The TIME magazine article sounds like a good one (haven't read it yet) -- exposing the political manipulations can only help alert people to the next terror event if/when it happens.

wow, Time magazine actually had a realistic article for once. good for them.

Yeah Thompson, Griffin, and the other ones should analyze this stuff, we need them so much.

I just joined our local Truth group; we have a meeting this Sunday and I'm curious to see what that's like.

In any event, it will be nice to talk to real people instead of all you disinfo agents. ;)

The altitude data from Flight 93 (document 4) clearly indicates the flight did not descend below 10,000 feet until sometime around 9:55, long after many of the alleged cell phone calls had been made, according to the data released by the government itself in the Moussaoui trial exhibits. To me, it pretty well proves that those cell phone calls did not originate from that aircraft.

thread commenting opportunity on a Left Gatekeeper site here:

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/aug/11/9_11_deja_vu

what happened to the thread with the encouraging story by DP? that thread was a much needed infusion of encouragement.
--

yeah i almost forgot about that one... Missing aswell...

I just hope they don't blow up Houston... I just sent my work there to be printed... blah

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/VIDEO_Shootdown_Procedure_for_Hijacked...

"Before 9/11, it was not clear who had the ability to order the downing of a civilian flight."

Did this have anything to do with that? DRG once told me that he doesn't think that document had any bearing on 9/11. I don't know if I agree with him.

Steven Jones' paper apprears to be in its final form. (Draft version number removed)

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

imgstacke, james ha,

GW pulled them, not sure why, when I know, I'll throw a comment down here in comments land, or maybe GW will address directly. I do know that he is a busy dude right now.

Here's Alex's broadcast on YouTube;
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zAHqSfDNjaI

http://clustrmaps.com/counter/maps.php?url=http://www.911blogger.com&clu...

Ack, Air Force Country is still asleep...

Quick question:

Where are the best and quickest sources that document al-Qaeda ties to the US government?

imgstacke, james ha,

GW pulled them, not sure why, when I know, I'll throw a comment down here in comments land, or maybe GW will address directly. I do know that he is a busy dude right now.

Here's Alex's broadcast on YouTube;
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zAHqSfDNjaI
reprehensor | Homepage | 08.11.06 - 2:52 pm | #

^ LOL, I was up all night almost busting my ass to put that thing together as fast as I could. But it seems like everyoneÂ’s afraid of sounding paranoid, and I understand that more then anyone. But this guy predicted 9/11 for ChristÂ’s sake, I think we need an action alert asap on this, with the goal of spreading that broadcast!!

ahhh Dick Cheney's lower left desk draw?

Quick question:

Where are the best and quickest sources that document al-Qaeda ties to the US government?
Mssr. Jouet (Magmak1)

Here's one example to get you started;
http://intelwire.egoplex.com/hayden-bosnia.htm

Bush CIA Nominee Turned Blind Eye As Arms Flowed To Al Qaeda In 1994, 1995

Michael V. Hayden's European Command Failed To Interdict Military Supplies To Bin Laden Terror Network in Bosnia

DBLS - Thats just wrong... Alex Jones has an uncanny ability to sift through massive amounts of information and connect dots. If he is sending up a red flag we should acknowledge that atleast.

Yeh, thanks, reprehensor... I saw that one (and posted it elsewhere)... In particular, I guess I am looking for a quote I saw recently by Nafez Ahmed (? sp?) (out of a major book he wrote?).

OK, never mind, found it right here at 911blogger (where I thought I'd seen it).

DBLS - Thats just wrong... Alex Jones has an uncanny ability to sift through massive amounts of information and connect dots. If he is sending up a red flag we should acknowledge that atleast.
imgstacke | 08.11.06 - 3:09 pm | #

^ Exactly, although he does sensationalize everything almost. But still I don't get this, why is there no action alert on 911blogger? We don't want to fear monger and make ourselves look paranoid. But on the other hand, again, this guy predicted 9/11! And I think if he's explicitly putting out a warning like this of another attack, then we've got to respond to that. Why all the inaction from the blog? IÂ’m just so confused by this.

www.waynemadsenreport.com has a good analysis of the new terror plot.

According to this, they had planned to cause an incident in mid-air to maximize shock, a' la 'Shoe Bomber' Richard Reid.

ok, this is Way creepy... WTF with minting 'recovered' silver into propaganda coins?

http://www.nationalcollectorsmint.com/category_landing.jsp?path=-1&id=46...

You might find this speech by Nafeez good as well...
http://perdana4peace.org/forum_pdf/Nafeez%20-%20Terrorism.pdf

It's just a couple of MBs.

rbn have uploaded the wrong one, it's 'Stanley Fish' not Steven Jones

>And I think if he's explicitly >putting out a warning like this of >another attack, then we've got to >respond to that.

