http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/11/911-roster.html

You have to know who the players are before you can pick the winning team, right?

So take a look at what the top military leaders, intelligence professionals, scientists, structural engineers, architects, members of Congress, 9/11 Commissioners, legal scholars, heroic first responders, family members of 9/11 victims and psychiatrists say before you make up your mind about who's on the winning side of the 9/11 debate:

MILITARY LEADERS

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan (Col. Ronald D. Ray) said that the official story of 9/11 is "the dog that doesn't hunt" (bio)

Prefatory note: this essay presents a theory, and I am not saying this is what happened. The scientific method is to raise theories, and then test them with the evidence to see if they are correct or incorrect.

I will leave it to the scientists, engineers and demolition experts to say whether this hypothesis is correct or incorrect. In fact, I am emailing this essay to some of the hundreds of highly-credible scientists, engineers and architects who question the government's version of 9/11. If the theory does not stand up in their minds, I will retract it.

Defenders of the official story about 9/11 have argued that controlled demolitions are always bottom-up, whereas the Twin Towers collapsed in a top-down fashion.

Initially, controlled demolitions are sometimes top-down. So the argument is not very persuasive.

Moreover, the destruction of the South Tower was, arguably, a conventional bottom-up demolition . . . with a twist.

Initially, the top 30 stories tip over as a unit:

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/11/911-family-member-patty-cas...

9/11 family member and "Jersey Girl" Patty Casazza has just revealed that whistleblowers told her that -- before 9/11 -- the government knew the exact day, the type of attack, and the targets.

Why is this important? Because, previously, some of the best-known whistleblowers have been willing to give only vague information about the government's foreknowledge. For example, they said only that the government knew of the general timeframe for the attacks, or that the government had a list of potential targets, on which the World Trade Center was one of many potential targets (of course, other whistleblowers have been more specific).

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/11/why-didnt-millions-of-gallo...

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/11/collapse-of-twin-towers-cou...

When confronted with evidence that temperatures at the World Trade Centers were too high to have been caused by anything other than explosives, defenders of the government story argue that such temperatures were caused by "friction" or "pressure" from the gigantic buildings collapsing in on themselves.

In other words, they argue that tremendous gravitational energy was released by the collapse of the Twin Towers as parts of the buildings crashed into other parts -- which in turn generated sufficient heat to melt and even partially evaporate the Towers' strong structural steel, and to keep the metal at ground zero in a molten state for months after 9/11.

However, a professor emeritus of physics has proven that the collapses themselves could not have melted steel.

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/november2007/011107_framing_terrorists.htm

Framing The Truth Movement As Terrorists

Bellicose establishment hacks like O'Reilly and Beck pray for another attack so they can blame it on peaceful activists who are putting them to shame

Steve Watson & Paul Joseph Watson

A disturbing trend has emerged amongst establishment "news" hacks who are raising the same talking point ad infinitum, dubbing the global truth movement as "anarchists" and violent individuals who may be aiding terrorists, and praying for another attack in America so they can blame peaceful activists who are consistently putting the Neo-Cons to shame.

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/10/explosive-evidence-wtc-was-...

The government has been forced to admit that the fires in World Trade Center buildings 1, 2 and 7 were not hot enough to melt steel. That's because maximum temperatures reached by burning jet fuel, diesel, office supplies and equipment, and the other flammable material which could possibly have burned in the World Trade Centers are far below the melting point of steel.

But two pieces of evidence prove that temperatures within some parts of the Trade Centers were higher than the melting point of steel:

• Dr. Steven Jones found iron spheres in samples of dust from the World Trade Center which were collected by ground zero resident Janette MacKinlay. The existence of iron spheres in the WTC dust was independently verified by the government's U.S. Geological Survey itself.

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/10/buildings-topple-over.html

Normally, when buildings collapse, they topple over:

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/10/mars-murder-and-making-most...

Some people get confused by the different theories of what caused the World Trade Centers to collapse on 9/11. And some people assume that "we'll never really know" what happened.

