September 11th - Separating the Truth from the Lies

[Mansoor Ali]

The impossibility of hijacker-operated aircraft on 9-11

By Nila Sagadevan

Part Two

For a person not conversant with the practical complexities of pilotage, a modern flight simulator could present a terribly confusing and disorienting experience. These complex training devices are not even remotely similar to the video games one sees in amusement arcades, or even the software versions available for home computers.

In order to operate a modern flight simulator with any level of skill, one has to not only be a decent pilot to begin with, but also a skilled instrument-rated one to boot and be thoroughly familiar with the actual aircraft type the simulator represents, since the cockpit layouts vary between aircraft.

The only flight domains where an arcade / PC-type game would even begin to approach the degree of visual realism of a modern professional flight simulator would be during the take-off and landing phases. During these phases, of course, one clearly sees the bright runway lights stretched out ahead, and even peripherally sees images of buildings, etc. moving past. Take-offs "even landings, to a certain degree" are relatively "easy" because the pilot has visual reference cues that exist "outside" the cockpit.

But once you've rotated, climbed out, and reached cruising altitude in a simulator (or real airplane), and find yourself en route to some distant destination (using sophisticated electronic navigation techniques), the situation changes drastically: the pilot loses virtually all external visual reference cues. She / he is left entirely at the mercy of an array of complex flight and navigation instruments to provide situational cues (altitude, heading, speed, attitude, etc.)

[Nooristan]

This is a video(part 1 of 4) of usama talking directly into the camera(nice and clear),its taken from December 2001 talking about September 11 and he praises those who done it,also Mansoor Ali this is my second question(still no reply to my first),I ask you to refute this video if you will,afwan but you cannot both be telling the truth someone is a liar,is it not so?

wa salamolaikom wr wb...........

[Mansoor Ali]

Inshaa Allaah I will come back to you after I finish this series.

The impossibility of hijacker-operated aircraft on 9-11

By Nila Sagadevan

Part Three

In the case of a Boeing 757 or 767, the pilot would be faced with an EFIS (Electronic Flight Instrumentation System) panel comprised of six large multi-mode LCDs interspersed with clusters of assorted "hard" instruments. These displays process the raw aircraft system and flight data into an integrated picture of the aircraft situation, position and progress, not only in horizontal and vertical dimensions, but also with regard to time and speed as well. When flying "blind", i.e., with no ground reference cues, it takes a highly skilled pilot to interpret, and then apply, this data intelligently. If one cannot translate this information quickly, precisely and accurately (and it takes an instrument-rated pilot to do so), one would have ZERO SITUATIONAL AWARENESS. I.e., the pilot wouldn't have a clue where she / he was in relation to the earth. Flight under such conditions is referred to as "IFR", or Instrument Flight Rules.

And IFR Rule #1: Never take your eyes off your instruments, because that's all you have!

The corollary to Rule #1: If you can't read the instruments in a quick, smooth, disciplined, scan, you are as good as dead.

[Rehmat]

One of the four hijacked commercial planes by 19 Arabs (six of whom were reported alive and kicking) - to attack 'White House' was not a commercial plane after-all.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/CNN_investigates_secret_911_doomsday_plane_0913.ht ml

[Mansoor Ali]

The impossibility of hijacker-operated aircraft on 9-11

By Nila Sagadevan

Part Four

Accident records from around the world are replete with reports of any number of good pilots "i.e., professional instrument-rated pilots " who ‘bought the farm' because they screwed up while flying in IFR conditions.

Let me place this in the context of the 9/11 hijacker-pilots. These men were repeatedly deemed incompetent to solo a simple “Cessna-172”, an elementary exercise that involves flying this little trainer once around the patch on a sunny day. A student's first solo flight involves a simple circuit: take-off, followed by four gentle left turns ending with a landing back on the runway. This is as basic as flying can possibly get.

Not one of the hijackers was deemed fit to perform this most elementary exercise by himself.

[Mansoor Ali]

The impossibility of hijacker-operated aircraft on 9-11

By Nila Sagadevan

Part Five

Now let's take a look at American Airlines Flight 77. Passenger / hijacker Hani Hanjour rises from his seat midway through the flight, viciously fights his way into the cockpit with his cohorts, overpowers Captain Charles F. Burlingame and First Officer David Charlebois, and somehow manages to toss them out of the cockpit (for starters, very difficult to achieve in a cramped environment without inadvertently impacting the yoke and thereby disengaging the autopilot).

Imagine that Hanjour overpowers the flight deck crew, removes them from the cockpit and takes his position in the captain's seat. Although weather reports state this was not the case, let's say Hanjour was lucky enough to experience a perfect CAVU day (Ceiling And Visibility Unlimited). If Hanjour looked straight ahead through the windshield, or off to his left at the ground, at best he would see, 35,000 feet - - 7 miles - - below him, a murky rownish-gray-green landscape, virtually devoid of surface detail, while the aircraft he was now piloting was moving along at around 500 MPH (about 750 feet every second).

After a few seconds (at 750 feet per second), Hanjour would figure out there's little point in looking outside - there is nothing there to give him any real visual cues.

[Mansoor Ali]

The impossibility of hijacker-operated aircraft on 9-11

By Nila Sagadevan

Part Six

After a few seconds (at 750 feet per second), Hanjour would figure out there's little point in looking outside - there is nothing there to give him any real visual cues. For a man who had previously wrestled with little Cessnas, following freeways and railroad tracks (and always in the comforting presence of an instructor), this would have been a strange, eerily unsettling environment indeed.

Seeing nothing outside, Mr. Hanjour would be forced to divert his attention to his instrument panel, where he would be faced with a bewildering array of instruments. He would then have to very quickly interpret his heading, ground track, altitude, and airspeed information on the displays before he could even figure out where in the world he was, much less where the Pentagon was located in relation to his position!

After all, before he can crash into a target, he has to first find the target.

It is very difficult to explain this scenario, of an utter lack of ground reference, to non-pilots; but let it suffice to say that for these incompetent hijacker non-pilots to even consider grappling with such a daunting task would have been utterly overwhelming.

[Mansoor Ali]

The impossibility of hijacker-operated aircraft on 9-11

By Nila Sagadevan

Part Seven

For the sake of discussion let's stretch things beyond all plausibility and say that Hanjour - whose flight instructor claimed "couldn't fly at all" - somehow managed to figure out their exact position on the American landscape in relation to their intended target as they traversed the earth at a speed five times faster than they had ever flown by themselves before.

Once he had determined exactly where he was, he would need to figure out where the Pentagon was located in relation to his rapidly changing position. He would then need to plot a course to his target (one he cannot see with his eyes - remember, our ace is flying solely on instruments).

In order to perform this bit of electronic navigation, he would have to be very familiar with IFR procedures. None of these chaps even knew what a navigational chart looked like, much less how to plug information into flight management computers (FMC) and engage LNAV (lateral navigation automated mode). If one is to believe the official story, all of this was supposedly accomplished by raw student pilots, while flying blind at 500 MPH, (about 750 feet every second) over 30,000 feet high and above the unfamiliar ground, (and practically invisible) terrain, using complex methodologies and employing sophisticated instruments.

[Mansoor Ali]

The impossibility of hijacker-operated aircraft on 9-11

By Nila Sagadevan

Part Eight

The official storyline suggests these men manually flew their aircraft to their respective targets (NB: This still wouldn't relieve them of the burden of navigation). But let's assume Hanjour disengaged the autopilot and auto-throttle and hand-flew the aircraft to its intended - and invisible - target on instruments alone until such time as he could get a visual fix. This would have necessitated him to fly back across West Virginia and Virginia to Washington DC. - - This portion of the Flight 77's flight path cannot be corroborated by any radar evidence that exists, because the aircraft is said to have suddenly disappeared from radar screens over Ohio, but let's not mull over that little point.....

According to FAA radar controllers, "Flight 77" then suddenly pops up over Washington DC and executes an incredibly precise diving turn at a rate of 360 degrees per minute while descending at 3,500 feet per minute, at the end of which "Hanjour" allegedly levels out at ground level.

[Mansoor Ali]

The impossibility of hijacker-operated aircraft on 9-11

By Nila Sagadevan

Part Nine

All of a sudden we have magic. Hanjour finds the Pentagon sitting squarely in his sights right before him.

But even that wasn't good enough for this fanatic Muslim kamikaze pilot. You see, he found that his "missile" was heading towards one of the most densely populated wings of the Pentagon - and one occupied by top military brass, including the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld. Presumably in order to save these men's lives, he then executes a sweeping 270-degree turn and approaches the building from the opposite direction and aligns himself with the only wing of the Pentagon that was virtually uninhabited due to extensive renovations that were underway.

I shan't get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying a large commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH. A discussion on ground effect energy, tip vortex compression, downwash sheet reaction, wake turbulence, and jet blast effects are beyond the scope of this article.

[William Wurkmun Fosterr]

If We must rehash the past, so be it, but let's also get on to Resurrecting ALL the dead.

[intissar]

Doesn't it look as if the planes were streered via remote control by an actual employee of this aviation security department - who had easy access to the codes to these emergency transponders ?

Now, For the war with Iran Bush might simply go to the UN and announce his intent for another pre-emptive strike. After all, he did the same thing with Iraq.

The smear campaign is passionately increasing.

[Mansoor Ali]

The folowing articles may provide clues as to who remote controlled airplanes into the WTC:

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1927
http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_members&Number=1092638

[Mansoor Ali]

The impossibility of hijacker-operated aircraft on 9-11

By Nila Sagadevan

Part Ten

It is physically impossible to fly a roughly 200,000 pound airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH.

The author, a pilot and aeronautical engineer, challenges any pilot in the world to do so in any large high-speed aircraft that has a relatively low wing-loading (such as a commercial jets), i.e., to fly the craft at 400 MPH, 20 feet above ground in a flat trajectory over a distance of one mile.

Why the stipulation of 20 feet and a mile? There were several street light poles located up to a mile away from the Pentagon that were snapped-off by the incoming aircraft; this suggests a low, flat trajectory during the final pre-impact approach phase. Further, it is known that the craft impacted the Pentagon's ground floor. For purposes of reference: If a 757 were placed on the ground on its engine nacelles (I.e., gear retracted as in flight profile), its nose would be almost 20 above the ground! For the aircraft to impact the ground floor of the Pentagon, Hanjour would have needed to have flown in with the engines buried 10-feet deep in the Pentagon lawn.