It's not a new warning. The whole "war against Iran after 2nd 9/11" thing has been all over the alternative news, and even Paul C. Roberts had an article mentioning the threat. Alex Jones' warning underscores it even more and we should be really on guard what they stage next.

New flyer found on the Loose Change forum:

http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/7879/flyer911mq6.jpg

"you go on and on about Bushs statements on 9/11, but theres not a court in the world that would convict Bushs dumbass for misspeaking(not saying thats what he did, but what an easy defense.) why are you so obbsessed with Bushs comments? im not saying its not worth pursuing, but you toute that more than anything else like its the smoking gun. sorry. its just not."

What he does is take a quote from Barrie Zwicker where Barrie was most likely quoting Bush from memory, and wasn't completely accurate.

I can't tell you HOW many times I've heard people misquote Cheney in the bunker.

"He whips his head around, and says of course the stand down order still stands..."

"He jumps out of his chair and says of course the order still stands, have you heard anything different?"

The actual quote is...

"And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"

Anyway, he uses that misquote as if to say Barrie is a liar.

Anyway, blimp hasn't contributed anything to the movement. Incidentally, I love how he distorted my quote... I said, "Blimp hasn't accomplished anything. He is the laughing stock of the 9/11 Truth Movement." I attacked the individual, not the site. Yet, he felt the need to promote his site in his own defense.

Funny.

the google video link in 911B's Bill O'Reilly Hit Piece entry is dead.

Any hope of posting it to 911podcasts?

Sorry for the double post, that has happened to me before when I preview before I post.

Whoomp! There it is.

I (and others) have been wondering for over a year when the next "terror attack" would be foiled using wiretapping.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,207944,00.html

GIBSON: Let me put it this way, Mr. Attorney General: Apparently the Brits did use sneak and peek as well as telephone taps. Does that illustrate, or should that illustrate to the American public why those are necessary tools here?

I just thought it would be domestic, but this works better for causing more debate and further division, and creating more of an election issue.

And notice how BushCo is nowing using "Islamic Fascists". Standard propaganda: Whatever YOU are, call the enemy that.

I swear I didn't post that twice. In fact, it took another 5 minutes to show up the 2nd time. Sheesh...

In hour 2 of the Fetzer interview of Prof. Jones, both Fetzer and Morgan Reynolds called Jones to task, claiming that they have seen pictures of molten aluminum where it was glowing hot, just like - you guessed it: the molten metal pouring out of the south tower minutes before it's collapse. All this time I was under the impression that the video of the molten metal was definintely thermite, because molten aluninum is silvery, now I hear this. I have told numerous people about the video showing thermite, now it may turn out that the government was correct about it being aluminum after all. If this turns out to be the case, I don't know what to believe anymore. Could it be that we are all wrong about 911 being an inside job? We would certainly look foolish if that were the case. Jesus.

Could it be that we are all wrong about 911 being an inside job? We would certainly look foolish if that were the case. Jesus.
windex | 08.11.06 - 8:06 pm | #
..........................
No mistake about 9/11 and the inside job. But there's always a possibility that the people who are "leading" may not be leading the right direction.

Controlled demolitions in political movements are even harder to detect.

windex,

I encourage you to write to Prof. Jones, it might some time for him to get back to you.

His contact information is easily accessible at ST911;

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ContactUs.html

I would copy Fetzer on the email and see what kind of response you get back.

People who cannot think anything bad about "their" 'leaders' are easy prey, who deserve to be misled, as history proves time after time after time...

=================================================

IMHO, the best single measure of a 9/11 presentation's value is how
impossible the presenter makes it for people to keep clinging to the
belief that they can blame "Muslim hijackers" for 9/11. Further, if
the presentation tries to advance that unfounded belief (especially
subliminally), then it is acting as government propaganda.
_________________________________________

f.y.i.

48 hours until 1st public "9/11 TV Fakery" conference...

August 13th, 2006 - 7 PM EST
911tvfakery.blogspot.com at St.Mark's/ny911truth (131 E 10th St)
Presented by Nico Haupt aka ewing20001
http://911closeup.com/nico/911bio.html

What is "9/11TVFakery"?

Some argue, it is the most damaging 'insanity' of the 9/11 movement ever,
others think it is the ultimate 'holy grail' against any kind of "limited hangout".
It is a proven fact, that U.S. Media regularly fabricates and doctors
video, photos, stories every single day, but on 9/11 they allegedly did not?

