Excellent!!!!!!! It's About Time!

(dz, plz see my comment in the last Open Thread:-))

dz, please check my reply. It's kind of important ;)

Has anyone actually read the NIST report? I've only read Jim Hoffman's criticisms of it.

The NIST report did not report on the total progressive collapse of the building in their entirety. Have the experts that Dr. Sunder refers to come up with any explanation more satisfactory?

______________________________--
"After Dr. Sunder’s presentation (planes and fire did it), a woman from N.Y. 9/11 Truth stood up and said she hadn’t been able “to sleep at night” since her best friend had died at the WTC. She had hoped NIST would clear up doubts, but this was not the case. “I have here a report which contradicts much of what you say.”

The woman put a paper by Steven E. Jones, a physics professor from Brigham Young University, in front of Dr. Sunder. Jones makes the case for controlled demolition, claiming the persistence of “molten metal” at ground zero indicates the likely presence of “high-temperature cutter-charges . . . routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel.”

“I hope you read this; perhaps it will enable you to see things a different way,” the woman said.

“Actually, I have read it,” Dr. Sunder said with a sigh.

Later, asked if such outbursts were common, Dr. Sunder said, “Yes. I am sympathetic. But our report . . . it is extensive. We consulted 80 public-sector experts and 125 private-sector experts. It is a Who’s Who of experts. People look for other solutions. As scientists, we can’t worry about that. Facts are facts.”

9/11 Skeptics Get a Loooong (and surprisingly fair) Treatment in "New York" Mag
March 20, 2006
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060320164312944

Anyone looking at the Moussaoui trial info on CNN?

Anon...

Moussaoui

I have everything posted in there.

I'd say the article is the most promising coverage yet from a major news outlet. Yes, it's a bit skeptical. But it's not trying to debunk and it's not making fun. I'd say it's a landmark, albiet a humble one. I must say, I think this movement must start reaching some major victories very soon, or it's all going to be history - like JFK.

I know, this is taking way too long. They must be confronted on key issues, including their admitted inability to explain the collapse of WTC 7.

Being “unable to account” for WTC-7 is a blatant cover-up & lie. Massive, steel-framed buildings do not implode due to scattered fires. All evidence indicates planned demolition with explosives was used. We know it & they know it! They need to stop bullshitting us.

Hey, Charlie Sheen is a big star, and he's not flakey like Cruz nor immature like Pitt.

The Drudge Report is listing prisonplanet's "Actor Charlie Sheen Questions Official 9/11 Story".
http://www.drudgereport.com/
That's kind of surprising, considering that Drudge is a right-wing pro-Bush wanker. Maybe they think it will make Sheen look bad.

Jon, that Moussaoui trial seems like a huge ploy to portray al Qaeda as consummate terrorists who were more than capable of perpetrating 9/11. In reality, all other evidence shows that al Qaeda were a loose bunch of flunkies, at best.

Jam, that is a good article on Sheen!

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/200306charliesheen.htm

Yizzo, the evidence for controlled demolition isn't the 9/11 Truth movement's strongest point, even though the case for it is conclusive.

One can make a conclusive case proving the U.S. government staged the 9/11 attacks even without any physicalist inquiry into the plane crashes or collapsed buildings, i.e., via historical inquiry into the public record in conjunction with deductive reasoning. For example, in regard to such facts listed as below:

- The PNAC document in 2000 calling for "a new Pearl Harbor" as a pretext for Middle-East domination;

- the fact that the October 2001 Afghanistan invasion was planned months beforehand (thus, the U.S. government was certain months before the 9/11 attacks that a pretext would present itself allowing the U.S. government to invade Afghanistan, and lo and behold such a pretext arives right on time);

- the fact that the supposed hijackers weren't Muslims extremists but did cocaine, hired prostitutes, drank alcohol, partied hard, etc.;

- the fact that many of the supposed hijackers were trained on U.S. military bases and had their legal residences on U.S. military bases;

- the fact that the supposed hijackers apparently knew that they had protection from the highest levels of the U.S. government and repeatedly went out of their way to draw attention to themselves as crazed, potential terrorists, as if to build a "legend" back-story;