At any rate, why is such ultra-low-level flight aerodynamically impossible? Because the reactive force of the hugely powerful downwash sheet, coupled with the compressibility effects of the tip vortices, simply will not allow the aircraft to get any lower to the ground than approximately one half the distance of its wingspan - until speed is drastically reduced.

[Mansoor Ali]

The impossibility of hijacker-operated aircraft on 9-11

By Nila Sagadevan

Part Eleven

If this were a Boeing 757 as reported, the plane could not have been flown below about 60 feet above ground at 400 MPH. Such a maneuver is entirely within the performance envelope of aircraft with high wing-loadings, such as ground-attack fighters, the B1-B bomber, and Cruise missiles.

The very same navigational challenges mentioned above would have faced the pilots who flew the two 767s into the Twin Towers, in that they, too, would have had to have first found their targets. Again, these chaps, too, miraculously found themselves spot on course. And again, their "final approach" maneuvers at over 500 MPH are simply far too incredible to have been executed by pilots who could not solo basic training aircraft.

In reality, a clueless non-pilot would encounter almost insurmountable difficulties in attempting to navigate and fly a 200,000 pounds airliner into a building located on the ground, 7 miles below and hundreds of miles away and out of sight, and in an unknown direction, while flying at over 500 MPH.

[Mansoor Ali]

The impossibility of hijacker-operated aircraft on 9-11


Part Twelve

In the case of UA 175 which allegedly crashed into the south tower of the World Trade Centre, the plane manages to level off from a nose dive into the correct position to hit the tower square on whilst banking into position. This maneuver suggests that the planes were on remote control. The plane dive bombed into position with incredible accuracy.

If it were a jet fighter it would be possible, but we're talking about a boeing jet airliner, a plane that takes miles and minutes to turn around.

You can't just do that in a jet airliner without pre-planned flight navigation or approach route. The maneuver is too compressed for it not be on remote control.

[Mansoor Ali]

The impossibility of hijacker-operated aircraft on 9-11


Part Thirteen

"One of my experiences in the army was being in charge of the army's imagery interpretation for scientific and technical intelligence. I measured pieces of Soviet equipment from photographs. I look at the hole in the Pentagon, and I look at the size of an airplane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon, and I said the plane does not fit in that hole. So what did hit the Pentagon?"

--- Major General Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army (ret) – commanded the U.S. Army’s Electronic Research and Development Command and the U.S. Army’s Intelligence School and Center.

The aerodynamics of flight would have made the official trajectory--flying more than 500 mph barely above ground level--physically impossible, because of the accumulation of a massive pocket of compressed gas (air) beneath the fuselage; and if it had come it at an angle instead, it would have created a massive crater; but there is no crater and the official trajectory is impossible.

Flying low enough to impact with the ground floor would have meant that the engines were plowing the ground and creating massive furrows; but there are no massive furrows. The smooth, unblemished surface of the Pentagon lawn thus stands as a "smoking gun" proving the official trajectory cannot be sustained.

[Mansoor Ali]

The impossibility of hijacker-operated aircraft on 9-11

Part Fourteen

John Lear – Retired commercial airline pilot with over 19,000 hours flown in over 100 different types of planes for 10 different airlines in 60 different countries around the world. Flew for over 40 years. Holds every certificate offered by the FAA and has 23 different FAA type ratings.

Rob Balsamo: What did you think about 9/11 after you saw it?

John Lear: Well, you know, five minutes after it happened, I knew that it was a scam. ... No Boeing 757 ever crashed into the Pentagon. No Boeing 757 ever crashed at Shanksville. ... And no Arab hijacker ever flew into the World Trade Center. And if you got 30 minutes I'll tell you exactly why he couldn't do it the first time. Now, I'd have trouble doing it the first time.

Rob Balsamo: Yeah, same here.

John Lear: Maybe if I had a couple tries to line up a few building, I could have done it. But certainly not the first time and certainly not at 500 or 600 miles an hour.

Rob Balsamo: Yeah, as a matter of fact, one of our members, he was a 737 Check Airman. He was in the sim at the time on September 11 and right after it happened they tried to duplicate it in the simulator and they said they couldn't do it. They were trying to hit the Towers and they couldn't do it. ...

John Lear: Yeah, it would be an amazing feat of airmanship.

[Mansoor Ali]

The impossibility of hijacker-operated aircraft on 9-11

Part Fifteen

Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force – Retired commercial pilot. Flew for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years. Aircraft flown: Boeing 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777. 30,000+ total hours flown.

"I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that's alleged to have hit the South Tower. I don't believe it's possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding -- pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's. And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do it."

There was no possibility that Flight 77 could have "descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 270 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon's first floor wall without touching the lawn."…

"For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible - there is not one chance in a thousand," said Wittenberg, recalling that when he made the jump from Boeing 727's to the highly sophisticated computerized characteristics of the 737's through 767's it took him considerable time to feel comfortable flying."

Regarding Flight 77, which allegedly hit the Pentagon. "The airplane could not have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into what they call a high speed stall. The airplane won’t go that fast if you start pulling those high G maneuvers at those bank angles. … To expect this alleged airplane to run these maneuvers with a total amateur at the controls is simply ludicrous...

[Mansoor Ali]

The impossibility of hijacker-operated aircraft on 9-11

Part Sixteen

Commander Ted Muga - Retired Pan-Am commercial airline pilot. Aircraft flown: Boeing 707 and 727. Retired Civil Engineer. Retired Naval aviator. Aircraft flown: Grumman E-1 Tracer and E-2 Hawkeye.

The maneuver at the Pentagon was just a tight spiral coming down out of 7,000 feet. And a commercial aircraft, while they can in fact structurally somewhat handle that maneuver, they are very, very, very difficult. And it would take considerable training. In other words, commercial aircraft are designed for a particular purpose and that is for comfort and for passengers and it's not for military maneuvers. And while they are structurally capable of doing them, it takes some very, very talented pilots to do that. ...

When a commercial airplane gets that high, it gets very, very close to getting into what you refer to as a speed high-speed stall. And a high-speed stall can be very, very violent on a commercial-type aircraft and you never want to get into that situation. I just can't imagine an amateur even being able to come close to performing a maneuver of that nature.

Also in all four planes, if you remember, none of the planes ever switched on their transponder to the hijack code. It takes literally just a split-second for you to put your hand down on the center console and flip it over. And not one of the four planes ever transponded a hijack code, which is most, most unusual.

Commercial airplanes are very, very complex pieces of machines. And they're designed for two pilots up there, not just two amateur pilots, but two qualified commercial pilots up there. And to think that you're going to get an amateur up into the cockpit and fly, much less navigate, it to a designated target, the probability is so low."

[Mansoor Ali]

The impossibility of hijacker-operated aircraft on 9-11

Part Seventeen

Commander Ralph Kolstad, U.S. Navy (ret) – Retired commercial airline captain with 27 years experience. Aircraft flown: Boeing 727, 757 and 767.

At the Pentagon, the pilot of the Boeing 757 did quite a feat of flying. I have 6,000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757’s and 767’s and could not have flown it the way the flight path was described.

I was also a Navy fighter pilot and Air Combat Instructor, U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School and have experience flying low altitude, high speed aircraft. I could not have done what these beginners did.

Where is the damage to the wall of the Pentagon from the wings? Where are the big pieces that always break away in an accident? Where is all the luggage? Where are the miles and miles of wire, cable, and lines that are part and parcel of any large aircraft? Where are the steel engine parts? Where is the steel landing gear? Where is the tail section that would have broken into large pieces?

And at the Shanksville Pennsylvania impact site, where is any of the wreckage? Of all the pictures I have seen, there is only a hole! Where is any piece of a crashed airplane? Why was the area cordoned off, and no inspection allowed by the normal accident personnel? Where is any evidence at all?

When one starts using his own mind, and not what one was told, there is very little to believe in the official story.

[Mansoor Ali]

The impossibility of hijacker-operated aircraft on 9-11

Part Eighteen

Ralph W. Omholt – Commercial airline pilot. Aircraft flown: Boeing 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and McDonnell Douglas DC-10.

"Almost nothing in the "official" 9-11 account proves to be factual.

At the 9-11 Pentagon, the world witnessed a fire and suggestions of explosions. Airport fire trucks rushed to the scene of a purported “crash” site - without discovering an airplane. There is no viable evidence of burning jet fuel. Just the statement, "They say it was an airplane." The pre-collapse Pentagon section showed no ‘forward-moving’ damage. The damage is at the wrong location. The expected “crash” damage doesn't exist. There was no particular physical evidence of the expected "wreckage." There was no tail, no wings; no damage consistent with a B-757 “crash.” Even the Pentagon lawn was undamaged! The geometry of the day certifies the ‘official’ account as a blatant lie. The few aircraft parts discovered at the Pentagon are highly suspect. All images show that the building wasn't aggressively searched for survivors.

The purported Flight 93 crash site in Pennsylvania is quite similar.

Since 9-11, it was discovered that there was no expected Air Force fighter response. By all appearances, the expected fighters were held back from interfering with; or witnessing the unfolding events. The fighter onboard electronics would have not only offered an intercept target, but would have displayed and recorded the forbidden reality of the day. Of particular interest would be the fate of two obviously missing airliners.

The alleged hijackers apparently were not on board the aircraft! Their names were not on any passenger manifests - yet shown. The ‘names’ of at least seven of the alleged hijackers were discovered to be still alive."

[sultanmuradII]

Why is bin laden (As-Sahab)/Al-Qaeda people playing along to the "oficial" story of 911, when it has become apparent that this was an inside job. Is there collusion or sheer stupity in releasing tapes that corroborate the lie?

[Mansoor Ali]

Videos showing imposters pretending to be bin Laden have been shown in 2001, 2004 and 2007.

[Mansoor Ali]

The impossibility of hijacker-operated aircraft on 9-11

Part Nineteen

Dennis Cimino – Commercial pilot rating for 25 years. Systems Engineer. Navy Combat Systems Specialist.

I have been a licensed pilot with a commercial rating, multi-engine, IFR, since 1981. There is no doubt in my mind that what transpired on September 11, 2001, was an inside job carried out by members of our own government. Based on my experience as a commercial pilot, I do not believe that it's possible for four large commercial airliners to have gone off course for as long as they did and as far as they did and were not intercepted.

