911blogger.com seeks to cover a broad spectrum of news. Blog posts are the responsibility of the poster. Readers are encouraged to check the facts, debate, and form their own conclusions.
Larry Central Mass 911 Truth Alliance's blog
This news letter from CGL (Citizens for Legitimate Government) deserves top billing. It’s rife with incriminating reports that you won’t see in most mainstream media, and these people are solely responsible for exposing the DC Madam list that is taking down US Senator David Vitter and possibly others. Spreading the word regarding CGL and their newsletter is tantamount to their protection simply by popularity. This is the link for their website, http://www.legitgov.org/index.html, and to subscribe to the newsletter, http://www.legitgov.org/#subscribe_clg , sometimes you get a daily newsletter with 3-10 news reports, and sometimes you get single news flashes. One of its original founders made short work of Tucker Carlson when grilled regarding the DC madam list.
Central Mass 9/11 Truth Alliance
Although he wasn't granted the same floor time as Moe, Larry, and Curly....I mean McCain, Romney, and Guliani, Ron Paul held his own fantastically. His answer to "Don't ask Don't Tell" regarding gays in the military was brilliant as he reminded us that classifying people into groups to begin with disregards the 1st amendment, and is a topic that shouldn't even be an issue.
This MSNBC shows Ron Paul after 30,000 votes, has 60% of the vote for who did best, with ALL the rest in single digit percentages.
I encourage all to chime in at this poll, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18963731/,
Pay close attention to the questions since 2 of them ask "Who had the most rehearsed answers?" and "Who avoided the questions?", both of which Guiliani scored highest, and Ron Paul finshed 4th behind the top 3 spectacles.
First, I would like to recommend everyone visit Bob Bowman's site for www.thepatriots.us , his goal is to rally all activists irregardless of what crime bothers you the most. United we stand, divided we fall. It that ain't no BS. His home page describes the goal of his current tour.
"IF" 9/11 was an inside job (I say if for the skeptics, if you are not sure, then you simply haven't researched enough, and you need/must concede the obvious media control) then what's to stop them from attacking us at will? Given that they sacrificed 3000 on that day, and estimates for toxic dust deaths from 10-40,000 or more, the answer is simple. And given that they seem to be preparing us for the inevitable nuke in a US city, this may occur as another false flag to allow declaring war on Iran (although Bin Laden propaganda seems to be increasing lately, possibly for more than just to distract from Iraq) and/or declare martial law to suspend the Constitution with the intent of never restoring it and moving us to the UN Charter. To accomplish this goal they will attack us or anyone else at will as they have done here and elsewhere for decades and literally centuries, and it is has been the rich elite "globally" who are running the game; politicians (regardless of family ties or not) and several governments are merely an extension or weapon to ensure that their agenda becomes successful.
"IF" (for the skeptics again) this is all true, then what is the end result?
Created this past week as a forum/discussion site for 9/11 concerns in the North East region from New York to Maine.
DIAGONAL COLUMN CUT
Here's my completed analysis of the famous Diagonally cut column, this includes the famous debunkers photo of a Ground Zero Worker cutting a column supposedly the same way. Since there are too many photos involved, I've only uploaded the 3 most relevant photos. I'm forced to link to the paper instead of posting directly since the analysis also includes 6 images from my study of the USGS thermal images from September 16th and 23rd, 2001 which I show how easy it was for them to fake the September 23rd picture which falsely claims that the smoldering fires were mostly extinguished by then when we know from testimonies that this was not true until mid December.
The text is included below, but you need to follow the link to see all the relevant photos.
If you are an experienced torch cutter, light or heavy metal doesn’t matter, the principles are much the same. There are several facts that indicate it was not a torch cut:
1. No cut from a torch accumulates that much hanging slag. Most slag is blown away; this volume would indicate melting with abundant, directed heat but with little or no air pressure eliminating blow torch possibility.
DIAGONAL BEAM CUT
Thought I would share this here, posted this response on a local forum group.
Any metal smith/iron worker/torch cutter can confirm this analysis as well. I couldn't figure out how to show the photo so it is attached:
The problem is, of course, all evidence is debatable and can be supported from both sides.
Government supporting story would be that the supporting column (one of the 47 that the 9/11 Commission Report claims doesn't exist) was cut by iron workers clearing debri.
Could be supported by:
-testimony from steel worker who cut it (none known)
-testimony from eyewitnesses who saw him cut it or gave the order to cut (none known)
-looks similar to molten slag from a blow torch cut
-Photographer testifying that it was done after iron workers got started cutting steel (not known)
Our story claims it was cut by thermate charges to relieve the strength of the supporting columns.