- the fact that the many FBI agents attempting to invastigate these supposed hijackers were repeatedly and consistently blocked and ordered not to investigate these supposed hijackers, despite forceful protestations from said FBI agents that terrorist attacks were going to happen;

- the fact that U.S. government agents who tried to investigate the supposed hijackers were persecuted yet those in the government who blocked the investigations were promoted and given bonuses;

- the fact that many of these FBI agents went to David Schippers, the former Chief Council for the House Judiciary Committee, informing him (in an attempt to try and get something done) about the planned terrorist attacks and that they were threatened with the National Security Act not to pursue their cases and not to talk about them;

- the fact that David Schippers tried to get high-level functionaries (such as John Ashcroft) in the U.S. government to listen to him but they weren't interested;

- the fact that Osama bin Laden is a protected CIA asset and that before the 9/11 attacks a number of governments offered to arrest Osama and turn him over to the U.S. government but every time the U.S. government wasn't interested, despite the fact that he was supposedly wanted in connection to a number of previous terrorist attacks;

- the fact that the U.S. government worked with, supplied and used Osama's al-Qaeda terrorist network against the Serbian government all the way up into at least 1998, despite the fact that Osama was supposedly wanted in connection to a number of previous terrorist attacks.

And the list of such facts documented by the mainstream major media news articles and in primary documentation (such as the PNAC report) go on and on and on. The above is barely even scratching the surface on such facts as can be found in the mainstream public record. Add to that the fact that the U.S. government has a well-documented history (i.e., modus operandi) of staging such Hegelian dialectical PsyOps attacks as the Pearl Harbor attack, Operation Northwoods (which although didn't go forward due to John F. Kennedy, all the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff approved it for implementation), the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, the 9/11 attacks, etc., etc.

For mainstream documentation on the above facts, as well as on more such facts, see the below documentation resources:

The below post by me contains the November 10, 2003 article "September 11--Islamic Jihad or Another Northwoods?" by Tim Howells, Ph.D., which is a very good, short introduction to just some of the more damning mainstream major media articles and U.S. government primary documentation which proves up one side and down the other that the 9/11 attacks and the following anthrax attacks were a Hegelian dialectical PsyOp staged by the U.S. government as a pretext in order to obtain more power and control. I append my own additional endnotes at the conclusion of Dr. Howells' article, in order to add further mainstream documentation.

From: James Redford
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.education,alt.education.alternative,alt.education.research,misc.education
Subject: The U.S. Government Staged the 9/11 Attacks
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 13:49:56 GMT

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.college/msg/cdb2f90b15ea3233?dmode=so...

http://www.geocities.com/psyop911/tim-howells-september-11-islamic-jihad...

And:

The Truth About the 9/11 Attacks:

http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/ (Note that this website by me hasn't been updated in a long time, so some of the links on it have gone dead. You can use http://www.archive.org to revive some of the dead links.)

For more on government-staged terrorism, see the below post by me:

"Documentation on Government-Staged Terrorism," September 30, 2005:

http://www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2&mforum=libertyandtruth

Wow. I guess Drudge changed his mind. The Charlie Sheen story is gone already. http://www.drudgereport.com/

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/200306charliesheen.htm

charlie sheen joins the truthers

a-non-moose, the PrisonPlanet.com link ( http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/200306charliesheen.htm ) is still listed in Drudge's search results:

http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/dsp/search.htm?searchFor=Charlie+Sheen

I was the woman referenced in the story at the NIST Community hearing/presentation. The journalist misrepresented me, as I expected he would. Standing in the lobby of the building afterward we chatted. He had been following our group around for a week or so, at least. I told him I didn't want him using my name. The Media Company that owns New York Magazine he writes for is owned by a large International Bank. I knew this bank would preclude any real story being told. The writer is actually totally convinced we are right! This same thing has happened to our group in NYC with two other writers who have covered us. They can't write what they think and still get published. I told the writer, "Look, I don't trust you to cover this. But don't take any offense. I respect what you have to do, to put food on your table. Idon't blame you." He laughed and thanked me for understanding and said yes, he had a couple kids to support. He said he was glad I understood what he had to do.