The visible evidence at the Pentagon is inconsistent with an impact by a Boeing 757. There was virtually no debris from the 80-ton airplane, except a few small pieces that were picked up by hand. Nor was there any evidence of holes in the building that surely would have resulted from the impacts of the two 6-ton RB-211 engines on the alleged Boeing 757. Similarly, at Shanksville, PA, the small gash in the earth is far too small to have resulted from the impact of a Boeing 757.

[Mansoor Ali]

The impossibility of hijacker-operated aircraft on 9-11

Part Twenty

Robin Hordon – Former Certified Commercial Pilot. Former Certified Flight Instructor and Certified Ground Instructor. Former FAA Air Traffic Controller at the Boston Air Route Traffic Control Center.

"I knew within hours of the attacks on 9/11/2001 that it was an inside job. Based on my 11-year experience as an FAA Air Traffic Controller in the busy Northeast corridor, including hundreds of hours of training, briefings, air refuelings, low altitude bombing drills, being part of huge military exercises, daily military training exercises, interacting on a routine basis directly with NORAD radar personnel, and based on my own direct experience dealing with in-flight emergency situations, including two instances of hijacked commercial airliners, I state unequivocally; There is absolutely no way that four large commercial airliners could have flown around off course for 30 to 60 minutes on 9/11 without being intercepted .

It is important for people to understand that scrambling jet fighters to intercept aircraft showing the signs of experiencing "IN-FLIGHT EMERGENCIES" such as going off course without authorization, losing a transponder signal and/or losing radio contact is a common and routine task executed jointly between the FAA and NORAD controllers. The entire "national defense-first responder" intercept system has many highly-trained civilian and military personnel who are committed and well-trained to this task. FAA and NORAD continuously monitor our skies and fighter planes and pilots are on the ready 24/7 to handle these situations."

[Mansoor Ali]

Reply to AbuHannah:

This is a video(part 1 of 4) of usama talking directly into the camera(nice and clear),its taken from December 2001 talking about September 11 and he praises those who done it

Even if bin Laden spoke highly about the attacks that doesn't mean he was behind them. He had as much to do with 9-11 as you or me, i.e. nothing.

Israeli Control of the Mass Media & the 9-11 Cover-Up

Part Two

by Christopher Bollyn

As an independent journalist and 9-11 researcher, I have seen how Zionist-controlled media outlets are actively engaged in covering up the evidence of Israeli involvement in the "false flag" attacks of 9-11 and the Zionist-planned "War on Terror." I have personally been subjected to 6 years of slander and defamation from a host of Zionist-controlled news outlets, including CNN and FOX News, simply because I have investigated and written about the evidence of Israeli involvement.

The zionist deception is that 19 Arab Muslims under the leadership of bin Laden were behind the 9-11 attacks at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. This deception has been used to usher in the Zionist-planned "War on Terror."

When FOX News and CNN interviewed me on the pretense that they were interested in my 9-11 research and evidence, all they really wanted to do was to smear me as an anti-Semite. In both cases the interviewers were clearly not at all interested in the 9-11 evidence or my research.

I have paid a very high price for investigating and writing about the evidence that contradicts the government's version of what happened on 9-11. The first attack came from the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith (ADL) in November 2001.

The ADL, a private organization dedicated to supporting Zionist and Israeli interests, first smeared the American Free Press, the newspaper I wrote for, as a "conspiratorial and anti-Semitic weekly newspaper," which it said had "repeatedly turned to the subject of the 9-11 attacks as grist for its mill."

The ADL then singled me out for my article "Some Survivors Say Bombs Exploded Inside WTC" in which, the ADL said, "Bollyn suggests that the 'mainstream media' is ignoring eyewitness accounts of bombs that exploded inside the World Trade Center before the collapse of the Twin Towers."

I did, indeed. The first line of my article said exactly that:

Despite reports from numerous eyewitnesses and experts, including news reporters on the scene, who heard or saw explosions immediately before the collapse of the World Trade Center, there has been virtual silence in the mainstream media.

But, I asked, why would an organization dedicated to Israeli interests attack me, as a journalist, for writing about eyewitness reports of explosions in the World Trade Center? What did my writing about this extremely newsworthy subject have to do with Israel?

[Mansoor Ali]

Israeli Control of the Mass Media & the 9-11 Cover-Up

Part Three

by Christopher Bollyn

Shortly after the destruction of the WTC, the BBC interviewed reporter Steve Evans on their television news program based in London. Because Evans' observations were ignored by the BBC and not followed up, I wrote about his report of the explosions he felt in the South Tower:

Evans was asked what he had seen: "Its more what I felt really," Evans said. "I was at the base of the 2nd tower, the second tower that was hit. There was an explosion – I didn’t think it was an explosion – but the base of the building shook. I felt it shake … then when we were outside, the second explosion happened and then there was a series of explosions…"

At this point the London news anchor cut Evans off in mid-sentence rather than listen to Evans continue to describe the "series of explosions" that he saw and felt. Evans' microphone was turned down.

But in a minute Evans returns to the "series of explosions" that he witnessed: "We can only wonder at the kind of damage – the kind of human damage – which was caused by those explosions – those series of explosions," Evans said.

Evans is a professional journalist and his observations of explosions in the second tower need to be taken into account by anybody looking into the cause of the catastrophe of September 11. Many eyewitnesses have reported similar explosions, but these reports, and what they suggest, are intentionally being censored and avoided by the very people who are supposed to be investigating the cause of the collapses.

The same kind of censorship occurred with FOX News, CNN, and the leading U.S. news networks that had reporters at the World Trade Center.

[abumuwahid]

Just where you get off posting all this rubbish is what I would like to know. Seventy Eight pages. It's a wonder that you are not being charged for all the space you're occupying.

[Mansoor Ali]

Israeli Control of the Mass Media & the 9-11 Cover-Up

Part Four

by Christopher Bollyn

The news reports that five Middle Eastern men were being sought or had been captured in New Jersey after they had videotaped themselves celebrating in front of the burning towers were treated in the same way. The arrest of the five men, all Israelis, two of whom were known Mossad agents, was reported in the Bergen Record (New Jersey) on September 12, 2001 -- but never discussed or investigated by the national news networks.

the story of the Odigo text message warning of the attacks - before they occurred - was dropped into the media's memory hole. The instant text messages, which were precise to the minute, had been sent via the Israeli-owned Odigo instant messaging service and had even been received by Odigo employees in Israel, but the story of Israelis having prior knowledge of the attacks was never discussed in the U.S. mass media.

How did the news editors at the BBC, FOX News, CNN, and the leading networks decide to censor their own reporters and avoid discussing certain aspects of 9-11?

Let's look at this logically. 9-11 was the biggest story these news editors had ever handled. Suffice it to say that the editorial decisions about how to cover 9-11 must have been made by the boss at the top. Any decision to omit or censor reports about explosions at the World Trade Center or indications of Israeli involvement would have been made by the senior executive of each network.

In the case of CNN it would have been Gerald M. Levin, the CEO of Time Warner, who acquired Turner Broadcasting in 1997.

At FOX News the top decision maker would have been Rupert Murdoch, CEO of News Corp.

At ABC News it would have been Michael D. Eisner, CEO of Disney, the network's parent company.

How could they know that certain aspects of the event needed to be suppressed by their news networks?

[Mansoor Ali]

Physics shows towers were demolished in a controlled demolition

Newton’s law of gravity tells us exactly what to expect from falling bodies. A falling object experiences a constant acceleration of 32ft/sec^2. We can calculate that the time it would take for an object to fall from the top of one of the 1350ft WTC towers is 9.2 seconds without accounting for air resistance. When air resistance is included, for example, for a brick falling from that height, we would expect it to take about 12 sec. This is very close to the time it took for the towers to fall as reported in the official Kean-Hammilton-Zelikow report or the 10 to 13 seconds as independently measured from observation of various videos of the collapses. The bottom line is that the towers fell at roughy free fall speed.

Another fundamental law of physics is the conservation of energy and it applies to falling bodies as well. An object, as it falls, converts its gravitational potential energy (due to height above ground) into kinetic energy (speed). If that object has to use some of its energy for something else, like pushing air out of the way, then there will be less energy available as kinetic energy so it will take a bit longer to reach the ground. As we’ve seen in the example of a brick falling from the top of the tower, even just the energy required to move air out of the way is enough to slow the free fall time from 9.2 seconds to 12 seconds.

In the “official” explanation of the collapse, the so-called “pancake theory”, the floor above gives way and crashes into the floor below it, which gives way and together they fall on the next floor below, and so on. The falling floor must use a considerable amount of its energy to break loose the floor below. In addition, to account for the observed dust plumes, the crashing together of the floors has to crush the concrete floor slabs into a fine powder and that takes a very substantial amount of energy as well. Additional energy is then required to eject those tons of crushed concrete at high speed in all directions because that’s what was observed on 9/11. All of this energy must be subtracted from the original potential energy of the falling floor, which means there is much less energy available as kinetic energy(speed) so the floors must be falling much slower than they would otherwise.

How much slower? You don’t have to be an engineer to realize that the energy required to crush the concrete into fine powder and blow it out of the buildings at high speed is many times more energy than what is required just to move air out of the way. If the energy required to move air out of the way of a falling brick could increase the fall time from 9.2 sec. to 12 sec, the requirement to not only move air, but also crush concrete, and eject tons of crushed concrete dust laterally at high speed, should have increased the fall time considerably.

The fact that the buildings were observed to fall at essentially free fall speed, means that all of the gravitational potential energy of the building was in fact converted to the kinetic energy of falling. The fall speed accounts for all of the gravitational potential energy available. There is no gravitational energy available to break steel, crush concrete, eject dust or do anything else but just fall.

The Conservation of Energy Law forces us to conclude that there had to be some additional source of energy. Some source of energy to pulverize the concrete and send it in all directions at high speed as a fine powder.

[sultanmuradII]

New Tape - Bin Laden claims:

"I am responsible" for the attacks on New York and Washington on September 11, 2001,"

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79D8DF58-6E10-40BE-8E32-E485906623C9.htm

[Mansoor Ali]

New Tape - Bin Laden claims:

"I am responsible" for the attacks on New York and Washington on September 11, 2001,"

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79D8DF58-6E10-40BE-8E32-E485906623C9.htm

....and here are three imposters pretending to be bin Laden:

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/archive/BinLaden%20Fake2.JPG
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/binwho2.jpg
http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/7510/bin2wx0.jpg

[sultanmuradII]

Whether they are imposters or not, since it is not clear cut (and honestly they look like the same man to me), his followers accept the 19 hijacker's & OBL official theory.