Could be supported by:
-Shows classic dripping slag from thermate melting
-the perfectly angled cut is a classic characteristic of a demolition application to relieve the central support columns
-there are piles of rubble everywhere, the metal smiths would not likely be hacking at an undamaged beam to rescue people
Your attendance at a prestigious, historical event set for December 16th, 2006 is formally requested. The Boston Truth Tea Party will include public speaking by myself, as well as other notable 9/11 truth advocates including retired Col. Robert Bowman, Kevin Barrett, Barbara Honnegger, retired Lt. Dennis Morriseau, Gabriel Day of 911truth.org, Les Jamieson of NY 9/11 Truth, and many 9/11 North East regional advocates. The theatrical event itself will include the reading of a formal proclamation condemning the official Independent 9/11 Commission Report, and the government’s abuse of its power, its avoidance of transparent truth and accountability, its oppression of American citizens, and the destruction of their constitutionally provided way of life.
This call to citizen attention is an important one as the goal is to reach the people who are mere victims of the 9/11 official spin and its justification for currently 2 illegal wars with others to follow if we “stay the course”. The open air event pays homage to those who sacrificed so long ago to provide the freedoms we strive to protect, as we collectively march from historical Fannueil Hall, to the Boston Harbor to theatrically dispose of mock crates filled with commission reports. The success of this event can only be bolstered by participation or attendance of those who unselfishly sacrificed in the past to protect our country and its citizens, and now stand together for the protection of those who sacrifice now and in the future, as well as the safety of our citizens and all humanity alike, and the protection of the Constitution for which our first allegiance was sworn to so many years ago for many of us.
An Immediate Call to Literary Arms-
A monumental undertaking in Massachusetts is taking place tentatively Tuesday the 24th of October. I have assembled a small contingency including a member of Scholars for Truth 9/11, myself (a peacetime vet), and Veterans for Peace member. We have a meeting scheduled with officers of a local VFW post, including one who is chairman for all posts in Massachusetts. Given the VFW's past reluctance to entertain any notion of government complicity or corruption, the support of all vets, peace or wartime, will bear great weight in supporting this endeavor.
The officers will be presented with elements of the military oath that we all swore to when we entered the armed forces, notable portions of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and even the Pledge of Allegiance, before presenting to them valid proof that the Constitution is being slowly dismantled, the Bill of Rights are being shredded one amendment at a time, and the President and notable cohorts have structured laws placing themselves illegally above the law, while making it legal for them to punish (including torture) supporters of the Constitution.
If this encounter with the VFW is successful, it may spread successfully thru out the entire contingency of a powerful ally in the war to save the Constitution of the United States. The next alliance acquisition would be the American Legion, which will be equally as important an alliance.
Hope I'm not intruding by offering my own rebuttal to the debate but I can't help but notice that Paul presumes much from what the government account states without understanding the general laws of physics that make the scenario impossible as the government claims:
SO-CALLED?" FACTS ARE FACTS.
Not if they are presumptions based on insufficient observation. They could not see inside the damaged areas to determine how much damage was actually done to the support columns. You presume “acres of floor space on fire” yet much evidence that you and NIST ignore supports otherwise, and to date, nothing released by NIST or the government proves conclusively that there was enough heat to support the collapse theory of the building. Its all assumptions based on weight of the planes, the impact speed, and the subsequent fireball. So what you sir refer to are truly “theories”, while we sir, derive our conclusions from the known facts, many that NIST and the government choose to ignore. This is evident in some of the arguments below.
IF YOU AND FOUR BUDDIES ARE CARRYING A LONG, HEAVY LOG, AND YOU SUDDENLY LET GO, THE WEIGHT YOUR FRIENDS ARE CARRYING WILL SUDDENLY INCREASE.
Once I made the transition form investigating the truth, to dispersing it, I thought at first that others would easily recognize what's going on. But instead was called many nasty names, considered crazy or gullible, or grossly misguided. I realized that although its easiest to get thru to those who trust me implicitly, or those who have always thought the government was behind a lot of evil crap, it was still difficult to get thru even to a Bush or Republican hater, and impossible to get thru to the white house supporters and true skeptics. For the last 3 weeks, I've used everyone that I've spoken to as test subjects. I've studied reactions to words like "conspiracy", "theory", and "activist", and discovered that these words are damaging. Conspiracy implies paranoia, theory implies unsupported by validated facts, and activist implies politically anti-bush, republican, or government.
I've gauged the results of talking to people based on "over the phone", "in person", and "in person with evidence in hand". The results are obvious, you are less likely to ever succeed over the phone unless the receiver follows up with viewing DVDs or goes on line after to review the evidence, and its too easy for them to cut you off and hang up. You have a better chance in person, but you still need to trust that they will review further on their own, and your best chance is to have the evidence in hand when referring to it, at least the first 3 or 4 things. If you validate the first few pieces of evidence, it provides more validity to what you will divulge after. Talking about what you’ve read or heard, bears much less weight unless you have the proof in hand. We have been conditioned to be skeptical of what reporters write as they are capable of telling half-truths, twisting the truth, omitting the truth, or blatantly lying. So how can you battle the paradox of supporting “I read this article…”…or “this reporter said this…” when many prefer not to believe everything they read in the papers. I’ve heard it a couple of times “you believe everything you read?”, followed by a skeptical laugh.