatible with the official story, banishing the issues to footnotes, and even dismissing the still-unresolved question of who financed 9/11 as being “of little practical significance.”

    22) Crown Witnesses Held at Undisclosed Locations
    The alleged masterminds of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohamed (KSM) and Ramzi Binalshibh, are reported to have been captured in 2002 and 2003, although one Pakistani newspaper said KSM was killed in an attempted capture. They have been held at undisclosed locations and their supposed testimonies, as provided in transcript form by the government, form much of the basis for The 9/11 Commission Report (although the Commission”s request to see them in person was denied). After holding them for years, why doesn”t the government produce these men and put them to trial?

    23) Spitzer Redux
    a. Eliot Spitzer, attorney general of New York State, snubbed pleas by New York citizens to open 9/11 as a criminal case (
    b. Spitzer also refused to allow his employee, former 9/11 Commission staff member Dietrich Snell, to testify to the Congress about his (Snell”s) role in keeping “Able Danger” entirely out of The 9/11 Commission Report.

    24) NIST Omissions
    After the destruction of the WTC structural steel, the official Twin Towers collapse investigation was left with almost no forensic evidence, and thus could only provide dubious computer models of ultimately unprovable hypotheses. It failed to even test for the possibility of explosives. (Why not clear this up?)

    25) Radio Silence
    The 9/11 Commission and NIST both allowed the continuing cover-up of how Motorola”s faulty radios, purchased by the Giuliani administration, caused firefighter deaths at the WTC – once again showing the expendability, even of the first responders.

    26) The Legal Catch-22
    a. Hush Money – Accepting victims” compensation barred September 11th families from pursuing discovery through litigation.
    b. Judge Hallerstein – Those who refused compensation to pursue litigation and discovery had their cases consolidated under the same judge (and as a rule dismissed).

    27) Saudi Connections
    a. The 9/11 investigations made light of the “Bin Ladin Airlift” during the no-fly period, and ignored the long-standing Bush family business ties to the Bin Ladin family fortune. (A company in which both families held interests, the Carlyle Group, was holding its annual meeting on September 11th, with George Bush Sr., James Baker, and two brothers of Osama Bin Ladin in attendance.)
    b. The issue of Ptech.

    28) Media Blackout of Prominent Doubters
    The official story has been questioned and many of the above points were raised by members of the US Congress, retired high-ranking officers of the US military, the three leading third-party candidates for President in the 2004 election, a member of the 9/11 Commission who resigned in protest, a former high-ranking adviser to the George W. Bush administration, former ministers to the German, British and Canadian governments, the commander-in-chief of the Russian air force, 100 luminaries who signed the “9/11 Truth Statement,” and the presidents of Iran and Venezuela. Not all of these people agree fully with each other, but all would normally be considered newsworthy. Why has the corporate-owned US mass media remained silent about these statements, granting due coverage only to the comments of actor Charlie Sheen?


    29) “The Great Game”
    The Afghanistan invasion was ready for Bush”s go-ahead on September 9, 2001, with US and UK force deployments to the region already in place or underway. This followed the failure earlier that year of backdoor diplomacy with the Taliban (including payments of $125 million in US government aid to Afghanistan), in an attempt to secure a unity government for that country as a prerequisite to a Central Asian pipeline deal.

    30) The Need for a “New Pearl Harbor”
    Principals in US foreign policy under the current Bush administration (including Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle and others) have been instrumental in developing long-running plans for worldwide military hegemony, including an invasion of the Middle East, dating back to the Ford, Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations. They reiterated these plans in the late 1990s as members of the “Project for a New American Century,” and stated a clear intent to invade Iraq for the purpose of “regime change.” After 9/11, they lost no time in their attempt to tie Iraq to the attacks.

    31) Perpetual “War on Terror”
    9/11 is supposed to provide carte-blanche for an open-ended, global and perpetual “War on Terror,” against any enemy, foreign or domestic, that the executive branch chooses to designate, and regardless of whether evidence exists to actually connect these enemies to 9/11.

    32) Attacking the Constitution
    a. The USA PATRIOT Act was written before 9/11, Homeland Security and the “Shadow Government” were developed long before 9/11, and plans for rounding up dissidents as a means for suppressing civil disturbance have been in the works for decades.
    b. 9/11 was used as the pretext to create a new, extra-constitutional executive authority to declare anyone an “enemy combatant” (including American citizens), to detain persons indefinitely without habeas corpus, and to “render” such persons to secret prisons where torture is practiced.