It is not only about OBL since others like zawahri and their followers don't address the painful truths about how they are being used like batons to push their agendas, whether in iraq or elsewhere.

For me those who would now promote the official lie are just plain stupid (at best naive) or on the pay roll. That would include who this person is releasing these tapes claiming responsibility.

[Mansoor Ali]

Air Traffic Controller : I knew within hours of the attacks on 9/11/2001 that it was an inside job.

PART ONE

Robin Hordon : "I was an FAA Air Traffic Controller from 1970 - 1981. During my time as an Air Traffic Controller, I worked at the Boston Air Route Traffic Control Center in Nashua, NH, and I was certified in the air traffic sector where American Airlines Flight 11 became an "IN-FLIGHT-EMERGENCY" before being declared a "hijack" on 9/11.

In my 11-year FAA career, I worked in the development of "procedures and airspace design", including some military operations, and was part of the team which trained other Air Traffic Controllers and transitioned the FAA from its old broadband radar and simple flight data processors into the RDP (Radar Data Processing) and computerized radar displays.

I was a Facility Training Instructor and was certified to create transcripts from audio tapes, to interpret radar data in tracking aircraft from computer files, and to analyze computer tracking data, all of which would combine to "tell the story" of air traffic incidents.

Several times each year, practice exercises were conducted on how to handle high speed scrambles and group departures called "flushes" all in conjunction with military exercises and NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command). Out of Otis Air Force Base alone, twenty to thirty jet fighters would scramble and then later return.

[Mansoor Ali]

Air Traffic Controller : I knew within hours of the attacks on 9/11/2001 that it was an inside job.

PART TWO

I knew within hours of the attacks on 9/11/2001 that it was an inside job. Based on my 11-year experience as an FAA Air Traffic Controller in the busy Northeast corridor, including hundreds of hours of training, briefings, air refuelings, low altitude bombing drills, being part of huge military exercises, daily military training exercises, interacting on a routine basis directly with NORAD radar personnel, and based on my own direct experience dealing with in-flight emergency situations, including two instances of hijacked commercial airliners, I state unequivocally; There is absolutely no way that four large commercial airliners could have flown around off course for 30 to 60 minutes on 9/11 without being intercepted.

It is important for people to understand that scrambling jet fighters to intercept aircraft showing the signs of experiencing “IN-FLIGHT EMERGENCIES” such as going off course without authorization, losing a transponder signal and/or losing radio contact is a common and routine task executed jointly between the FAA and NORAD controllers. The entire “national defense-first responder” intercept system has many highly-trained civilian and military personnel who are committed and well-trained to this task. FAA and NORAD continuously monitor our skies and fighter planes and pilots are on the ready 24/7 to handle these situations.

[Mansoor Ali]

Air Traffic Controller : I knew within hours of the attacks on 9/11/2001 that it was an inside job.

PART THREE

This type of "immediate, high speed, high priority and emergency" scramble had been happening regularly approximately 75 - 150 times per year for ten years. In the same ten years, there were ZERO "low speed, delayed reaction, and low priority" hijacking scrambles reported, which means that the only time interceptors were ever scrambled for ten years before 9/11, they were using the high speed immediate scrambles. The system was well tuned and ready before June 2001. However, the "emergency scramble" is NOT what was used on 9/11/2001...it was the "laissez fair" scramble for a hijacking that had to get Pentagon approval before departing…and there was none forthcoming.

I believe that 9/11 was what is known as a "False Flag Operation" in which a country inflicts casualties upon itself, and then blames it on an enemy that they want to go to war against. It is one more instance in the United States’ long history of using "False Flag Operations" and blatant propaganda to ramp-up hostile emotions towards an enemy in a population otherwise resistant to going to war. The destruction of the battleship USS Maine in Havana harbor, which led to the Spanish-American War, allowing the attack on Pearl Harbor to occur, the declassified 1960's plan Operation Northwoods, which was going to be used as a pretext for going to war with Cuba, the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, which justified the war in Viet Nam, the planted story about babies being taken from incubators and killed by Iraqi soldiers to help justify the first Gulf War, and now, the attacks on 9/11/2001 being used to justify the current war in Iraq, were all used to manipulate the "warring emotions" within U.S. citizens so that they would come to support this country going to war against this "new enemy". And in all of these wars, everyone in this decadent cabal shares in the financial profits associated with war, and, of course, share in none of the pain and deaths associated with war.

[Mansoor Ali]

Raytheon's role in 9-11

Raytheon had a DIRECT role in 9/11.

Raytheon, maker of Patriot and Tomahawk missiles, watched its stock take off after the attacks.

Purchases of call options contracts on Raytheon stock increased sixfold on September 10, 2001.

CLEARLY, Bets were placed in advance of 9/11 with foreknowledge of 9/11.

Raytheon executives were killed on 9-11, or at least wound up permanently missing, which may be a more accurate way of saying it. It is who wound up missing that is most interesting.

This is an excerpt of the email we received and is information that we knew as of the issuance of the flight manifests for all four of the planes allegedly involved in 9-11:

Subject: Raytheon and 9/11

(These are people who supposedly died on 9/11.)

Raytheon and 9/11

Stanley Hall Raytheon Director of Electronic warfare program management.

Peter Gay Raytheon VP of Electronic Systems on special assignment at the El Segundo, CA division office where the Global Hawk UAV remote control system is made.

Kenneth Waldie Raytheon Senior Quality Control for Electronic Systems.

David Kovalcin Raytheon Senior Mechanical Engineer for Electronic Systems.

Herbert Homer Raytheon Corporate Executive working with the Department of Defense.

These are not only the type of people but they are the people that would be assigned to UAV type projects involving Mode 4 and Mode 5 upgrades. Why would they be in Boston and those planes coming from that direction and from north of Manhattan Island?

That 16 foot tunnel through three rings of the Pentagon is only made by a directional blast weapon. Rumsfeld has even slipped up and mentioned the missile that hit the Pentagon.

[Mansoor Ali]

Explosive expert's analysis of the Pentagon attack

by Pierre-Henri Bunel

Pierre-Henri Bunel is a graduate of the Ecole Militaire de Saint-Cyr (the French officers’ academy) and a former artillery officer, whose expertise is recognized in the following fields: the effects of explosives on humans and buildings, the effects of artillery weapons on personnel and buildings, firefighting for specific types of fire, wrecks and remains of destroyed airplanes.

PART ONE

Video released on may, 16th 2006 by the United States Department of Defense

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TAaP4Z3zls8&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TAaP4Z3zls8&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

What is the nature of the explosion that took place at the Pentagon on 11 September 2001? An analysis of the video pictures of the impact and the photographs of the damages permits one to know by what type of device the attack was caused. Did the explosion correspond with that produced by an airplane’s kerosene or that of a real explosive?

[Mansoor Ali]

Explosive expert's analysis of the Pentagon attack

by Pierre-Henri Bunel

PART TWO

The combustion of explosive chemical materials - powders, explosives or hydrocarbons, for example - release energy by producing a shock wave. The diffusion at high speeds of the enormous quantity of gas produced by the chemical reaction is accompanied by flame, by a noise caused by the displacement of the shockwave through the air, and by smoke. One also often observes, even before seeing the flame, a cloud of vapor due to the compression of the air surrounding the zone of the explosion. The air can’t be set into motion immediately, so it compresses under the influence of the shockwave. At first, under the compression of the air molecules, the invisible water vapor that the atmosphere always contains in greater or lesser quantities compresses and becomes visible as a white cloud.

What I would like to underline here is the notion of the shockwave. An explosion is a reaction that projects gas at a greater or lesser speeds. Explosive materials, according to their chemical composition and the physical arrangement of their molecules, impart upon the gases they generate a greater or lesser speed of propagation. One says that they are more or less progressive. The observation of the shockwave is thus a precious indication of the speed of the gases projected by the explosion.

[Mansoor Ali]

Explosive expert's analysis of the Pentagon attack

by Pierre-Henri Bunel

PART THREE

Explosive materials are divided into two groups, according to their progressiveness. Explosives produce a shockwave whose speed of propagation is superior to a value of about six thousand feet per second. One says that they "detonate". Explosive materials whose shockwave speed is lower than that do not detonate. They deflagrate. This is the case, for example, of gunpowder or hydrocarbons.

In an internal combustion engine - and the turbojet of a Boeing 757 is a continuous internal combustion engine - the fuel under pressure deflagrates and does not detonate. If it detonated, the engine’s structure would not withstand it. The kerosene of an airliner that crashes ignites and does not generally produce even deflagration, except in certain circumstances and at points limited to the engines. In the recent case of the Airbus that fell on a Queens neighborhood in New York in November 2001, the engines did not explode upon arriving at the ground. Kerosene is a heavy oil analogous to diesel fuel, tri-filtrated in order to satisfy the physical conditions of passage through the fuel injectors of jet engines. It is in no sense an explosive.

[Mansoor Ali]

Explosive expert's analysis of the Pentagon attack

by Pierre-Henri Bunel

PART FOUR

The color of explosions as also fairly remarkable. In detonations, the shockwave displaces itself rapidly. If the explosion occurs in the air without obstacles, the flame is often pale yellow at the point of the explosion. As it moves away from ground zero it turns orange then red. When it encounters obstacles, such as the walls of a building, one practically doesn’t see the pale yellow part. The duration of illumination by this color is brief. The form of the flame gives an impression of "rigidity" because of the speed of propagation. It is only when the dust lifted by the shockwave starts to bum due to the brutal rise in temperature that smoke appears. This is fire smoke that has little resemblance to the black, heavy coils given off by hydrocarbon fires.

But solid explosives are not simply chemical combinations. One can improve their effectiveness by playing with their physical forms. In principle, the shockwave propagates perpendicularly to the surface undergoing reaction. By working the shapes of the explosive charges one can orient the shockwave in such a fashion as to send a maximum of energy in a given direction, like directing the light of a lighthouse with a reflector. We thus find spherical charges whose shockwaves go in all directions; cylindrical charges like those that equip shrapnel shells, those weapons that burst into tiny pieces of steel the size of a tab of chocolate and spray the battlefield; t1at charges, that allow making holes in plane obstacles with a minimum of energy lost in useless directions; but also hollow charges. These latter concentrate the principal shockwave in the shape of a high-temperature jet bearing a quantity of energy capable of piercing armor made of steel, composites or concrete.

