Motassadeq, Yarkas, Moussaoui

My local German paper says today that Motassadeq has been tried yet again (for the 3rd or 4th time) and (again, after contradictory findings previously) been found guilty as an accessory to murder in 3000 cases(on 911) and sentenced to 15 years in prison. He apparently knew Mohammed Atta in Hamburg. I know of no other evidence. The case has been "problematic" (to say the least) from the beginning because the U.S. has refused and still refuses to allow two key witnesses to testify, who are being held in secret prisons! The latter little fact, interestingly, is not mentioned in the NYT/AP coverage.

Yarkas is a similar case--got 15 years in a Spanish court. What has happened to Moussaoui? All these guys have been tried and convicted (at least Yarkas and Motassadeq) of being accessories to 911, all with scant (or non-existant?) evidence--which would have to be the case since there is little or no evidence that the people they supposedly were accessories to had anything to do with 911!

I suspect that these trials and convictions (and lack of evidence) are going unreported in the US because 911 truthers would start saying, "Hey, if it's so clear that these guys were accessories, how come there's so much doubt about who the hijackers were--or if there were any--in this country?"

The number of people here in Europe who doubt 911 is supposedly as high or higher than in the US, but I haven't seen any recent polls. In any case, I think the doubters get a lot less publicity, although that may be because the internet is the main source of this info and I do virtually all of my surfing in English.


"The term show trial describes a type of public trial in which the judicial authorities have already determined the guilt of the defendant: the actual trial has as its only goal to present the accusation and the verdict to the public as an impressive example and as a warning. It tends to be retributive rather than correctional justice. Most of the time it involves a 'sin' and a 'planting of evidence'.

Show trials, which often take place under authoritarian régimes, albeit sometimes in a democratic country, far more often than not have the purpose of eliminating or suppressing the political opponents of an organization, such as a current government or a church.

Such trials can exhibit scant regard for the niceties of jurisprudence and even for the letter of the law. Defendants have little real opportunity to justify themselves: they have often signed statements under duress and/or suffered torture prior to appearing in the court-room.

[edit] Moscow Trials

Show trials were a significant part of Joseph Stalin's regime. The Moscow Trials of the Great Purge period in the Soviet Union are characteristic. The authorities not only pre-determined the guilt of the defendants, but also orchestrated the whole trial processes. Massive campaigns in newspapers and at numerous meetings shaped the opinion of the public towards the cases.

show trials

Yes, show trial seems appropirate term. Curious about Moussaoui, I found this: . If I had the energy I would try to collate all the so-called "evidence" against Moussaoui, Yarkas, and Motassadeq, and see what it amounts to. There are so many lawyers in this country (USA). Pro bono work like this would help the cause of the people. Most people assume that since the courts found them guilty, they are. But as I said, how can they be if the principals (Atta et al.) are not--as many people think?

This would be a valuable project

That I would like to participate in. I cannot afford the time and money to collect all the materials, and do not have the German and Spanish for the cases in Europe.

"Conspiracy" crimes don't exist outside the U.S., is my understanding, so it may be even more unusual for a German court to have convicted on this evidence. Under U.S. conspiracy laws, it may not be necessary to prove that the crime came to fruition, though that is absurd in this case given that the government's official position is that it was committed, and by specific people. Take this with a big grain of salt as I have not researched it.

Moussaoui has appealed to the Fourth Circuit, probably the worst court for his appeal, which may be why the case was tried in Virginia and not New York.

Whoops, left something out

"it may be even more unusual for a German court to have convicted on this evidence, though evidence rules may be looser because cases are tried to a judge."

Moussoaui doicuments available online

The court has documents from both before Moussaoui pleaded guilty and online and from the death penalty phase:

More documents here:

You can get all of it on CD for $10.

Take the below with a huge grain of salt:

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press website appears to be only from the death penalty phase.

The stipulations and "substitutions for testimony" are likely the most interesting.

Understand that these documents are from the death penalty phase, after Mouassaoui pleaded guilty. They are not being offered to show guilt, which Moussaoui conceded, but to show why he should or should not be executed. Still, it seems that much of the testimony is what would have been used to convict, though the stipulations would likely not be there. At this point, the lawyers are trying to save his life, and might cooperate just to limit damaging "evidence" (I can't bring myself not to put evidence in quotes.)

He pleaded guilty after the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, probably the most conservative in the country, allowed written testimony without cross-examination, and the Supreme Court denied review of the case.
He appealed to the Fourth Circuit on the basis that the judge wrongfully denied his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, and maybe other grounds.