    33) Legal Trillions
    9/11 triggers a predictable shift of public spending to war, and boosts public and private spending in the “new” New Economy of “Homeland Security,” biometrics, universal surveillance, prisons, civil defense, secured enclaves, security, etc.

    34) Plundered Trillions?
    On September 10, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld announced a “war on waste” after an internal audit found that the Pentagon was “missing” 2.3 trillion dollars in unaccounted assets. On September 11th, this was as good as forgotten.

    35) Did 9/11 prevent a stock market crash?
    Did anyone benefit from the destruction of the Securities and Exchange Commission offices at WTC 7, and the resultant crippling of hundreds of fraud investigations?

    36) Resource Wars
    a. What was discussed in the Energy Task Force meetings under Dick Cheney in 2001? Why is the documentation of these meetings still being suppressed?
    b. Is Peak Oil a motive for 9/11 as inside job?

    37) The “Little Game”
    Why was the WTC privatized just before its destruction?


    38) “Al-CIA-da?”
    The longstanding relationship between US intelligence networks and radical Islamists, including the network surrounding Osama Bin Ladin. (See also point 13d.)

    39) Historical Precedents for “Synthetic Terror”
    a. In the past many states, including the US government, have sponsored attacks on their own people, fabricated the “cause for war,” created (and armed) their own enemies of convenience, and sacrificed their own citizens for “reasons of state.”
    b. Was 9/11 an update of the Pentagon-approved “Project Northwoods” plan for conducting self-inflicted, false-flag terror attacks in the United States, and blaming them on a foreign enemy?

    40) Secret Government
    a. The record of criminality and sponsorship of coups around the world by the covert networks based within the US intelligence complex.
    b. Specifically also: The evidence of crime by Bush administration principals and their associates, from October Surprise to Iran-Contra and the S&L plunder to PNAC, Enron/Halliburton and beyond.


    Ground Zero aftermath movements:
    – Justice for the air-poisoning cover-up (
    – “Radio Silence” (
    – Skyscraper Safety (

    Election fraud and black box voting, 2000 to 2004. (

    Lies to justify the invasion of Iraq. (

    Use of depleted uranium and its multi-generational consequences on human health and the environment.

    Longstanding development of contingency plans for civil disturbance and military rule in the USA (See, “The War at Home”)

    Oklahoma City Truth movement. (Offline, but not forgotten – May 9, 2008!)

    Whether you call it “Globalization” or “The New World Order” – An unsustainable system of permanent growth ultimately requires warfare, fraud, and mass manipulation.


    “But an inside job would involve thousands of people! How could they keep a secret?” Counter-arguments, red herrings, speculations and false information.

    Selected essays, books and websites that make the case for 9/11 as inside job. (See Resources)

    Demanding a real investigation of the September crimes – Not just a patriotic duty, but a matter of survival.

  43. Henry Whistler Says:

    I mean, I think she’s made a pretty decent case for getting put in the spam box, no?

  44. blubonnet Says:

    FF 911 Truth
    No Comments
    20 Aug 2008 / Uncategorized

    An Appeal to Firefighters, Present and Past from a retired FDNY Lieutenant

    Fellow Firefighters, A great tragedy befell our community on September 11, 2001, an unprecedented 343 deaths in the line of duty. As horrible as that toll is, if there were a rational explanation for it, we could accept it and mourn. We all understood the risk we accepted when we took the oath of office, that chance might cut short our lives when we placed ourselves in harm’s way in the public’s service. This is what we are paid for and it is our honor. However, in short, the official explanation of the events of that day are not only insufficient, they are fantastic and cannot bear rational examination. We are asked to believe that on that day three structural steel buildings, which have never before in history collapsed because of fire, fell neatly into their basements at the speed of gravity, their concrete reduced to dust. We are asked to believe that jet fuel (kerosene) can melt steel. We are asked to believe that the most sophisticated air defense system in the world, that responded to sixty-eight emergencies in the year prior to 9-11 in less than twenty minutes allowed aircraft to wander about for up to an hour and a half. We are asked to believe that the steel and titanium components of an aircraft that supposedly hit the Pentagon “evaporated”. There is much, much more if anyone cares to look into it. Trade Tower #7 by itself is the “smoking gun”. Not hit by an aircraft, with only a few relatively small fires, it came down in a classic crimp and implosion, going straight into its basement, something only very precise demolition can accomplish, which takes days if not weeks to prepare. The 9-11 Commission didn’t even mention it, and F.E.M.A. actually stated they DIDN’T KNOW WHY IT COLLAPSED AND LEFT IT AT THAT. Brothers, I know that the implications of the above are hard, almost unthinkable, but the official explanation is utter nonsense, and three hundred and forty three murdered brothers are crying out for justice. Demand a genuine investigation into the events of September 11!