[Mansoor Ali]

Explosive expert's analysis of the Pentagon attack

by Pierre-Henri Bunel

PART FIVE

The explosive that constitutes the weapon should explode at the desired time. In order for it to react exactly as the user wishes, it needs a certain degree of stability. The explosive that constitutes the principal charge of a weapon is too stable to explode by a simple shock. In fact, to initialize the chemical reaction, the charge must be submitted to a shockwave provoked by a more sensitive and less powerful explosive that we call the detonator. The explosive charge of the detonator reacts to a shock, to a spark or to an electrical or electromagnetic impulse. It then creates a shock wave that provokes the detonation of the principal charge.

The system that commands the explosion of the detonator is called the ignition system. The devices vary considerably and it would take too long to examine all of them. I will thus only deal with the two systems that might have been used at the Pentagon, explosive ignition systems commanded by the operator and ignition systems for hollow charges by instantaneous percussion with a short delay.

Shells, bombs or missiles are equipped with an ignition system which comprises the release, the delay system and a detonator. This device is called a fuse. It is fixed on the weapon either during its construction, or at the moment of conditioning for firing. It includes a security system that prevents the ensemble from functioning until being armed.

[Mansoor Ali]

Explosive expert's analysis of the Pentagon attack

by Pierre-Henri Bunel

PART SIX

The release can be activated by a shock in the case of percussion fuses, by a radar detector at a distance in the case of radio-electric fuses, by the reaction to a source of heat or a magnetic mass in the case of thermal or magnetic fuses.

Either the release provokes detonation instantaneously, or the delay system acts so that the weapon only detonates several milliseconds after the impact. In this last case, the weapon begins to penetrate the object by physically denting it with its armor. The charge detonates once the weapon has already entered the objective, which increases its destructive effect.

For certain very hard fortifications, one even finds that there are multi-charge weapons. The first charges fracture the concrete, while the later one or ones penetrate and detonate. In general, anti-concrete charges are hollow charges. The jet of energy and melted materials penetrate the fortification and spread inside quantities of hot materials pushed by a column of energy that pierces the walls like a punch. The great heat produced by the detonation of the hollow charge provokes fires in everything that is combustible inside.

[Mansoor Ali]

Explosive expert's analysis of the Pentagon attack

by Pierre-Henri Bunel

PART SEVEN

In order to conduct an attack with such a weapon system, a launcher is obviously needed. In the case of guided bombs, the launcher is a plane or at the very least a powerful helicopter. The weapon then leaves with an initial speed which is that of the carrier vehicle. It descends in a glide and generally guides itself by following a laser illumination. In the case of a missile, its range is much greater because the missile has its own engine. If needs be, one can conceive a system so that the missile depart from its own launch pad on the ground. There are in fact ground-to-ground anti-fortifications missiles.

A cruise missile of a recent model generally follows three phases of flight. The launch, during which it attains its tlight speed in emerging from the bay of an airplane or a missile launch-tube. Pushed forward by the engine at full power, it reaches its cruising speed and deploys its wings and tail fins. It then descends to its cruising altitude and follows its approach trajectory. In the course of this flight phase, it frequently changes direction, turning according to the Height program, climbing or descending to remain low enough to escape detection as far as possible. One might then mistake it for a fighter plane in tactical Hight maneuvers. It keeps this altitude until it reaches the point of entry to the terminal phase. This point is situated a certain distance from the objective; two or three miles depending on the models. From this point, the missile flies in a straight line t?wards the target and undergoes a strong acceleration that gives it maximum speed to strike the objective with the maximum of penetrative force.

[Mansoor Ali]

Explosive expert's analysis of the Pentagon attack

by Pierre-Henri Bunel

PART EIGHT

On 8 March 2002 five images of the attack were released by CNN. In them, one can see the flame developing from the impact on the façade of the Department of Defense’s building.

http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/jpg/Pentagate_page2-2.jpg

The shock wave starts from the interior of the building. One sees above the roof the emergence of a ball of energy that isn’t yet a ball nf fire. One might legitimately think of a detonation by an explosive with a high energetic power, but for the moment it still cannot be determined whether it is a charge with a directed effect or not.

One distinguishes at ground level, starting from the right-hand side of the photo and going to the base of the mass of white vapor, a white line of smoke. It looks very much like the smoke that leaves the nozzle of the propulsion unit in a flying vehicle. As opposed to the smoke that would come out of two kerosene-fueled engines, this smoke is white. The turbojets of a Boeing 757 would in fact leave a trail of much blacker smoke. The examination of this photo alone already suggests a singleengine flying vehicle much smaller in size than an airliner. And without two General Electric turbopropulsion units.

[Mansoor Ali]

Explosive expert's analysis of the Pentagon attack

by Pierre-Henri Bunel

PART NINE

http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/jpg/Pentagate_page3-2.jpg

In the second shot (Photo Section, p. III) one still sees the horizontal trail of smoke but one can also make out very clearly the development of the red flame. It is interesting to compare this shot of the impact at the Pentagon with that of the impact of the plane with the second tower at the World Trade Center (Photo Section, p. 1II). The color of the latter is yellow, which points a lower temperature of combustion. It is mixed with black, heavy smoke. It is the color of hydrocarbon combustion in the air. In this case, it is kerosene contained in the airplane that is burning. This flame descends quite slowly down the front of the fa,ade where the plane had penetrated, carried by the falling fuel. In contrast, the flame of the Pentagon explosion rises sharply from inside the building, ripping off debris that one sees mixed with the red flame. There is no longer the cloud of vapor due to the shockwave that masked the flame in the first photo. The intense heat has caused it to evaporate. As we have seen, that is characteristic of detonations of a high-yield explosive.

[Mansoor Ali]

Explosive expert's analysis of the Pentagon attack

by Pierre-Henri Bunel

PART TEN

http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/jpg/Pentagate_page4-2.jpg

The photos on page IV of the color section were taken a short time after the explosion. The firemen are not yet in action. In the one at the top, the flame of the explosion itself has extinguished. The fire llt by the explosion smolders and its flames are not yet visible, except at the level of the point of impact, where one perceives a red glow in the axis of the vertical support of the highway signs. We are thus not seeing the configuration of an airliner fire because the kerosene would have ignited instantaneously. The fa,ade has not yet collapsed. It does not present any visible signs of major mechanical destruction, although the upper floors and the roof have already been hit by the blast.

The arrow indicates a hole in the facade through which one sees the heart of a fire beginning to mount. The facade still has not collapsed and the initial smoke has dissipated. It is only after the fires have begun to merge and fom a single blaze that the thickest smoke appears, but without presenting the same appearance as the smoke from an airliner fire with its reservoirs of kerosene.

To sum up, the examination alone of these photos that everyone has seen in the press permit one to measure the striking differences between the two explosions. If the flame of the World Trade Center is obviously that of kerosene from an airplane, it would seem that this is not the case at the Pentagon.

[Mansoor Ali]

Explosive expert's analysis of the Pentagon attack

by Pierre-Henri Bunel

PART ELEVEN

When the firemen intervened on the site, one sees clearly that they are using water to attack the fire. Several official photographs show a fire truck that we in France would call a CCFM (carnian citerne pour feu moyen - a tanker truck for a medium-sized fire). The water coming out of the hoses is white in color, so it does not contain that substance used on certain fires known as a "retardant". In general, retardants give the water a reddish or brownish color. Thus the principal fire being attacked is not a hydrocarbon fire, because one cannot see any foam cannons that are characteristic of interventions in airplane accidents or any hoses projecting adapted products.

http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/jpg/Pentagate_page6-2.jpg

One can see in the pictures released by the Department of Defense a truck armed with a foam cannon attacking a fire situated in front of the façade, while the high-powered water pumps attack the main fire inside the building. The spraying as it is being carried out at that moment manifestly aims at lowering the general temperature by wetting everything first, before penetrating into the building to extinguish fires point by point.

[Mansoor Ali]

Explosive expert's analysis of the Pentagon attack

by Pierre-Henri Bunel

PART TWELVE

After having given my reactions as a firefighter, I’m now going to give those of an artillery officer and observer. Among his tasks, an artillery observer must pick out objectives, estimate the type of weapon needed to be deployed to treat them and the quantity of projectiles required to render them harmless. Once the object has been treated, one must still evaluate the real damage to measure whether the first strike was sufficient or if firings should continue.

It’s a matter of establishing an appraisal of the damages that is then transmitted to the command and intelligence echelons. This evaluation of battlefield damages is called in English a Battlefield Damage Assessment (BDA). One must, of course, employ maximum objectivity in these evaluations: it would be stupid to ask for more firings on an object that had already been neutralized or destroyed, but just as stupid to let it be thought that an object had been rendered harmless when it still presented a menace.

During the Gulf War, every day there was a meeting in General Schwartzkopf’s command post between tq..e French, British and American commanders-in-chief. A part of the "intelligence" chapter of this briefing dealt with the examination of BDA photos. And Schwartzkopf paid particular attention to this. In these pictures one saw the effects of weapons and the scale of damage inflicted on the objects.

[Mansoor Ali]

Explosive expert's analysis of the Pentagon attack

by Pierre-Henri Bunel

PART THIRTEEN

http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/jpg/Pentagate_page5-2.jpg

As the firefighters finished working on the exterior of the building, one can make out several instructive elements. First of all, the soot covering the fayade is a mix of that which would have been deposited in a classic fire and others more characteristic of those deposited by the shockwave of a high-yield explosive, but in no way of the thick, oily coat deposited by a kerosene fire. The windows have been broken by a detonation and not melted by a hydrocarbon fire. The most remarkable thing is that relatively few of them are broken, and that the windows affected are essentially situated close to the point of the explosion at the level of the lower floors. Near ground zero, therefore. It is very likely that the shockwave was propagated along the corridors.This corroborates the testimony of David Theal1. This liaison officer at the Pentagon describes the sudden arrival of a violent noise accompanied by debris that ravaged the corridor outside his office.