Here is a stipulation by Moussaoui that Motassadeq was a member of the "Hamburg cell."

I found it odd that this exhibit was used:

It's the same picture I use in showing that the wheel from "Flight 11" had to have been planted:

I wonder if Moussaoui would ever had a chance to present this kind of evidence. It's not fair to second-guess his lawyers---they may have done all they could to save his life under the circumstances.
Moussaoui's capacity has also been questioned.

This document about Moussaoui's guilty plea is very interesting

Here are the facts the

Here are the facts the government said it could prove in the Moussaoui case, agreed to by the defendant:

Here is the order denying the defense motion questioning Moussaoui's competence to plead guilty:

Good article on outcome of death trial:,2933,194166,00.html

Moussaoui letter to judge.

Was he competent to stand trial?

Another bizarre letter

Moussaoui filed this:

"20th Hijacker God Curse the Queen "Little Bitch of Buckingham"

And on this man's guilty plea, 9/11 has been proved.

Defense exhibits

The exhibits at the reporters website, including the substituted testimony of KSM and CIA/FBI officers, were offered by the defense, presumably to show that Moussaoui had no involvement in 9/11, to save his life.
I do not infer from the fact that these are defense exhibits that the documents have more credibility in proving what happened on 9/11.

The first two pages here, in which the jurors are told how to treat KSM's testimony, are very interesting.

It's possible that Moussaoui wanted to be associated with 9/11.

The main point I'm trying to make is that conclusions as to the real facts of 9/11 cannot be drawn from this death penalty phase.

A full adversarial trial on the issue of guilt, with the right defendant and with equality of arms with the government, would bring out more of the truth.

Equality of arms means this:

"the idea that the defense should never be placed at a “substantial disadvantage” vis-à-vis the prosecution in terms of its ability to present its case."

Just to be clear--- I'm not saying that defendants in terrorist trials should be given directed energy weapons.

That's a joke! And don't negative rate me after all the work I just did.

Moussaoui wanted KSM to testify in guilt phase of trial

In March 2003, Moussaoui made "MOTION to Force Ashcroft and the FBI (Fascist Bureau of Inquisition) to Produce Mohammed Statement that Zacarias Moussaoui was not part of the Daring 9/11 Mujahid Operations"

This was when he disputed his guilt. "Brother" Mohammed may just mean fellow Muslim, and Moussaoui was quoting CBS News about an exculpatory statement KSM allegedly made, so I don' t think one can infer that Moussaoui was admitting his association with KSM or KSM's involvement. The letter is hard to read though, and he made have admitted that elsewhere. It's just hard to know how much of his information came from the press, for example when he calls KSM "top Mujahid."

Also here:

"MOTION by Zacarias Moussaoui | to Have Top Mujahid Brother Mohammed at the WTC Trial (World To Circus) and Stop the Pervert Sodom and Gomorah Agents of Torturing this Defender of Muslims"

Moussaoui testified in the death penalty phase and asked the jury to vote to execute him.

I did a blog on this 1/10/07

Here's the link

Thanks for your interest


Motassedeq was found guilty as an accessory to a crime allegedly planned by Ramzi Binalshibh, on the basis of summaries of Binalshibh's interrogation provided by the U.S. Justice Department.

(It's a sad day when a reporter for "Jurist" neglects to use the word "alleged" to describe people who have not been convicted of the crime. In fact, the crime itself, murder, has not been proved in a court of law. Please understand that I am not saying that people were not murdered on 9/11---I'm saying that this fact has not been proved in a court of law. That is a crucial distinction.)

Moussaoui got convicted with similar "evidence" with no right to cross-examine.

He may have pleaded guilty to save his life, and his public defenders may have done the best they could under these circumstances.

These cases prove nothing.

The Spanish Supreme Court overturned the Yarkas conviction, but I can't read Spanish so I don't know what the grounds were.

Is it because they never had KSM?

You might be interested in some of the comments on this topic from my blog on Monday.

In particular, it is telling that the US government wouldn't allow their alleged al Qaeda prisoners to testify AGAINST Motassadeq, even though this would presumably help convict someone allegedly connected to 9/11. The US government helped the defense in this case.

Another reason why the physica evidence is important

Several people are sitting in prison on the basis of an allegation that planes flew into buildings.

As NJcpaTOM pointed out on his blog, the German conviction was for being an accessory to murder of the airline passngers and crew only.