The findings of "9/11TVFakery" show that live and non-live footage
of the second attack on the South Tower did not include a real aircraft
and therefore contradict the official story of 9/11.

One wonders, that this should be enough to make a case,
but the majority of 9/11 activist leaders does not want to. Why?
U.S. Media was part of the 9/11 Inside Job. A military camera system called WESCAM was part of the false flag. The complete story of 9/11 was never told!

We endorse the Petition to Scholars for 9/11 Truth to release a scientific paper at journalof911studies.com to inform the public on the findings of "9/11TVfakery"/"no planes-forensic evidence"

Petition to Scholars for 9/11 Truth
http://www.petitiononline.com/911tvfak/petition.html
(August 11th, 2006: 11 9/11 Scholars signed the petition so far)

http://911cgiwatch.blogspot.com/
http://911stealth.blogspot.com/
http://911truth.wetpaint.com/
http://911tvfakery.blogspot.com
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/
http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html
http://missilegate.com
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=we_have_holes
http://perpetualynquisitive.blogspot.com/
http://reopen911.org/
http://thewebfairy.com/911
http://webfairy.org/2hit/
http://www.911chronology.com
http://www.911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=71
http://www.911closeup.com/nico/rrr3.html
http://www.911foreknowledge.com/
http://www.911hoax.com/
http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175
http://www.911review.org
http://www.911u.org
http://www.archive.org/details/911-Chronology-Source
http://www.fooledagainon911.com
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/holmgren01.htm
http://www.total411.info/2006/07/911-scholars-spat-over-tv-fakery.html

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=12990
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2006/08/1732000.php

how much you wanna bet, the new expanded Pop Mechanics book, "debunks" the hologram/CGI etc stuff which agents N.Haupt and 911blimp are seeking to poison the movement with.

We don't NEED TO KNOW every technical detail of exactly how everything really happened. We have plenty of evidence that the OCT is a sloppy, insulting lie.

No it didn't.
I have the book.

Also John McCaine wasn't that nice in his forword, neither did the PM editor mention it on Bill O'Reilly this week.

"...We don't NEED TO KNOW every technical detail of exactly how everything really happened...."

This argument was also made for 4 years on the controlled demolition.
You're with the orwellians, i'm with the media fakery debunkers.

Maybe Eggbert should start getting a job at REUTERS and fake war reports and photos.
They also don't care about "details".

Over and out....

It seems I hit a nerve with blimp. I don't remember ever doing that before. Good.

I have always been open minded to the possibility that the "plane" in the videos and photos of the south tower hit was some kind of overlay or special effect inserted into the body of visual evidence to cover up the actual object[s?] that struck the south tower. That would explain the discrepancies in angle, lighting, and appearance of the "plane" in the extant videos. My one criticizm of the theory, is how did they get rid of all the amateur videos that must have recorded the south tower hit as it looked in the real world. Wouldn't at least one of the genuine videos have cropped up by now? It is a fascinating theory that deserves to be looked at with an open mind. Maybe we truly are through the looking glass after all. Who really knows"

Concerning molten aluminum glowing, Prof. Steven Jones already covers this matter in his article:

""
Note that the approximate temperature of a hot metal is given by its color, quite independent of the composition of the metal. (A notable exception is falling liquid aluminum, which due to low emissivity and high reflectivity appears silvery-gray in daylight conditions, after falling through air 1-2 meters, regardless of the temperature at which the poured-out aluminum left the vessel. Aluminum does incandesce like other metals, but faintly, so that in the conditions described in the previous sentence, falling liquid aluminum will appear silvery-gray according to experiments done at BYU. [Jones, 2006])
""

And:

""
We also noted that while a steel pan holding the aluminum glowed red and then yellow hot, when poured out the falling aluminum displayed a silvery-gray color, adding significantly to the evidence that the yellow-white molten metal flowing out from the South Tower shortly before its collapse was NOT molten aluminum. (Recall also that the yellow color of the molten metal (video clip above) implies a temperature of approximately 1100 oC -- too high for the dark-smoke hydrocarbon fires burning in the building.) This is point worth emphasizing: aluminum has low emissivity and high reflectivity, so that in daylight conditions after falling through air 1-2 meters, molten aluminum will appear silvery-gray, while molten iron (with its characteristic high emissivity) will appear yellow-white (at ~1100 oC) as observed in the molten metal dripping from the South Tower just before its collapse (see http://www.veronicachapman.com/checktheevidence/Thermite.htm ). We also recall that this molten metal, after falling approximately 150 meters (or yards) still retained a reddish orange color (see the last photograph, above). This is not the behavior of falling, molten aluminum.
""

See:

"Why Indeed did the WTC Buildings Collapse?," Prof. Steven E. Jones, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, to be contained in 9/11 and the American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, editors (Northampton, Massachusetts: Olive Branch Press [an imprint of Interlink Publishing Group, Inc.], 2006):

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Here is a deception dollar that I made, use it however you like.