[Mansoor Ali]

Explosive expert's analysis of the Pentagon attack

by Pierre-Henri Bunel

PART FOURTEEN

At the beginning of its displacement, the shockwave broke panes and, once it was channeled by the walls of the corridors, it took an orientation that no longer had as much effect on the windows. It should be made clear that these were double-glazed windows in which the outer pane is particularly solid. That was what a representative of the company that installed them declared, and it’s also what was explained to me well before this attack, during an official visit to the Pentagon as an observer.

On a picture that is a more detailed close-up, one has a view of the impact zone. It allows one to make out the vertical concrete pillars of the building’s frame and the corridors that fun along the floors. One understands better then how the shockwave bypassed the windows as we mentioned above.

http://physics911.ca/images/omholt/damage.jpg

[Sarban]

any pilot will tell you that it is IMPOSSIBLE to fly a plane into a building below like twin towers especially after a few hundred hours of training, for a start everything looks flat from 40,000 or so feet, so you have to distinguish the twin towers and then to hit it vertically and the way the towers crumbled... as gabbar singh would say "Daal may kuj kaala nazara aata hay"

[Mustafa al-Muhaajir]

any pilot will tell you that it is IMPOSSIBLE to fly a plane into a building below like twin towers especially after a few hundred hours of training, for a start everything looks flat from 40,000 or so feet, so you have to distinguish the twin towers and then to hit it vertically and the way the towers crumbled... as gabbar singh would say "Daal may kuj kaala nazara aata hay"Whims of a defeatist.

[Sarban]

realist akhi, realist.

[Mansoor Ali]

Explosive expert's analysis of the Pentagon attack

by Pierre-Henri Bunel

PART FIFTEEN

the vertical pillars, some of which are surrounded by wooden casings, have obviously been weakened at the ground level, that is, the place where the detonation occurred. But they weren’t crushed or broken as would have been the case if they were struck by the leading edges of the wings of a hundred ton airplane. They would have been hit by the part of the leading edge situated approximately at the spot where the engine pods are fixed, the most solid area. Manifestly, no wing has struck these vertical pillars of the building’s concrete frame.

If a plane had struck the Pentagon, as the official version would have us believe, the wings would have touched the vertical pillars. The vehicle that carried the charge that weakened the pillars struck lower than an enormous airliner would have done.

http://edit.81x.com/Authors/pentanew/6-_2.JPG
Light blue circle shows probable impact area of nose.

Yellow lines show support columns bending OUTWARD.

Blue arrow shows cable reels which were directly in the path of the plane, and should have been demolished in the crash.
Note the closeness of the damaged area of the Pentagon wall and support structures to the cable reels.

[Mansoor Ali]

Explosive expert's analysis of the Pentagon attack

by Pierre-Henri Bunel

PART SIXTEEN

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/images/066-large.jpg
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/images/197-large.jpg
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/images/209-large.jpg

The appearance of the perforation in the wall certainly resembles the effects of anti-concrete hollow charges that I have been able to observe on a number of battlefields.

These weapons are characterized by their "jet". This jet is a mixture of gas and melted materials that is projected in the direction of the axis of the paraboloid that constitutes the forward face of the weapon. Propelled at a speed of several thousand feet per second, with a temperature of several thousands of degrees, this jet pierces concrete through many feet of thickness. It could thus pierce five thick walls of the building without any problem. Five walls out of six because the fayade was perforated by the vector itself. The detonation of the military charge only occurs, in fact, once it has been carried inside the objective. As I eXplained earlier, the fuses arming anti-concrete charges are not instantaneous, but have a short delay. That is why the flame of the explosion developed from within, the interior of the building towards the exterior. As one sees on the photos taken by the security camera, the shockwave damaged the fa,ade, the upper floors and the roof, and propagated itself through the corridors at the height where the vector had struck: on the ground level.

[Mansoor Ali]

Explosive expert's analysis of the Pentagon attack

by Pierre-Henri Bunel

PART SEVENTEEN

The jet contains gases at a high temperature that slow and finally come to a halt before the melted materials. The gases burn everything combustible in their path.

http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/imgs/exit2.jpg

The melted materials travel further than the gases, and in this particular case, the picture of the last hole certainly resembles the effect that the melted materials of a jet would have had at the end of their trajectory. They would have been finally stopped by the last wall they reached. But still fairly hot enough, they would have marked the wall with this black smudge, just above the hole. Heat rises from materials that are beginning to cool and thus only mark the fayade above the impact. At this terminal point, the temperature is no longer high enough to make more of a mark on the cement. On the other hand, the remnants of the shockwave still have enough energy to break the windows immediately around the hole. One understands then why the firefighters intervened with water. It is the extinguishing t1uid with the strongest heat-to-mass ratio. It is thus the best -adapted to cooling materials that have absorbed a "heat wave" and to extinguish fires in urban areas that have been lit by sympathy. It was not a matter of the firefighters extinguishing a hydrocarbon fire, but of putting out punctual fires and cooling overheated materials.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/images/129-large.jpg

The detonation that struck the building was that of a high-powered hollow charge used to destroy hardened buildings and carried by an aerial vehicle, a missile.

[Sarban]

calm down bro, we get the message

[Sawtul Islam]

calm down bro, we get the message

lol.



Brother Mansoor Ali I dont think many people are going to read all of this, it would have been good enough if you just posted a few links.

[Mansoor Ali]

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/pfireball.jpeg
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/pentagon1.jpeg
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/pentagon2.jpeg

The pre-collapse photos reveal that the front wall of the Pentagon remained remarkably intact after the initial impact. Pentagon officials, and defenders of the official story, have claimed that the small entry wound made by the alleged plane was the result of the fact that the aircraft's wings were either sheared off or folded back on impact, and that only the fuselage entered the building -- becoming, in effect, a very large missile. That would be a much more plausible claim if a 757 did not have very large wings that would be clearly visible in these photographs if they had in fact been sheared off as the fuselage entered the building. Attached to those wings are two engines, each about 9 feet in diameter, 21 feet long, and weighing nearly five tons. The official story doesn't really bother to account for them.

[Mansoor Ali]

The lies & omissions in the 9-11 Commission report

PART ONE

http://www.pbase.com/crusader/image/22542795/original.jpg

By David Griffin

In discussing my second 9/11 book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, I have often said, only half in jest, that a better title might have been “a 571-page lie.” (Actually, I was saying “a 567-page lie,” because I was forgetting to count the four pages of the Preface.) In making this statement, one of my points has been that the entire Report is constructed in support of one big lie: that the official story about 9/11 is true.

I now list the omissions and claims of The 9/11 Commission Report that I, in my critique of that report, portrayed as lies:

1. The omission of evidence that at least seven of the alleged hijackers are still alive (19-20).

2. The obfuscation of the evidence that Hani Hanjour was too poor a pilot to have flown an airliner into the Pentagon (21-22).

3. The omission of the fact that the publicly released flight manifests contain no Arab names (23).

4. The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25).

http://www.city-data.com/cpic/ufiles516.jpg
http://skyscraperphotos.com/cit/enya/ilny012.jpg
http://www.americaontheroad.it/immagini/105.jpg

[Mansoor Ali]

The lies & omissions in the 9-11 Commission report

PART TWO

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/937/2093690040027195382nlfdtn3.jpg

By David Griffin

5. The omission of the fact that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several steel-frame buildings that did not collapse (25-26).

6. The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26).

7. The omission of the fact that WTC 7 (which was not hit by an airplane and which had only small, localized fires) also collapsed---an occurrence that FEMA admitted it could not explain (26).

8. The omission of the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled demolition (26-27).

9. The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was “a hollow steel shaft”---a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive steel columns that in reality constituted the core of each tower and that, given the “pancake theory” of the collapses, should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air (27-28).

http://img284.imageshack.us/img284/8824/dscn8478vitc4.jpg
http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/7823/dscn8191vigv7.jpg
http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/5896/caqzkn7wym1.jpg

[Mansoor Ali]

The lies & omissions in the 9-11 Commission report

PART THREE

http://www.tropicalisland.de/NYC_New_York_World_Trade_Center_Tower_with_cloud_b .jpg

By David Griffin

10. The omission of Larry Silverstein’s statement that he and the fire department commander decided to “pull” Building 7 (28).

11. The omission of the fact that the steel from the WTC buildings was quickly removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas before it could be analyzed for evidence of explosives (30).

12. The omission of the fact that because Building 7 had been evacuated before it collapsed, the official reason for the rapid removal of the steel---that some people might still be alive in the rubble under the steel---made no sense in this case (30).

13. The omission of Mayor Giuliani’s statement that he had received word that the World Trade Center was going to collapse (30-31).

14. The omission of the fact that President Bush’s brother Marvin and his cousin Wirt Walker III were both principals in the company in charge of security for the WTC (31-32).

15. The omission of the fact that the west wing of the Pentagon would have been the least likely spot to be targeted by al-Qaeda terrorists, for several reasons (33-34).

http://img161.imageshack.us/img161/1882/1234ew7.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/14/18326803_29df55e707_o.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/11/17303993_ddba2bb427_o.jpg

[Umm]

This should be complied and made into a book Masha'Allah.

[Mansoor Ali]

The lies & omissions in the 9-11 Commission report

PART FOUR

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/2577/wtcperspektiveke6.jpg

By David Griffin

16. The omission of the fact that there are photos showing that the west wing’s façade did not collapse until 30 minutes after the strike and also that the entrance hole appears too small for a Boeing 757 to have entered the Pentagon(34).

17. The omission of any discussion of whether the Pentagon has an anti-missile defense system that would have brought down a commercial airliner---even though the Commission suggested that the al-Qaeda terrorists did not attack a nuclear power plant because they assumed that it would be thus defended (36).

18. The omission of the fact that pictures from various security cameras---including the camera at the gas station across from the Pentagon, the film from which was reportedly confiscated by the FBI immediately after the strike---could presumably answer the question of what really hit the Pentagon (37-38).

19. The omission of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld’s reference to “the missile to damage [the Pentagon]” (39).

20. The failure to explore why the Secret Service did not summon fighter jets to provide air cover for Air Force One (43-46).

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/14/17372033_b3b93aefa3_o.jpg
http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/7634/656565eq9.jpg
http://img359.imageshack.us/img359/678/363newyorktwintowersat1

[Mansoor Ali]

The lies & omissions in the 9-11 Commission report

PART FIVE

http://www.pernondimenticare.it/images/galleria/wtc_14.jpg

By David Griffin

21. The claim, by means of a circular, question-begging rebuttal, that the unusual purchases of put options prior to 9/11 did not imply advance knowledge of the attacks on the part of the buyers (52-57).