Legal questions

The FBI has acknowledged that they do not have sufficient evidence to tie bin Laden to 9/11, and the identities of the alleged hijackers are in doubt.

How can these other people be convicted of e.g. spending time with people whose guilt has not been proven in the first place?

I think it is important to tackle this legal angle. I wonder how informed the defendants of these people are about the lack of evidence presented to support the OCT.

Moussaoui Trial...

I was just browsing through my Moussaoui Trial thread, and there was some pretty explosive information that came out of that trial.

Here are a few "nuggets"...

"In cross-examination, a defense lawyer got FBI agent Michael Anticev to admit that the FBI was aware years before Nine-Eleven that al Qaida planned to slam planes into prominent buildings."

"You tried to move heaven and earth to get a search warrant to search this man's belongings. You were obstructed," defense attorney Edward MacMahon said as the trial resumed after a week's delay over improper witness coaching.

"From a particular individual in the (FBI's) Radical Fundamentalist Unit, yes sir, I was obstructed," Samit said.

That wasn't "new", but I'm fairly sure it was the first time it was recited in a court room.

"We've been offered a unique opportunity and we must not let this moment pass."

— George W. Bush - State Of The Union Address - January 29th, 2002

Andreas von Bülow

I'm not in communication with von Bülow but he is a lawyer and would know how to get the documents, at least in the Motassadeq case.

Quite a contrast to the CCR attempt to get Rumsfeld tried in Germany for war crimes, for which there is plenty of evidence. That will no doubt simply be thrown out by the German federal prosecutor with little or no explanation.

Show trials with no evidence send people to the slammer for 15 years and the real guilty parties don't even go to trial!

A final comment about Steven Jones' forensic science

Since we are discussing legal matters, I will make a comment on my view of evidence.

Much of this relates to how I see prosecutions going forward, but also relates to my concern that a man is sitting in a German prison accused of being accessory to the murders of 296 people, a crime I do not think was committed by those he is alleged to have assisted.

That bothers me on principle and should bother all of us, not only for the sake of people already wrongfully convicted, but also for the sake of those who might be falsely accused as scapegoats as a result of a "consensus" reached and promoted by this "truth" movement.

When you start calling for criminal prosecutions, you do not mess around with the truth for political reasons.

Steven Jones in his letter to Journal of 9/11 Studies, "What are the Goals of the 9/11 Truth Movement, " calls for a criminal investigation based on certain theories that he deems most factual, such as "war games" and "stand down."

I am concerned that he is not the best person to assess what is and what is not credible, not only as a matter of legal strategy but also as a matter of science.

I base this on two facts related to Professor Jones' statement that the assertion that "real commercial jets did not hit the WTC towers" serves to discredit the movement.

Professor Jones disregards physical evidence, which he should be well qualified to assess, that leads to the opposite conclusion and may constitute the "smoking gun" he says he seeks.

I am referring to a Power Point presentation he gave in July 2006, in which he purported to show that Boeing jets hit the WTC towers:

This material has been removed from the website of the Journal of 9/11 Studies in the last day or two, interestingly after I started making noises about this document here at 911blogger. I have a copy, which I cite to from memory here because it is not with me. I will document this later, but as events are moving quickly, I have decided to write now. Again, I think this article is an appropriate place to introduce my concerns because they relate to criminal prosecutions.

In his Power Point presentation, Professor Jones purported to disprove the "no planes theory."

Among other arguments, he made arguments related to two aspects of physical evidence: (1) the discovery of aircraft debris near the WTC towers; and (2) declaration of "Flight 175" in a video, and the relation of that deceleration to a paper on the kinetic energy balance of a modeled "Flight 175" done by Professor Wierzbecki of MIT.

I will address these two arguments in turn. They are interrelated because both involve kinetic energy balance calculations.

(1) Aircraft Debris

In his Power Point presentation, Professor Jones showed pictures of aircraft debris that he argued is strong evidence against the "no planes theory."

Sound practice from both a forensic and scientific view is not to assume that the debris is authentic, but to use science to show that the debris is what the government says it is.

The easiest way to rule out this evidence is to do a calculation of the kinetic energy balance:

Given the initial velocity and kinetic energy of the aircraft, and the resistance of the building along the trajectory of impact, could parts of the plane have exited the other side of the building at all, and if so, could they have exited with sufficient velocity for them to have come landed or come to rest where they were found?

NIST has concluded that no parts exited either building in any of their models, though like always they assume that they must have because of photographic “evidence.”