As far as what went on at the NIST presentation. The head cover-up artist, Shyam Sunder, blathered at lenght about bullshit - I took some notes, but he was obviously stalling for time. I read in the New York article that he comes from an IT background in India, which means he is EXTREMELY smart, so there is no way he is not absolutely cognizant of what he is doing.

The writer is correct about one thing I said - I've lost sleep over this. I said I lost a friend, not a BEST friend, but a close friend. I looked Mr. Sunder right in the eye and told him I knew he was not in good faith, and that is why I couldn't sleep - for my friend and for what happened and for the fact Mr. Sunder was not acting in good faith.

I guess this went over the head of the writer. I told Sunder, "I know you are not in good faith, because if you were you would release the data." [that went into contructing the computer models]. He looked back at me a bit shocked and a bit with hate. I just wanted Sunder to know that I knew. And he does. So I hope he doesn't sleep so well either. He's obviously working for someone/some group. So maybe now he can ask them for more money. Or maybe not. Anyway, the cat is out of the bag for anyone paying any attention.

I was there to confront the NIST reps for lying and whoever else there was in on it - at least one other guy - The guys that left the Jones report on the table after them.

The writer came up to me afterward and told me Sundar had said when he asked him about me, "That happens all the time." I said, "Sure it happens all the time - the fellow from the Underwriter's Lab was fired for questioning the NIST work." It's really no surprise it happens "all the time." Hey I wonder why that would be, Mr. Sunder?

So the writer knows all that.

And as far as Sundar reading the Jones report. The writer said in the story that Sunder seemed frusterated and sighed when I put the report in front of him and he supposedly said he had read it. My memory is Sundar said, "I have it already. It's right on my desk," not that he had read it. My feeling is that he had not read it, even if he said he had. It was only out a short time by then. The main point is that Sundar is not acting in good faith. By saying he "read it" he is implying that it doesn't impact any of the "Facts," as Sunder has presented them - which is total bullshit. Saying he has read it is just to bullocks those people who themsleves haven't read it or if they had couldn't understand it. What he did is a technique in lying. It reminds of the response of Kean when confronted on a call-in T.V. show about the falsity of the 911 Commission report when Kean says, "If we had answered all the questions that we were presented with, well then, we wouldn't have been able to do the job we were supposed to perform."

Very funny.

I will say the writer of the New York piece did a clever, sly little tricky coverage. If you have no idea of what's going on, you could have no idea the writer was 100% convinced and in the camp of the 911 truth seekers/ skeptics. Which is pretty funny. And then, he didn't overtly insult us either.

I also never said anthing as lame as, "Maybe you'll see things differently." when I laid the Jones paper in front of them.

I said, "The reason I am losing sleep is because I know you are in bad faith. The reason I know you are in bad fiath is because of the scientific report by this man, a physicist, who has made me know that what you are saying is not in good faith." I might have said, 'Read it' to the couple of men on the panel who may not have had a clue - but I seriously doubt that. It's just not what I said.

I didn't ask Sunder to change his mind. Why should I? I know he's lying.

I hate hack journalists. I knew I should record everything, if that guy was ever in the room. The hack writer fulfilled my prediction.

How could he even depict my friends and the people who are standing up for anything clean here in New York like that?

I hate the tone of the publishing industry here. What is more smug than the New York Times? What is more precious than this guy going down and hanging out at building 7 in the middle of the night after meeting with Tarpley and getting mock afraid? How cutsey.

I need to shower after writing about him.

Everyone go see "V for Vendetta." It might make you feel clean for a second, after you realize how dirty these people are.

Hey Peggy, just here to give you some support. Many of my college friends and coworkers here in California are beginning to find out about controlled demolition at WTC + our government's involvement on 9/11 (I've been sending them all the videos + info I've been collecting, and they in turn have been posting it on their personal webblogs + AOL AIM profiles, etc), so keep the faith...word is indeed spreading... all of them have been open to the idea, surprisingly. It takes a lot of time and effort on our part since the media doesn't have the guts to confront the issue. Better days are ahead once videos such as Loose Change 2nd Ed and 9/11 Eyewitness catch enough of the public's attention.