22. The omission of the 3.5 hours of testimony to the Commission by former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds—-testimony that, according to her later public letter to Chairman Kean, revealed serious 9/11-related cover-ups by officials at FBI headquarters (94-101).

23. The omission of the fact that The Project for the New American Century, many members of which became key figures in the Bush administration, published a document in 2000 saying that “a new Pearl Harbor” would aid its goal of obtaining funding for a rapid technological transformation of the US military (117-18).

24. The omission of the fact that Donald Rumsfeld, who as head of the commission on the US Space Command had recommended increased funding for it, used the attacks of 9/11 on that very evening to secure such funding (119-22).

25. The omission of the fact that Zbigniew Brzezinski in his 1997 book had said that for the United States to maintain global primacy, it needed to gain control of Central Asia, with its vast petroleum reserves, and that a new Pearl Harbor would be helpful in getting the US public to support this imperial effort (127-28).


http://www.cityofjoliet.com/images/newwtc.jpg
http://static.flickr.com/17/23331187_f79b324313_o.jpg
http://www.foryourhead.com/BeforeTheFall/WTC1/WTCScuptSky.JPEG

[Mansoor Ali]

The lies & omissions in the 9-11 Commission report

PART SIX

http://www.uwasa.fi/~atn/travel/usa/wtc/towers1.jpg

By David Griffin

26. The omission of evidence that some key members of the Bush administration, including Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, had been agitating for a war with Iraq for many years (129-33).

27. The omission of evidence that Andrews Air Force Base did keep several fighters on alert at all times (162-64)

28. The endorsement of the claim that the loss of an airplane’s transponder signal makes it virtually impossible for the US military’s radar to track that plane (166-67)

29. The omission of any explanation of (a) why NORAD’s earlier report, according to which the FAA had notified the military about the hijacking of Flight 175 at 8:43, was now to be considered false and (b) how this report, if it was false, could have been published and then left uncorrected for almost three years (182).

30. The claim that Flight 77 flew almost 40 minutes through American airspace towards Washington without being detected by the military’s radar (191-92).


http://www.globalairtoground.com/volume1/a-05.jpg
http://img149.echo.cx/img149/4714/21341029wtc93xl.jpg
http://www.crystalinks.com/ronwotw2.jpg

[Mansoor Ali]

The lies & omissions in the 9-11 Commission report

PART SEVEN

http://static.flickr.com/16/23331635_0415ad1697_o.jpg

By David Griffin

31.The claim that Pentagon officials did not know about an aircraft approaching Pentagon until 9:32, 9:34, or 9:36---in any case, only a few minutes before the building was hit (223).

32.The endorsement of two contradictory stories about the aircraft that hit the Pentagon---one in which it executed a 330-degree downward spiral (a “high-speed dive”) and another in which there is no mention of this maneuver (222-23).

33. The omission of all the evidence suggesting that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77 (224-25).

34. The omission of the fact that the Secret Service is able to know everything that the FAA knows (233).

35. The omission of evidence that there were at least six bases with fighters on alert in the northeastern part of the United States (257-58).

36. The failure to probe the issue of how the “war games” scheduled for that day were related to the military’s failure to intercept the hijacked airliners (268-69).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/Wtc_arial_march2001.jpg
http://images1.fotki.com/v3/photos/6/61/24087/DSCN8229-vi.jpg
http://www.theamericanvoice.com/images/world%20trade%20center,%20sunset.jpg

[Mansoor Ali]

http://www.911studies.com/_WTCimages/02WTCimprobable.jpg

[Mansoor Ali]

http://www.911studies.com/_WTCimages/03WTCnorthtowerhit.jpg

[Mansoor Ali]

http://www.911studies.com/_WTCimages/04WTCsouthtowerhit.jpg

[Mansoor Ali]

http://www.911studies.com/_WTCimages/05WTCsouthtowerhit2.jpg

[Mansoor Ali]

http://www.911studies.com/_WTCimages/06WTCterritory.jpg

[Mansoor Ali]

http://www.911studies.com/_WTCimages/07WTCterritory2angle.jpg

[Mansoor Ali]

http://www.911studies.com/_WTCimages/08building6.jpg

[Mansoor Ali]

http://www.911studies.com/_WTCimages/09building6comp.jpg

[Mansoor Ali]

http://www.911studies.com/911%20images/09Abuilding6comp.jpg

[Mansoor Ali]

http://www.911studies.com/_WTCimages/10building6st.jpg

[Mansoor Ali]

http://www.911studies.com/911%20images/11build6cnncoll.jpg

[Mansoor Ali]

http://www.911studies.com/911%20images/12building6cnncoll.jpg

[Mansoor Ali]

http://www.911studies.com/911%20images/13building6cnncoll.jpg

[Mansoor Ali]

http://www.911studies.com/911%20images/15building6cnncol.jpg

[Mansoor Ali]

http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt/ae911-12.PNG

[Mansoor Ali]

http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt/ae911-13.PNG

[Mansoor Ali]

http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt/ae911-17.PNG

[Mansoor Ali]

http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt/ae911-18.PNG

[Mansoor Ali]

http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt/ae911-19.PNG

[Mansoor Ali]

http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt/ae911-26.PNG

[Ibn Muhammad]

Dear brother, I think you raised a sufficient amount of arguments to substantiate your claim. Maybe you should think of closing the case as it's nearly been 4 years since your original post.

[Mansoor Ali]

Dear brother, I think you raised a sufficient amount of arguments to substantiate your claim. Maybe you should think of closing the case as it's nearly been 4 years since your original post.

I agree with your first sentence, but I intend to continue this thread for years to come.

I have repeated some information because I don't think people will want to look at earlier pages.

Besides, this thread is only one of 7209 threads, so no one can accuse me of filling Islamicawakening forums with 9-11.

[Mansoor Ali]

http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt/ae911-34.PNG

[Mansoor Ali]

http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt/ae911-36.PNG

[Mansoor Ali]

http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt/ae911-37.PNG

[Mansoor Ali]

http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt/ae911-45.PNG

[Mansoor Ali]

http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt/ae911-49.PNG

[Mansoor Ali]

http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt/ae911-57.PNG

[EagleX]

9/11 analyzed through an objective and rational application of science and engineering.

If you are independent thinking please peruse the following (it is interesting too!):

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

[EagleX]

http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt/ae911-36.PNG

The following is a scientific analysis of the true causal mechanisms for WTC 7 collapse.

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

[Mansoor Ali]

If you are independent thinking please peruse the following (it is interesting too!):

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...w/1227842.htmlp

A debunking of the above is here:

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm

[EagleX]

[/url]

A debunking of the above is here:

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm

Do you honestly believe that bin laden had nothing to do with 9/11 despite the preponderance of physical evidence asserting otherwise?

or perhaps you believe that Bush was in league with bin laden to perpetrate this attack?

Do you honestly believe that a conspiracy of this magnitude can be executed without compromise?

Do you honestly believe that a US President would conduct such an attack for whatever reason?

More to the point, your conspiracy theories are self-serving, full of holes, and they seriously discredit whatever ideological goals you seek to attain in the eyes of rational and informed peoples.

[Mansoor Ali]

Reply to EagleX:

We know for sure they lied about 9-11
by John Kaminski

I challenge anyone to watch the new "911 In Plane Site" video and still believe the government's story that a jet airliner full of passengers hit the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

Utilizing footage from TV networks — often stuff that was shown only one time and never seen again — the Power Hour radio show's Dave Von Kleist methodically provides proof positive that the government lied about what happened in Washington on that fateful day

The damning images of flames raging inside the Pentagon behind an unbroken wall with many unbroken windows and an unbroken roof line clearly demonstrates that whatever caused the explosion and fire inside America's most secure building was no giant airliner.

What this means for the American people is that the story President Bush, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and all those other government officials told the world that day is a lie.

Since day one, the only thing that every single, skeptical 9/11 researcher has ever wanted during all the research they have undertaken during the past three years is one single, irrefutable fact that could disprove the government's blatant lie. Because proving one lie means their whole story is false.

Having viewed this film with two relatives who did believe the government's story prior to viewing, I interpreted the ashen looks on their faces as a valid testament to the movie's power. Before seeing it, they basically believed what they'd heard on TV about what happened on 9/11. Afterwards, they both told me that they no longer did.

After the Pentagon segment, Von Kleist turns his attention to the plume, a giant puff of smoke that rises from the base of the Twin Towers PRIOR to their collapse. Although Von Kleist doesn't say so (and doesn't really make any conclusions in his objective presentation of film fact), the viewer is left to contemplate whether this was the explosion that brought down the towers. A great clip of firemen describing how the buildings were demolished leaves viewers with that distinct impression.

Cheney, Rice, and military chief Richard Myers all said that they had no idea attacks like this could ever happen, but then the FBI blew their cover by releasing the names of hijackers they said they had been tracking for six months!

[Mansoor Ali]

The following is a scientific analysis of the true causal mechanisms for WTC 7 collapse.

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

Reply to EagleX

http://www.ae911truth.net/ae911truth_ppt_web/slides/jpg_960x720/Slide24.png.jpg
http://www.ae911truth.net/ae911truth_ppt_web/slides/jpg_960x720/Slide32.png.jpg
http://www.ae911truth.net/ae911truth_ppt_web/slides/jpg_960x720/Slide47.png.jpg
http://www.ae911truth.net/ae911truth_ppt_web/slides/jpg_960x720/Slide52.png.jpg

[Mansoor Ali]

9-11 & defense spending

By Morgan Reynolds

PART ONE

The neo-conservative think tank founded by Richard B. Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld—Project for the New American Century—issued a paper entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century" in September 2000. Among other policies to accomplish the recommended American preeminence and military "dominance" including "space dominance," it stated: "While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

"The process of transformation is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor," suggested the PNAC document. PNAC was full of people who were subsequent appointees in the Bush/Cheney administration like Donald Rumsfeld, Elliot Abrams, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Paul Wolfowitz, Dov S. Zakheim, and Zalmay Khalilzad. The attacks of September 11, 2001 occurred 12 months after PNAC pointed to a "new Pearl Harbor" as a "catalyzing event" for a military build-up worthy of a superpower.