There is absolutely no doubt that the wheel, which is allegedly from Flight 11, and which was found at the corner of Recter and West , was placed there, and did not fly out of the North Tower and come to rest there.

I have shown this here, citing to NIST NCSTAR 1-2 and 1-5, which should be read between the lines but which clearly state they could not model the "Flight 11" wheel leaving the North Tower, and also applying common sense:

I also discuss the engine fragment allegedly from Flight 175, but reserve final judgment simply because NIST leaves some possibility that it exited the building. My own conclusion is that there is no way that engine fragment left the South Tower, at least as a result of an airplane impact, and especially not with the velocity necessary to place it at Murray and Church. Reynolds and Wood have also suggested the impossibility of the engine fragment hurdling 45 Park Place, here:

(Please don't get upset by my citing to this paper, and do not infer that I am promoting "Star Wars Beams." I am offering this solely for the purpose of the photographs and arguments about the engine fragment at Murray and Church.)

I hope that Dr. Wood or someone else with the necessary skills will calculate the trajectory needed to get the engine fragment to Murray and Church over 45 Park Place, and also calculate whether there would have been sufficient residual kinetic energy, assuming that such a trajectory was possible at all. I could not find out how high 45 Park Place is (was?) but would like to know.

In any case, I conclude that the "Flight 11" wheel was obviously falsified, which places into doubt all debris that is alleged to be from either plane. (The “Flight 175 fuselage fragment, pictured in the Popular Mechanics article and book, seems particularly absurd, yet Professor Jones cites it as evidence of Boeing jets hitting the towers.)

It is terribly bad science and forensics to just assume the verity of this debris in support of an argument.

It is troubling that a professor of physics that purports to doubt the government's story would simply assume this verity without doing a simple (for him) review of the energy balance calculations of NIST and other published work, which place serious doubt on, if not definitively disprove, the verity of that “evidence.”

(2) Video plane deceleration and the work of MIT professor Wierzbecki

In his Power Point presentation, Professor Jones responds to the argument that the video of "Flight 175" melting into the South Tower showed no deceleration.

I have two concerns about Professor Jones' argument:

(1) Professor Jones cited to a lawyer's analysis of an expert's calculation of kinetic energy balance, and the relation of that calculation to observed deceleration in the video. Professor Jones did not cite directly to the expert's analysis and provide no indication that he had done his own review of the expert's analysis.

(2) At the time Professor Jones indirectly cited to the expert's paper, which had been published on the Internet and not in a peer-reviewed professional journal, that paper had been superceded by a 2003 paper by the same expert and by a 2005 paper by another expert. The second expert criticized the first experts' assumptions and reached substantially different conclusions. Moreover, the second and third papers had been published in peer-reviewed journals, not on the Internet.

Professor Jones cited an analysis of the work of Professor Wierzbecki, who created a model of a plane with the mass and velocity of Flight 175, and calculated how much kinetic energy would be lost by the plane in penetrating a WTC tower.

Wierzbecki is in the Impact & Crashworthiness Laboratory of the Dept of Ocean Engineering at MIT.

The Wierzbecki paper is available here:

In his Power Point Presentation, at page 174, Professor Jones cited indirectly to the work of an MIT professor by citing to an analysis of that work by a German lawyer named Stefan Grossmann.

I am not sure, but think that Professor Jones was citing to this May 2005 discussion:

Grossmann was basically arguing that based on Wierzbecki's conclusion that the plane would have lost 26% of its kinetic energy in entering the WTC tower, and because this should have corresponded to an observed declaration of at least 12%, then Wierzbecki's study showed that the videos were faked.

Professor Jones used Grossmann's conclusion (and indirectly invoked the authority of an MIT professor) to argue that in fact the observed declaration was within the margin of error of what one would expect from a 26% loss in kinetic energy.

At the time of Grossmann's paper (May 2005), a follow-up paper by Professor Wierzbecki had been published in the Journal of Impact Engineering in 2003:

Wierzbecki and Teng, How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center, Int'l J. of Impact Engineering 28 (2003) 601-625

Grossmann did not cite to this paper, which I cannot really criticize because I did not either, though I did provide a citation in my blog article:

At the time of Professor Jones' Power Point presentation in July 2006, a new paper had been published which reached a significantly different conclusion as to the amount of kinetic energy that would result from the plane penetrating the external columns:

Karim and Hoo Fatt, Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft Into the World Trade Center, J. of Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 131, No. 10 (October 2005).