Hang in there, and don't get too frustrated, we're workin on it!

Thank you Peggy!!! A fair and growing number of us are sleepless in the Carolinas...

Thank You Peggy and Thank You James Redford. I was glad to see that the writer believed us but couldnt report on it because of his position. But as long as he knows the truth....that is important. Hopefully one day it will come to him like it came to us....... and thats when the truth would be TOO much for him to bear, and he will feel compelled to do something.

But I heard talk about trying to get the 9/11 truth movement on Anderson Cooper again or other main stream media. And a lot of people want Steven Jones to represent us because he has the best combination of credibility and accurate information. but i think that Dr. Jones is a great researcher, and paper writer, but a mediocre presenter. He doesnt get people fired up. his personality is wonderful because its mellow and non-confrontational and thats great for a preacher, or a teacher, but not a good thing for a person who is trying to acquire people to join his cause. and please dont misinterpt me, I believe he is a great leader, and this is why i pass out his research paper here in philadelphia, but when i show people his DVD, some of the people are falling asleep! (granted they were under 30)

Maybe its just me but i believe that for most people in America, they will look at anything as long as it is presented in the right format (attractive, pretty, flashy, etc) and even though our information is so powerful it should not matter who presents it, but that is the way it is. Books are judged by their covers and reality is only how you percieve it. When i showed people (who has not read his paper yet) his interview on Tucker, they thought Tucker "Won" and probably was right because "THE OTHER GUY" wasnt sure about himself. And its not that Tucker was right but he just "PERCIEVED" to be right and its not that Dr. Jones wasnt sure about himself but just "PERCIEVED" to be. (not to mention the dirty tacticts of tucker not showing the dropping tower clip) but none the less, it took me twice as hard to convince them to look at the info again.

and what about Real Time with Bill Maher? This is one of my favorite shows and i believe he would be receptive to the movement but then again....

Yes Yizzo, ditto you points on Steven Jones.

Jones seems like a terrific guy, and I wish he were my friend & my physics prof. However, I think his video presentations are too slow-paced for converting new people to 9/11 truth. His research & theses papers are fantastic for more advanced truthers.

Bravo Peggy Carter!!!

Yizzo -- from what I hear about James Fetzer, he will get people "fired up" if Steven Jones doesn't. With all due respect to Dr. Jones.

From ny911truth.org

Hello 9/11 Truthers,

Thanks to all who came out Saturday to the big anti-war rally and march. We had great visibility, passed out at least 1500 flyers, and even got mentioned on 1010 WINS radio! There was a report saying they saw our "Expose the 9/11 Coverup" signs! It was a great day. Also, thanks to all who came out in the cold yesterday to Ground Zero for the news team who came all the way from Denmark to do a documentary on the movement. And for those who couldn't be there, we had a full house at St. Marks last night with a lot of new people.

9/11 TRUTH ARTICLE - NEW YORK MAGAZINE

Well, the long anticipated article is out. The author, Mark Jacobson came to Ground Zero back in December to start his research. He came to several of our events, called many people throughout the country, and wrote a 12,000 word article which was edited down to 8,000 words. He never could promise what the outcome would be because it's not his magazine. It's actually owned by a real estate mogul who's a member of the CFR! So folks, this is the nature of media ownership and control. The writer does all the research and sweat work, then the editors do what they will with it. First of all, there is one glaring twisted statement:

“Just your average wild-eyed, foaming-at-the-mouth conspiracy nuts,” Father Frank Morales told me as he surveyed the 200 or so graying beatniks and neighborhood anarchist punks sporting IS IT FASCISM YET?

This is absurd. Frank never said anything of the kind. It's a cheap shot. The rest reads like a print version of Ripley's Believe It Or Not with actual hard evidence and compelling questions mixed in. The admission of NIST's top engineer, Shyam Sundar, that he couldn't figure out Building 7, however, is incriminating. Overall, there is a blatant attempt to cover their butt, while including some hard core evidence that you can't get around.

You can read it online now. Why not start at the home page at http://www.nymagazine.com.

TAKING IT TO SPITZER THIS WEDNESDAY!