    -Anton Vodvarka, Lt. FDNY (ret)

    Lt. Vodvarka served on FDNY Ladder Co 26, Rescue Co. 3, Rescue Co. 1, Engine Co. 92, Ladder 82 and Ladder 101. He was awarded the Merit Class 1 award, the Prentice Medal.

  45. lil sis Says:

    I love when people of different opinions come on here because it makes it interesting, but good Lord, blubonnet…go away!

  46. blubonnet Says:

    Sorry “lil sis” but why don’t you read what the firefighter has to say?

  47. blubonnet Says:

    Thought you might respect what another, honest, brave, gutsy firefighter has to say…

    One Lieutenant’s Perspective
    No Comments
    21 Aug 2008 / Firefighter Articles, Uncategorized

    By Earl Emerson:
    30 year veteran Seattle Fire Department
    Author of Vertical Burn, Into the Inferno, Pyro, Firetrap, and numerous other fire novels.

    Along with millions of others, I watched the events of 9/11 unfold with disbelief and horror. I was home with my wife when the first tower collapsed. She turned to me and asked if a collapse was an eventuality that I as a veteran firefighter would have expected. I told her it was not only unexpected, but startling. What was even more startling was to watch both towers crumble into dust, and later, tower number 7, also go down at free fall speed, collapsing basically into it’s own footprint. Over the years I’d seen a number of buildings collapse due to fire, all wooden structures, but none collapsed at free fall speed. How much more resistance would a steel-framed building provide?

    I had just finished writing a novel in which a conflagration burned unchecked in Seattle’s tallest skyscraper, the 78-story Columbia Tower, and because of my research, I knew for a fact that no steel-framed building had ever collapsed due to fire, no matter how long that fire burned. In my novel the remnants of Seattle’s tallest building had ended up in a severe tilt. Nothing in my research indicated there was reason to go any further.

    There was a lot going on after 9/11. The news stories continued to pile up while the country gradually pieced together what happened that day, or what we thought happened. In early 2002 Vertical Burn was published and I did a two-week author’s tour for Ballantine Books. Every day I talked to crowds who were eager for the opportunity to discuss 9/11 with a working firefighter. The most frequent comment was, “Those New York firefighters were so brave. Going into those buildings when they knew they were going to fall down.” My reply: “Of course they were brave. But they weren’t idiots. There was one simple reason none of them believed the buildings were going to collapse: no steel-framed building had ever collapsed due to fire. Ever. They didn’t going into those buildings thinking they were headed for certain death. They went in to evacuate people and to put the fires out.”

    Listen to the radio reports from the firefighters that day. Look at the holes the planes put into the towers. Check out how much heat it takes to compromise steel compared to how much could have been generated by jet fuel fires. Observe how much smoke was coming from those buildings just prior to each collapse. There were people standing in the holes waving for help. And yet, the popular notion is that the buildings had uncontrollable fires and that those fires caused the buildings to collapse.

    There were witnesses in the openings caused by the aircraft impacts and those witnesses were telling us something. They were telling us the fires were largely quelled. If fires didn’t bring those three buildings down, what did?

    I too, watched the NOVA special and for a while some of my questions seemed as if they had answers. Then I found the 9/11 for truth web sites run by engineers, architects and pilots and began watching videos and reading. Now Erik Lawyer is starting a website for firefighters who want another investigation of 9/11. If you think you know what happened that day, browse this site and compare what you think you know to what the experts are telling us.

    If you’re a firefighter you knew the government was lying that first week when the EPA administrator, Christine Whitman, told the public the air in lower Manhattan was safe to breathe. Any firefighter who’d been on the job more than two weeks knew that was a crock. Now, up to seventy percent of the people working on the site and living in the area have lung disease. There were other, more crucial lies. Cruise this site. Open your mind. For any firefighter, this is the most important website you will visit this year or any other year.