But it is important to understand that scientists can often determine whether or not something occurred even when the direct evidence is no longer available. Moreover, sometimes the most important thing is understanding what did not happen.

Mars and Murder

Scientists often have to test things in clever ways because the thing they're looking for isn't available for testing. In such cases, scientists create tests to see if there is indirect evidence which proves the existence of what they're looking for.

For example, when looking for evidence that life once existed on Mars, scientists look for chemical compounds that are by-products of life. Walking around with a petri dish probably won't yield any samples.

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/10/osama-bin-framed.html

Project Censored's list of the Top 25 Censored Stories is, appropriately, getting wide coverage all over the web.

The 16th censored story from the Project Censored list reads:

#16 No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to 9/11
Source:
The Muckraker Report, June 6, 2006, and Ithaca Journal, June 29, 2006
Title: “FBI says, ‘No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to 9/11’”
Author: Ed Haas
http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/october2007/291007_sheen_questions.htm

Actor Martin Sheen questioned the official 9/11 story, as well as the collapse of Building 7 and NORAD's response to the 9/11 attacks during an anti-war march this past weekend in Los Angeles.

Sheen was interviewed by We Are Change L.A. along with fellow actor Mark Ruffalo during an event hosted by the ANSWER Coalition at which around 20,000 people attended.

Emmy and Golden Globe Award-winning Martin Sheen, star of blockbuster films like Apocalypse Now and The West Wing, follows in the footsteps of his son Charlie Sheen, who publicly spoke of his doubts about the official 9/11 story back in March 2006.

"There have been so many revelations that I have my doubts, and chief among them is Building 7 - how did they rig that building so that it came down on the evening of that day?" said Sheen.

Full quotes and video to follow, watch this space.

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/10/small-white-plane-following...

The evidence is overwhelming that a small white plane was following Flight 93. And there is evidence that it was, in fact, following Flight 93 while it was still ariborne or, at least, as it crashed.

A second plane, described “as a small, white jet with rear engines and no discernible markings,” is seen by at least ten witnesses flying low and in erratic patterns, not much above treetop level, over the crash site within minutes of United Flight 93 crashing. Independent, August 13, 2002.

• Lee Purbaugh: “I didn’t get a good look but it was white and it circled the area about twice and then it flew off over the horizon.” Mirror, September 12, 2002

The only thing I know about spies comes from reading Tom Clancy novels. But there are always bad spies who are now working for the good guys because the good guys are simply paying them more.

My guess is that some people who suppress 9/11 truth do it for money and excitement.

It occurs to me that one of the best ways to counter the 101st Fighting Keyboardists and similar folks is to pay them more and hire them away. If we pay 'em more, and given that 9/11 truth activism is incredibly exciting, maybe they'll work for the good guys.

If one single well-heeled 9/11 truth activist funded it, we would have enough money to hire one of these professionals away from their work for the Pentagon, and to reveal the methodology and strategy of the government in suppressing the truth.

I'm NOT suggesting hiring them to use their dirty tricks on others. I'm only suggesting paying them so they'll reveal the dirty tricks that they have been using on the 9/11 truth movement.

Good idea or bad idea?

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/10/dead-or-alive-bin-ladens-pr...

Whether Bin Laden is dead or alive, it is clear that the U.S. is using him as a prop for propaganda purposes.

Alive?

If Bin Laden is alive, the U.S. has missed numerous slam-dunk opportunities to capture or kill him. Don't believe me? Read this:

Dem Lee Styles and a couple of other people have told me that I'm being counter-productive by posting anything about no-planes or directed energy theories.

Maybe they're right . . .

Screw Loose Change is making hay out of the dispute between Webster Tarpley and others (which I have nothing to do with): http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/

And Shout Wire is making hay about harassment of 9/11 activists (which I have written about): http://www.shoutwire.com/default.aspx?p=comments&id=111580

Basically, the defenders of the official story are saying "see, the 9/11 truthers are fighting amongst themselves, and that shows how dumb they are".

Of course, disinformation, disruption and infiltration are not concepts they write honestly about.