Here are full details. Please forward this to anyone you think should know. There's an announcement out on WBAI which I heard this morning. It's on 911blogger.com as well as 911truth.org. We sent out tons of press releases. All we need is you to show up in large numbers. It's time to send a wake up call to these politicians!

New Yorkers Challenge NY Attorney General Eliot Spitzer
TIME: 12 pm – 2 pm
LOCATION: 120 Broadway (between Pine & Cedar Streets, also home of Silverstein Properties!)

ADDITIONAL ACTIONS:
2 pm demonstration at Ground Zero
4 pm demonstration at Wall St. & Broadway to engage the financial district

I wonder what George Clooney thinks about 9/11 ? Wouldn't it be great if he could speak out like Charlie Sheen. He's been all over the place lately, with his movies, Oscar nominations and Best Supporting Actor Oscar. He's had an article recently in the Huffington Post.

It is my belief and eery gut feeling that all the activities taking place by the terrorist for a number of years up to Sept 11th was FULLY known by our Government. However, I don't think they ever expected the level of of destruction and/or death the terrorists' plot would yield.

Nevertheless, it is my strong belief that the Government's way of thinking was in terms of a "minimal" casualty situation or collateral damage (if you will) that was worth an entry into war. Interesting how we went in on the premis of WMDs and end up holding a war on terror.

It's all a matter of our Government having killed two birds with one stone. Anomosity grew between Sadam Hussein and The Bush family, but as we all know it was not always that way.

Bush wanted to win this "personal" battle or get back at Hussien for whatever reason, while at the same time gain his ticket to a war which we all know = BIG BUGKS FOR THE BIG GUYS.

So much so is the GREED behind this administration, that Osama Bin Ladin took a back seat. We did quite a bit in Afghanistan right after 9/11 taking out training camps, Talaban, etc. Perhaps if Bush kept our troop there, we'd be fighting this war in Afghanistan instead of Iraq. If that were the case, Osama would be behind bars or better still, executed by now.

Was it greed or is the Bin Laden family & the Bush family such close friends that they would spare the life of their loved one and the blood of Muslims from spilling on the ground of their sacred land? Who knows...perhaps both are true.

It's so blatently obvious that so much is put infront of us in the way of media, movies, documentaries--For example, the documentary about the history of the architectual company of the WTC's and its findings on how and why they collapsed. A very well presented, logical case if anyone caught it. Or was this documentary a planted plot to divert our attention to the "implosion" theory? On this subject, I believe the documantary as it explained it perfectly. Yet I've not seen it mentioned anywhere. I can't see the need for an implosion. Those buildings were doomed, regardless.

All and all truths are never disclosed to the American people. Partial truths are, and falsehoods to later state it was a necessary act to ensure national security. This is the best position to take or hide behind--a very convenient one, indeed.

We as Americans must remember that WE run this country. However, that has never been the case with this Administration. It runs the American people like a puppet show.

Why is it that we focus on, and give more to other countries than we ever have for our own?! True, it is the greatest country in the world. But a country is only as great as the leader behind it.

It'll be interesting to see who will step up to bat in the next presidency and where we end up with this GLOBAL situation relative to terrorism that for now has NO END IN SIGHT.

YES, GOD...PLEASE BLESS AMERICA!!

Bush's ticket to war was allowing the terrorists' plot to take place. Where to hold this war, was key to being able to meet another objective (ridding the world of Suddam Hussein). The war on terror would no doubt be a war that will last a number of years (can you see the dollar signs?? $$$).

Afghanastan was certainly a good enough place to fight this war. But obviously not strategically located enough. The attack on Afghanistan was obviously a "quickie" war that really didn't or wouldn't yeild added returns (as in defeating Saddam Hussein). Not to mention the fact that the "friendship" between the Bin-Laden's and the Bush's could never allow holding this war on terror in their country.

Hmmm....things that make you go hmmmm.

What better government "staged" terrorism, than ALLOWING a KNOWN terrorist plot to be executed and by an actual terrorist organization(s)? Key word here is "ALLOWING"

No strings, no connections (to speak of), and many objectives accomplished!

When Bush & Cheney's term is over, they'll be spending their entire retirement, and probably die of old age, before finishing the count of the money they made off this country.