[Mansoor Ali]

9-11 & defense spending

By Morgan Reynolds

PART TWO

On September 30, 2005, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice said at Princeton University: "But if you believe, as I do and President Bush does, that the root cause of September 11th was the violent expression of a global extremist ideology, an ideology rooted in the oppression and despair of the modern Middle East, then we must speak [sic] to remove the source of this terror by transforming that troubled region. If you believe as we do, then it cannot be denied that we are standing at an extraordinary moment in history." Agreed, a "global extremist ideology" is at work but the issue is whose ideology is wreaking havoc in the world for whose benefit?

In each decade following WWII, defense spending had increased routinely except during the 1990s. In the Reagan era, for example, defense spending grew lushly from $157.5 billion in 1981 to $303.5 billion in 1989, a 93% increase. During the 1990s, however, with no worthy adversary for the American people to fear, defense spending slumped from $299.3 billion in 1990 to $274.8 billion in 1999, an 8% decline in annual spending despite price inflation. The fiscal wolf for the military industrial complex was at the door: permanent peace threatened to break out. The last two years of the Clinton administration, fiscal years 2000 and 2001, brought a bit of relief with consecutive $20 billion annual defense increases but only single digit growth rates. The attacks of September 11th cured the problem for the military-industrial-intelligence complex: a $44 billion increase in on-budget, reported defense spending in 2002 (+14%), a $56 billion increase in 2003 (+16%), a $51 billion boost in 2004 (+13%), a $40 billion increase in 2005 (9%), and a $26 billion increase in 2006 (5%) [figures calculated from Economic Report of the President].

[Mansoor Ali]

9-11 & defense spending

By Morgan Reynolds

PART THREE

http://nomoregames.net/911/why_911/defense_spending.gif

In a few years, the defense establishment had its allowance raised by a staggering $4 billion per week and doubled its spending during the Bush/Cheney era. Because of hidden black budget spending for the intelligence services, lavish Homeland Security spending and other reasons, overall spending grew undoubtedly faster than so-called national defense spending alone. With its new enemy termed "terrorism" and active wars, the military-intelligence-police-contractor complex has prospered once again.

[Brother_Mujahid]

Amir Butler: Our Muslim Credibility Problem: It’s A Conspiracy (http://www.islamicawakening.com/viewarticle.php?articleID=1340&)

[Mansoor Ali]

"Brother Mujahid", what was your point in starting your 9-11 thread "Professor Steven Jones on 9-11 and WTC buildings collapses"?

[Brother_Mujahid]

"Brother Mujahid", what was your point in starting your 9-11 thread "Professor Steven Jones on 9-11 and WTC buildings collapses"?

To try to have an objective look at the subject, something you are apparently not interested in. I gave it serious inquiry, believe me I have several books on 9/11 conspiracy theories from Ruppert, Griffin, and others, and came to my conclusion.

I think the words of William Blum catch most of my feelings on the subject:

When I say, as I did in last month's report, that I don't think that 9-11 was an "inside job", it's not because I believe that men like Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, et al. are not morally depraved enough to carry out such a monstrous act; these men each has a piece missing, a piece that's shaped like a social conscience; they consciously and directly instigated the current Iraqi and Afghanistan horrors which have already cost many more American lives than were lost on 9/11, not to mention more than a million Iraqis and Afghans who dearly wanted to remain amongst the living. In the Gulf War of 1991, Cheney and other American leaders purposely destroyed electricity-generating plants, water-pumping systems, and sewage systems in Iraq, then imposed sanctions upon the country making the repair of the infrastructure extremely difficult. Then, after twelve years, when the Iraqi people had performed the heroic task of getting these systems working fairly well again, the US bombers came back to inflict devastating damage to them all once more. My books and many others document one major crime against humanity after another by our America once so dear and cherished.

So it's not the moral question that makes me doubt the inside-job scenario. It's the logistics of it all -- the incredible complexity of arranging it all so that it would work and not be wholly and transparently unbelievable. That and the gross overkill -- they didn't need to destroy or smash up ALL those buildings and planes and people. One of the twin towers killing more than a thousand would certainly have been enough to sell the War on Terror, the Patriot Act, and Homeland Security. The American people are not such a hard sell. They really yearn to be true believers. Look how they scream hysterically over Hillary and Obama.

To win over people like me, the 9/11 truth people need to present a scenario that makes the logistics reasonably plausible. They might start by trying to answer questions like these: Did planes actually hit the towers and the Pentagon and crash in Pennsylvania? Were these the same four United Airline and American Airline planes that took off from Boston and Newark? At the time of collision, were they being piloted by people or by remote control? If people, who were these people?

Also, why did building 7 collapse? If it was purposely demolished -- why? All the reasons I've read so far I find not very credible. As to the films of the towers and building 7 collapsing, which make it appear that this had to be the result of controlled demolitions -- I agree, it does indeed look that way. But what do I know? I'm no expert. It's not like I've seen, in person or on film, numerous examples of buildings collapsing due to controlled demolition and numerous other examples of buildings collapsing due to planes crashing into them, so I could make an intelligent distinction. We are told by the 9/11 truth people that no building constructed like the towers has ever collapsed due to fire. But how about fire plus a full-size, loaded airplane smashing into it? How many examples of that do we have?

But there's one argument those who support the official version use against the skeptics that I would question. It's the argument that if the government planned the operation there would have to have been many people in on the plot, and surely by now one of them would have talked and the mainstream media would have reported their stories. But in fact a number of firemen, the buildings' janitor, and others have testified to hearing many explosions in the towers some time after the planes crashed, supporting the theory of planted explosives. But scarce little of this has made it to the media. Likewise, following the JFK assassination at least two men came forward afterward and identified themselves as being one of the three "tramps" on the grassy knoll in Dallas. So what happened? The mainstream media ignored them both. I know of them only because the tabloid press ran their stories. One of the men was the father of actor Woody Harrelson.

Source: Anti-Empire Report (http://members.aol.com/bblum6/aer53.htm)

As for the stuff you post, well I hate to get personal, but you post some out right wacky and nutty stuff. It seems you assume by default that everything happens by some Illuminati conspiracy, without any real critical thinking. Yes, there are several anomalies in the official narrative and certainly things have been covered up or not thoroughly investigated, but I think this has to do more with government incompetence than with some insidious conspiracy.

As for the Amir Butler article, why don't you actually try reading it with an objective perspective and ponder upon what he said.

[Brother_Mujahid]

More from William Blum:

I believe in conspiracies. So do all of you. American and world history are full of conspiracies. Watergate was a conspiracy. The cover-up of Watergate was a conspiracy. So was Enron. And Iran-Contra. The October Surprise really took place. For a full year, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney conspired to invade Iraq while continually denying that they had made any such decision. The Japanese conspired to attack Pearl Harbor while negotiating with Washington to find peaceful solutions to the issues separating the two governments. There are many people sitting in prison at this very moment in the United States for having been convicted of "conspiracy" to commit this or that crime.

However, it doesn't follow that all conspiracy theories are created equal, all to be taken seriously. Many people send me emails which I'm unable to take seriously. Here are a few examples:

If they try to access my website a few times and keep getting an error message, they ask me if the FBI or Homeland Security or America Online has finally gotten around to shutting me down.

If they send me an email and it's returned to them, for whatever reason, they wonder if AOL is blocking their particular mail or perhaps blocking all my mail.

If they fail to receive a copy of this report, they wonder if AOL or some government agency is blocking it.

If they come upon a news item on the Internet which exposes really bad behavior of the powers-that-be, they point out how "the mainstream media is completely ignoring this", even though I may already have read it in the Washington Post or the New York Times. To make the claim that the mainstream media is completely ignoring a particular news item, one would need to have access to the full version of a service like Lexis-Nexis and know how to use it expertly. Google often won't suffice if the news item has not appeared on the website of any mainstream media even though it may be in print or have been broadcast, although the recent creation of Google News has improved chances of finding an item.

With every new audiotape or videotape from Osama bin Laden my correspondents are sure to inform me that the man is really dead and that the tape is a CIA fabrication. In January 2006, when bin Laden, on an audiotape, recommended that Americans read my book Rogue State, the mainstream media were eager to interview me. But a number of my correspondents were quick to inform me and the entire Internet that the tape was phony, implying that I was being naive to believe it; this continues to this day. When I ask them why the CIA would want to publicize and enrich a writer like myself, who has been exposing the intelligence agency's crimes his entire writing life, I get no answer that's worth remembering, often not even understandable.

"Why do you bother criticizing Bush? He's not the real power. He's just a puppet," they ask me. The real power behind the throne, I'm told, is [Dick Cheney, David Rockefeller, the Federal Reserve, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberger Group, the Trilateral Commission, Bohemian Grove, et al.] Why, I wonder, are the annual meetings of the Bilderberger Group, et al., thought to be so vital to their members and so indicative of their power? To the extent that the Bilderbergerites have access to those in power and are able to influence them, they have this access and power all year long, whether or not they gather together in a once-a-year closed meeting. I think their meetings are primarily a social thing. Money and power likes to enjoy cocktails with money and power. Of course many important political and historical events are indeed the result of certain people of money and power talking to each other and secretly deciding what course of action would be most advantageous to their collective interests, but it doesn't necessarily follow that those who hold public office are merely puppets of these interests. Bush displays his independence every day of the week -- independence from Congress, the Constitution, the Republican Party, classic conservative economic policies, the American people, election results, the facts, logic, humanity. George W. is his own [sociopathic] man.

Finally, there's September 11, 2001. Amongst those in the "9/11 Truth Movement" I am a sinner because I don't champion the idea that it was an "inside job". I think it more likely that some individuals in the Bush administration knew that something was about to happen involving airplanes -- perhaps an old fashioned hijacking with political demands -- and they let it happen, to make use of it politically, as they certainly have. But I do wish you guys in the 9/11 Truth Movement luck; if you succeed in proving that it was an inside job, that would do more to topple the empire than anything I have ever written.

Source: Anti-Empire Report (http://members.aol.com/bblum6/aer52.htm)

[Brother_Mujahid]

Rep. Ron Paul, who many so-called "9/11 Truthers" try to associate themselves with:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/cfdq6hoe-XY&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cfdq6hoe-XY&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[EagleX]

9-11 & defense spending

By Morgan Reynolds

PART THREE

http://nomoregames.net/911/why_911/defense_spending.gif

In a few years, the defense establishment had its allowance raised by a staggering $4 billion per week and doubled its spending during the Bush/Cheney era. Because of hidden black budget spending for the intelligence