In any event, part of being responsible is admitting when you're wrong. I don't know at what point I went from writing productive essays to doing more harm than good. And I don't understand how pointing out dishonorable tactics or unclear thinking could possibly be used against the vast majority of 9/11 activists who are civil and logical, but it appears to be being used against us.

I have updated this essay to discuss theories of directed energy weapons. Specifically, I argue that even if such weapons did, in fact bring down World Trade Center buildings 1,2 and 7 (which I personally do not believe), the task of trying to convince the public of that would be insurmountable, as people think of such ideas as pure futuristic science fiction.

If you disagree with what I say, ask 10 good lawyers whether they think I am right or wrong.

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/09/burden-of-proof.html

The legal principle called "burden of proof" can help 9/11 activists to be more effective in promoting 9/11 truth and in obtaining justice against all of the perpetrators of those attacks.

Introduction

The following questions are, or should be, vital to 9/11 all activists:

• Who bears the burden of showing that its version of 9/11 is accurate: the government or the 9/11 truth movement?

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/10/family-members-and-scientis...

On April 11th, 2007, family members Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine, scientists Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan, architect Richard Gage and the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice filed a petition with NIST demanding that it correct its erroneous methods and findings.

On September 27th, NIST finally replied.

Messieurs McIlvaine, Jones, Ryan and Gage and the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice have now filed an appeal to NIST's reply.

A redacted version of the appeal can be read here.

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/10/how-dare-you.html

Neoliberal sock puppet Bill Clinton, confronted by 9/11 activists who stated the obvious -- that 9/11 was an inside job -- responded

"An inside job? How dare you. How dare you. It was not an inside job."

Well, sir, as the leading spokesperson for the neolib branch of the imperial war party, let me ask this of you:

The Oklahoma City bombing was carried out -- and covered up -- on your watch.

How dare you?

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/print.php?id=10451

BARNEGAT TOWNSHIP, NJ - Charles Giles has endured failing health, mounting medical bills and limitations to life as he knew it before Sept. 11, 2001.

Soon, he might add homelessness to the list.

When Giles, then an EMT, responded to the disaster scene at the World Trade Center more than six years ago, he didn't think it would later cost him his home.

But days of inhaling fumes at the site continue to provoke health problems that have prevented Giles from working. The problems were compounded by unanswered medical claims.

Family hardships that began with cutting out cable TV have culminated in their home's foreclosure in March and impending sheriff's sale Oct. 30.

Ocean County sheriff's records show Giles appealed the sale and that the sheriff's office twice delayed the sale originally set for Aug. 21. Judge Fred A. Buczynski pushed the date from Sept. 18 to Oct. 30.

Giles said he hopes to block the sale by filing suit against Wachovia Bank for alleged missteps in their dealings with him but acknowledged that it would likely take a "miracle" to prevent the auction.

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/10/calling-all-scientists-engi...

Please answer the following very simple poll, in order to help people understand the events of 9/11. People without a scientific background sometimes have trouble understanding which theories are likely to be true and which are not. This poll is not intended to reach a preconceived result. Instead, I am just trying to get a sense of what the scientific, engineering and architectural community believes.

Please give your honest opinion, based upon your scientific, engineering or architecture knowledge and experience.

For each theory listed below, state whether you think -- given the available evidence and the laws of science -- such a theory is likely or unlikely to be true:

1. World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2 and/or 7 were intentionally
demolished.

2. The demolition was accomplished using conventional explosives, thermite or thermate.

3. The demolition was accomplished using directed energy weapons.

4. The demolition was accomplished using nuclear weapons.

5. Boeing airplanes crashed into the Twin Towers on 9/11, as the government claims.

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/10/to-beat-enemy-we-must-under...

Beat Your Enemy by Knowing Him

Military genius Sun Tzu said:

"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."

In other words, you'll win every battle if you know your enemy's strengths, weaknesses and tactics in addition to your own. If you don't understand your enemy, you will win half of the time or less.

Improving our odds by at least 50% is worth it, right? So we should strive to learn as much as possible about those defending the official version of 9/11, in order to beat them in the struggle for truth.

