I was just doing a search for live video feeds from 9/11 and I found this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zWI8gkTrJc

The last 30 seconds of the video shows tower 1 from a chopper. You can clearly see two rings of explosion that start the collapse. The reporter also mentions the explosion in his report.

I'd never seen this one before and would like to see it go out to the community.

The Bush admin have several strong trademarks. Among them:

Never apologise, never sacrifice an insider and most importantly, never rest for a moment in the process of creating the 'new american century'.

Rove, Gonzalez, et al are too meshed in to be dropping off for any reason.

Why are they going? Its not clear yet, but in my opinion it is almost certain to be as part of a neo-con redeployment.

My personal guess is that 9/11 version 2 will be a tactical nuke in Washington DC. Their grip on the reins of power is still loose enough that they want to set up plausible denyability for why none of the inner circle will be at their desks in the swamp the day it happens.

They will, of course, be called back into service on that day as most of the structure of government will have been toasted and Bush's Continuity of Government button will have been pressed.

btw. Anyone noticed how quiet Cheney's been the last few months? I guess he's really busy doing something important and can't spare any time to do photo-ops.

Wonder what could be keeping the Trickster II so busy?

I know I'm going off half-cocked here and that a little information can be a dangerous thing but, I'm broadening the scope of my 911 research, looking at the flights and this jumped right out at me.

I'll put a lot more reading behind me before I post anything more on this but I was immediately struck by something.

Having looked at the pentagon pics along with the recent video of the flight recorder analysis its easy to assume that the pentagon strike was a missile rather than a plane.

Having made that assumption we then have to cater for the known elements:

1. A plane took off from Dulles airport
2. Something was tracked on radar that looked like AA77
3. Something hit the pentagon
4. No plane like AA77 landed anywhere visible

When I took a look at the radar track their are three oddities:

a. Why did the plane go so far out of its way?
b. The detour up to the Maryland border
b. The track being lost some time later

Can anybody direct me to a source for surface tracks of flights AA77 and UA93 superimposed on a reasonably large scale map?

I'd like to pursue an idea and these tracks would make a good starting point.

Thanx.

First up, I'm not an engineer. However, I'd like to stimulate a bit of discussion on a technical aspect because I haven't seen it discussed in this context.

A common comment is that all three towers fell due to controlled demolition. The implication being that the collapses were identical. Of course they weren't. The first two [wtc 1 & 2] were subjected to a much more complex process than the third [wtc7].

I'd like to look at wtc 1 & 2 for two reasons:

1. A lack of supporting explanation could be a source for debunking fun.
2. A good supporting explanation would be yet another obvious smoking gun [apart from squibs, etc].

It appears that the normal way to pull a building is to break it off at the base then cut it rapidly floor by floor from the bottom up. This process is visible in wtc7 and all the comparitive examples.

I believe that the perpetrators used the standard technique on wtc7 a. because it wasn't going to be hit by a plane and b. the original plan was to say that it was dropped due to instability caused by collateral damage [I cite Silverstein's video statement re 'pulling' the building].

This may seem off-topic but I believe its a concern that arises from 911 and is of interest to the 911 community.

I've made earlier posts re my belief that there will be a Bush-run coup if the 2008 elections go to the democrats. I tripped over a video on youtube today which I subsequently posted on huffington post's 'huffit' that put the cherry on the cake.

Here it is. An Amtrak facility at Beechgrove, Indiana.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJBxdRIQx7Y

Its a fairly close look at a home grown sho'nuff american domestic concentration camp!

Take an old amtrak engine workshop, put three layers of fencing round it with human 'cattle runs' and controlled turnstiles. Add numbered standing positions next to the rail head in a conspicuously marked 'red zone' and you've got a concentration camp that herr himmler would have been proud of.

Whats my point and where does 911 come in to this?

Take as evidence three things:

1. The administrations preparedness to pull off 911 v1
2. The new 'continuity of government' law setting out the conditions for bush to formally come out as dictator
3. Concentration camps for dissenting american citizens

As I monitor the flood of information popping up on 911 I frequently find myself wondering about some things that could add more weight to the discussion. These are things that ought to be ascertainable with a bit of legwork. I'm not in a position to do much hard investigation myself so I thought I'd put these thoughts out there in case someone wants to pick them up and put some time into them.

1. It appears that certain tenants of the 2 towers were warned not to come to work on 911. This implies a selection process.

Question: Is there a connection between people who didn't show for work that day?

Example - Registered republican, politicians, Bush acquaintances, Bush contributors, Saudi royal family connected.

The converse is interesting too. Who DID show?

Registered democrat, Bush opposer, muslim, middle eastern national, other foreigner, (Bush-centric) nonentity.

2. Who was in the audience at the Warren Buffett seminar deep in the bomb-proof bunker at the top secret air force base that Bush stopped at on 911? Were any of these guys skipping a days work at the WTC to attend?

I'm still trying to get huffpost to consider creating a 911 section header on their news list. No luck, or response yet.

I'm not the only one to think huffpost is censoring out 911 news & comment. As I was posting this I saw a comment from 'nofoolhere' making the same point. I'm surprised they let it thru under the circumstances.