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l146/bannedintheusa911/Deception_dolla...

Nick, it's http://www.loosechange911.com/ not http://www.loosechange.com/

Better redo the pic and change the URL

updated verson.

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l146/bannedintheusa911/Deception_dolla...

cool, looks great

Not to nit-pick, but... Cheney and Condoleezza are spelled wrong.

"Not to nit-pick, but... Cheney and Condoleezza are spelled wrong.
Rumpl4skn | 08.12.06 - 9:02 am | #"

Rumpl4skn - thanks for pointing this out. Sorry about the mistakes people, I kind of rushed through making this.

Here is what should be a final version. Let me know if there are any more mistakes.

Deception_dollar_large_081306.gif
http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l146/bannedintheusa911/Deception_dolla...

Nick,

ONE lie lead to another

should be

ONE lie leads to another?

Janedoe,

If you read the whole thing it reads,

Washinton D.C.'s
One (the official one)
lie lead to another
then there is a thin line pointing to iraq war.

Nick,
Ahh... thanks for straightening me out. :-)

I knew that wouldn't be quite so clear but I wanted to use what was already on the dollar as much as possible.

Thanks for pointig it out though. Nice to get feed back.

This thread contains repeated vicious lies against 911blimp.net:

1. IT IS A TOTALLY BASELESS *LIE* TO LUMP 911BLIMP WITH NICO/HOLOGRAMS/TVFAKERY.

2. IT IS A FILTHY *LIE* FOR JON GOLD TO SAY THAT 911BLIMP.NET CONTRIBUTES NOTHING (THOUGH IT MAY BE TRUE THAT 911BLIMP.NET PROMOTES GOVT-LIE-REVEALING EVIDENCE THAT DISINFO AGENT GOLD IS TRYING TO SUPPRESS)

3. 911BLIMP.NET DEFENDED HIMSELF AGAINST SOME OF THE LIES (I SAW THE POST MYSELF), BUT 911BLOGGER HAS SINCE THAT TIME SELECTIVELY CENSORED 911BLIMP'S DEFENSE BUT NOT THE ATTACKS AGAINST HIM!

Responding to NickÂ’s post at 08.11.06 - 10:01 pm

Nick --

Have you considered the possibility that Jones' work might not be credible?

Sometimes a fatal assumption is made which is then not questioned for a long time; and though nothing that follows from it can have validity, no one notices.

Here's what I notice: It is a basic fact that (1) metal glows when it is heated up sufficiently and (2) the color of a heated metal is determined by temperature, not by type of metal.

So what is the basis for accepting what Jones says about aluminum, which is in complete contradiction to these long-standing, well-known simple physical principles?

It appears that it consists of Jones having said it (see James Redford’s quote above at 08.11.06 - 11:23 pm). The underlying logic appears to be: ‘Jones is a BYU physics professor willing to tell the 'truth' about 9/11. Therefore whatever he says must be true. QED.’

This train of logic violates good common sense.

Instead, red flags should have gone up in people’s minds when Jones blithely asserted that basic properties of all metals are (‘as it turns out in 2001’) not true in the case of aluminum.

Let’s take a gander at the ‘evidence’ Jones offers as ‘proof’ of his contention. It appears to center around a picture in his PDF, which has him holding a torch above an obviously cool pot and which presumably shows aluminum being ‘poured out’.

(To see the picture IÂ’m referring to, go to JonesÂ’ PDF; itÂ’s currently on page 58 of 200:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/JonesAnswersQuestionsWorldTradeCenter... )

Now, people who believe Jones can do no wrong will loudly proclaim that, ‘Yes indeed, this picture offers unequivocal ‘proof’ that what Jones says about aluminum must be true.’ But for people who have not yet drunk the kool-aid, they’ll look at that picture and say, ‘Clearly, the metal here, being thick like honey, is barely heated. Therefore, its silvery color is entirely consistent with barely melted aluminum -- and proves nothing.’ Then these people will ask the logical follow-up question: ‘Why is Jones, a physics professor who should know better, trying to pull a fast one like this on the unsuspecting public?’

To see a valid demonstration of what happens when aluminum is really heated, go here:

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ArticlAluminumGlows_1Mar06.html.

When you do, please note that the information from Prof. Wood and Michael ZebuhrÂ’s demonstration was shared with Jones on March 1, 2006.