Laugh at the Enemy

Even though its worded in an incredibly biased manner, Glenn Beck is losing his own 9/11 poll:

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/04/threats-of-violence-against...

The people harassing 9/11 activists also appear to be those promoting the theories that (1) directed energy weapons brought down the Twin Towers and/or (2) the videos of Boeings crashing into the Twin Towers were fake.

Many of us have emails and phone messages of threats of physical violence (direct or implied), harassment and intimidation against us. We are not whiners. In fact, we have largely held our tongues on the threats and intimidation we have received, because we did not want to make a mountain out of a molehill or distract the 9/11 movement.

But videos are now appearing on the web impliedly advocating violence or harassment against certain 9/11 activists, and listing their home addresses and phone numbers. Who made the videos? Folks promoting the theories that (1) directed energy weapons brought down the Twin Towers and/or (2) the videos of Boeings crashing into the Twin Towers were fake.

Is there any importance in the fact that those doing the intimidation happen to also be promoting the above theories?

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/10/busted-911-news-bias.html

A YouTube video called "Employees Expose FOX NEWS Distortions" contains an interesting internal memo from Fox News headquarters. The memo, dated March 23, 2004, says:

"The so-called 9/11 Commission has already been meeting. In fact, this is its eighth session. The fact that former Clinton and both former and current Bush administration officials are testifying gives it a certain tension, but this is not 'what did he know and when did he know it' stuff. Don't turn this into Watergate"

A screenshot of the memo (from 5:25 into the video) is below.

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/12/politics-trumped-science-in...

It is beyond dispute that our rulers are forcing government scientists to reach conclusions based on politics rather than science. For example, the editor of the prestigious Science magazine wrote in early 2003 that there is growing evidence that the Bush Administration “invades areas once immune to this kind of manipulation” (see here for further information).

Politics Trumped Science regarding Toxic Dust

What does this have to do with 9/11?

• Well, the White House ordered the EPA to lie about air quality after the collapse of the Twin Towers and Building 7

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/10/carrot-and-stick.html

Exposing the evidence which proves that 9/11 was an inside job is not enough. Believe it or not, that is the easy part.

Why? Because you can cite all the facts in the world, but unless the person you're talking with has some motivation to really listen, the facts will bounce off your listeners like bullets off a Kevlar vest.

Psychologists tell us that unless we give people a reason to want to know the truth about 9/11, they won't be open to changing their mind.

Indeed, some very smart people have said that propaganda is not aimed at actually convincing people, but of giving an excuse for people to believe what they want to believe.

Why Will People Want to Know the Truth?

A prominent 9/11 activist is trying to find out what Freedom of Information Act requests have been filed to obtain information about 9/11.

If you have filed a FOIA request, please post info (that is, what does your FOIA request ask for) about it or send me an email, and I'll pass it on to the activist.

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/10/911-truth-is-not-distractio...

Numerous prominent gatekeepers have recently said that 9/11 truth is a "distraction", and "takes energy away from working on more important issues". Are they right?

Actually, 9/11 is the core issue, the central knot which holds all of the other tyrannical actions of the last 6 years together. When the central knot of 9/11 lies is pulled, it will cause the entire fascist mess to unravel.

Here's why:

• The administration's false claims linking Iraq and 9/11 helped convince a large portion of the American public to invade Iraq. At the time, the Iraq-911 link was at least as important in many people's minds as the fake WMDs as a reason to invade Iraq.

• The trauma of September 11, 2001 is what galvanized many Americans to rally around the Bush administration, to close ranks in a time of peril, and to give the commander in chief his supposed "mandate" (there was obviously election fraud).

Due to time commitments, I am retiring as a moderator of 911blogger.

You're in very good hands with SBG and Reprehensor (and maybe a new moderator?), and I will certainly continue posting essays and news events.

This is a great community, which I will remain part of.

By the way, the rumor sent by email saying that 911blogger had been sold to a millionaire in Texas or that I own 911blogger are humorous but totally false.