I encourage you all to apply pressure too. A portal on huffpost would be a powerful tool. Here's my post - I'm not holding my breath to see it on the site.

"This is a similar post to that of 'nofoolhere'. I've made 2 attempts to post a comment requesting a news section devoted to the 911 debacle. I realise that this, my third attempt, will probably also be culled so I'm talking to you, the censor, rather than your members.

I have had great admiration for your website up till now but censorship is an evil practise, much used by the corrupt politicians you feature so often.

Sorry if I appear to be obsessing with this website. I just feel that its a great potential forum for 911 truth to get to the uninitiated.

With the current redesign going on, Arianna Huffington has a post that asks for feedback on the new site. On the assumption that she probably reads these comments right now, I've posted a comment in response that asks for a specific 911 forum on her site.

If you think this is a good idea and would like to support it, I suggest going to huffington post.com: "Welcome to the Newly-Expanded Huffington Post", and posting a similar request.

:-)

The huffington post website has been re-done. If I thought it was 'soft' on 911 before, I was sadly mistaken. The 911 stuff is there but its buried in a ton of incredibly banal pap.

Anyway, someone's 'huffed' an article called "Why the towers fell: Two theories" its on page 3 of the US News section [ http://huffit.huffingtonpost.com/category/US%20News/page/3 ].

If we get on there now and 'huff' it, it might make the ticker before it ages out of sight.

I've just put in an 8 hour stint scanning the web for 911 evidence and opinion. As part of that effort, I've done some posting here and also some posting on the Huffington Post.

In the process of this activity I've read thru the entire 32 pages of "Huffit" posts. I note with interest that posts concerning hard 911 fact have attracted at least 30 votes and sometimes have more than 40 "Huffs".

Having said that, in spite of the fact that Huffington Post bills Huffit as "Your News", none of the 911 stories have made it to the front page ticker. Currently running are stories that have attracted as few as 3 "Huffs". Meanwhile, articles promoted by 911-truthers seem to avoid the limelight.

I understand the death warrant that comes with any attempt to publish this stuff in the MSM but it seems to me that the HP could put it out there since its user driven.

I'm conscious of the fact that:

1. My understanding may be flawed.

2. I have no "clout" on any of these high profile websites

So. If I'm right, maybe someone with a bit more clout could take on the HP and get these 911 stories the attention they deserve.

Cheers.

Pretty damning [almost] evidence from a real insider.

"Former Bush Speechwriter Hints at 9/11 Inside Job"

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=WAT20070413&articleId=5381

If you think that the administration either caused or at least allowed 911, then have you considered what happens if the GOP loses the election?

At the moment the bushies are able to stonewall, obfuscate and just plain lie about anything. If the dems get in at the next election, they're going to have complete access to ALL secret records.

So, if bush & co were involved, that makes them guilty of treason and mass murder!

No matter how strong the "Old boys network" might be, that still probably carries a death penalty.

Can you imagine bush, cheney, et al allowing themselves to be prosecuted and punished for war crimes? Not me.

So then the unthinkable happens. If the GOP loses the election, the change from a democracy to a dictatorship comes out of the closet. The US is already halfway there but its all just a law bent here, a new law there at the moment.

For those who say "This is America, it can't happen here", please remember that there have already been at least 4 wars of conquest on the continent since the pilgrims landed.

This entry's title is a copy of a blog from Huffington Post by Gareth Porter. I strongly recommend that you read it. This post will certainly make more sense if you do.

You can get it at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-gareth-porter/why-the-bush-administrati_b_48650.html.

Gareth discusses how the Bush administration not only ignored the CIA's urgent and explicit warnings about Al Qaida, they actively tried to discredit them.

Here's my theory.

Bush NEEDED a catastrophe. Needed it real bad so he and the gang could start implementing the PNAC manifesto.

I believe that they nurtured and fostered Al Qaida just so it could come up with something for them to react to. Ever wondered why Al Qaida seems to be a one-trick pony? OK they pulled of some small stunts pre-911 but just the sort of thing that your average backyard terrorist might come up with. Then suddenly, BOOM! 911, with all the planning and resources that required. Since then... Nothing.

Who do we know thats good at fostering clandestine foreign guerrila organisations, making resources available and generally stirring things up whilst maintaining plausible deniability?

I've done very little with my spare time in the last few months except absorb data on the 911 shindig. One thing has stood out for me as an unanswered question - Why demolish wtc 7?

The rest hangs together very well - The GOP needs a Pearl Harbour, finds an Al Quaida plot they like, lets it happen, makes it worse then - Hooray! The New American Century begins. (As an aside, I bet Osama Bin Laden fell off his chair when he saw the whole thing collapse. He would have been expecting the "normal" effect of the planes, not the "Bush-Enhanced" version.)

Here's my thought.

The logistics in carrying out a project of this scale (911) would have been immense. The paper and computer file trails would have been so large that they would be certain to be discovered. There is no way you can do this kind of job without leaving a sea of traceable events - no matter how hard you try to cover your tracks.

Unless... Right from the outset you find a VERY secure location large enough to hold your team and all their data and THEN... you destroy it on completion of your project along with all the computers, filing cabinets, dossiers and possibly even a few dissenters.