Something fishy is going on here with Jones, and alarm bells should be going off in the 9/11 truth movement for the follow reasons:

(1) Blind trust in a single individual isnÂ’t a good idea on the face of it.

(2) Such blind trust is the opposite of ‘scientific’.

(3) Finally, the integrity of the whole scientific enterprise in general (and the 9/11 truth movement in our particular case) is dependent upon the individual integrity of each and every scientist (and person) contributing to it. While people can make mistakes, a scientist is especially ethically obligated to correct any mistake s/he finds as soon as it is recognized. The work of any scientist who does not do this -- or who knowingly dissembles -- becomes fatally discredited because it casts the integrity of the entire enterprise into question.

This business about aluminum is not rocket science. Why does Jones appear to be getting a free pass on it? This is serious business.

Dishonest science properly ends careers.

Anonymous

P.S. Why is there an apparent assumption that the pictures of 'molten metal pouring out of WTC windows' are not doctored? Because Jones says so? Even a cursory analysis of them suggests the opposite.

Anom,

So how should this be resolved?

I often site his work as a source of fact.

When (if) will this be fixed?

Is this something that the members of st911.org will handle?

Thanks-

Responding to NickÂ’s post at 08.11.06 - 10:01 pm

Nick --

IÂ’m not the only one who has become suspicious of Jones. Stay posted.

As for how you might proceed, the first thing to do is to stop citing Jones. If you can see what I've pointed out, then it should be clear he cannot be trusted. We may not know exactly what his game is, but whatever it is, it isnÂ’t good; moreover, truth cannot stand on a foundation of deception.

Remember: weÂ’re trying to save democracy, which requires people to be independent thinkers and knowledge to be widely shared. A good check against falling into trouble is to stay away from complicating details (which may turn out to be false). Stick instead with simple, clear evidence and arguments you are sure you understand and can help others think through and understand for themselves -- independent of any gatekeeper.

K.I.S.S. is best.

And anybody who says, “Trust me, because I’m the expert and stand for truth and the American way,” shouldn’t be.

A NOTE ON PSYCHOLOGICAL OPERATIONS:

Here’s some logic I apply in my own approach to the 9/11 Truth Movement. First, my considered opinion is that 9/11 was unequivocally an ‘inside job’ -- by which I mean pulled off by (unspecified) elements of the Elite Power Structure in our own civilization -- as opposed to a small band of ‘Arabs with box cutters who hate our freedoms’. Now, if that’s the case, we can be sure that these elements are not interested in the truth coming out to the extent that it would cause problems for them, and also sure that they have immense resources to prevent it, just as they had access to immense resources to effect 9/11 in the first place. To think that the 9/11 Truth Movement is not infested with operatives (as well as their volunteer supporters) would be silly. Also, because these guys are mostly very good at what they do, they’re going to be persuasive to numbers of ‘innocent bystanders’, who get turned into patsies, thereby contributing to the wrong cause.

Now, knowing that there are operatives amongst us is really a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it puts us on alert to watch for people out to destroy our ability to get the truth out. On the other hand, if people start wildly pointing fingers at each other, that alone can rip the Movement apart -- to the delight of the operatives, who have their work largely done for them by the ‘good guys’.

The fact that people have egos, hot buttons, their own agendas, etc., that can get set into motion compounds the difficulties in figuring out whoÂ’s who and whatÂ’s what.

And donÂ’t forget that the operatives will be busy stirring that pot.

So itÂ’s a big problem.

I donÂ’t have a lot of experience in all this, but a rule of thumb that seems useful is the ancient sage observation:

“Ye shall know them by their fruits.”

IMV, an essential task for the ‘good guys’ is to get as informed as we can about how disinfo and psy-ops work, because it’s a fact of our lives. Then we need to be in constant monitoring mode with everything going on around us -- up to and including ourselves, since we’re always in danger of being duped, tied in knots, or diverted into useless activities just like anybody else. (I know whereof I speak. ;-) )

HereÂ’s one pretty good source of general information about how operatives work and what to watch out for:

http://laura-knight-jadczyk.blogspot.com/2006_01_02_laura-knight-jadczyk...

LKJ is into what many would consider pretty weird stuff, but you can still take from her what you’re ready to deal with and what works for you. Down into this lengthy article she provides information from an old handbook on COINTELPRO called “How to Spot a Spy” -- an excellent summary of essential information.

More interesting reading here:

http://laura-knight-jadczyk.blogspot.com/2006/01/cointelpro-updates-abov...

I donÂ’t agree with everything LKJ says (for example, I don't agree with her own 9/11 operative list); but she educates me about the general nature of the COINTELPRO beast.

Anom