Karim and Hoo Fatt make a serious criticism of Wierzbecki's model and conclusions, and estimated a loss of 46% in initial kinetic energy from damage to the external columns and the aircraft. This is a much higher figure than 26%, and does not include the resistance of the floors and the core columns.

I made rough calculations by adding the kinetic energy loss of Wierzbecki's online paper, and Hoo Fatt's conclusion in her peer-reviewed paper, and determined that over 90% of kinetic energy would have been lost in getting the airplane into the tower.

The point here is not that my conclusion is correct . I am not the proper person to do a definitive analysis. Professor Jones would be much more qualified to do that. I published this article less than two weeks after hearing Morgan Reynolds speak about the no-planes theory, and a professor of physics at a major university could certainly have found and analyzed this material quicker.

The point is that Professor Jones showed the relationship between kinetic energy loss and observed declaration, which is the way I defined the problem after reading the work of Morgan Reynolds and the counterargument of Eric Salter, yet he failed to cite to the most current literature on a key element of this analysis, kinetic energy loss.

Moreover, as editor of the Journal of 9/11 Studies, he published in October 2006 the article of Eric Salter, which also does not cite to the Karim Hoo Fatt article of October 2005.

One would think that the first thing a scientist would do, both in writing a paper and in peer-reviewing a paper , is to check whether the paper at least recognizes the most current literature on a key assumption in the paper.

For these two reasons alone, I have grave concerns about Professor Jones' ability to direct what should or should not be considered to be scientifically and forensic established in a 9/11 investigation.

I will publish this comment in this exact form at my blog, and will not make any changes without indicating that a change has been made.

I will also email him and inform him of this comment and my blog, so that he may respond. Although I am writing under a pseudonym, I intend to be accountable for my arguments and provide an opportunity for rebuttal.


This is too deep for me but it seems to me like you've got sound arguments and criticisms that need to be addressed. I sort of gave up on trying to follow the technical arguments, as I summarized in my "Reductio ad Totum" essay.

Actually, it's quite simple

I'm not a physicist but have been reminded of my studies in high school physics by looking at these issues.

I have posted the relevant parts of Professor Jones' presentation here:

The explosions of the towers, the alleged impacts of the planes, and the alleged passage of plane debris through the buildings are matters of common sense that have been dressed up in technical language. I cannot create mathematical models of these events but can understand what these models purport to show.

I can also understand that if you choose to rely on such models you need to state what models have been done, and explain why you have chosen one model over another.

I remember reading your paper and chuckling at the German words you used.

There are many interesting points in your paper and I can't do justice to your arguments. I will merely make some quick points on why your arguments don't apply here.

This has nothing to do with "hate" for academics---it's about accountability and transparency.

The "piles of crap" are the unnecessary complications of simple issues--jargon and all that, as you said.

But these are complex issues, and if people are serious they need to put the time into understanding these issues At the least, they need to get out of the way when people have taken the time to understand these issues, and not attack people for "promoting disinformation" when they incapable of understanding and responding.

They are also irresponsible in taking anyone's opinion at face value without thinking critically about it. We have not been blinded by the credentials of NIST, and we should not be blinded by the credentials of someone just because they question NIST. At the same time, if NIST says something that makes sense, it should not be discounted just because NIST said it. NIST stated its premises and then gave the politically correct conclusion even though it contradicts their premises.

Professor Jones has the opportunity to respond, if he wishes. Perhaps we can do a "reduction ad veritas" debate as you suggest.

I think Jones/Salter and I are in agreement---the kinetic energy models can prove video fakery. I think they have proved it. I also think this is common sense, as is the aircraft debris being planted material.

The work has been done on these issues, and it is just a matter of applying this work.

Finally, I think Gerard Holmgren has for years been asking for the type of debate you propose, with assumptions made clear.

What I mean about NIST

"At the same time, if NIST says something that makes sense, it should not be discounted just because NIST said it. NIST stated its premises and then gave the politically correct conclusion even though it contradicts their premises."

What I mean is that the premises may contain useful information. NIST may have concluded that the plane parts left the building because it appears on videotapes, but their models showing differently can still be valuable information. In this case, it is their own premise they ignore that is useful.

Jones/Salter and video fakery

Is this a typo:

"I think Jones/Salter and I are in agreement---the kinetic energy models can prove video fakery. I think they have proved it."

I thought Jones and Salter did not buy the video fakery business.

As you say, all we need is one good example. If the wheel you mentioned is demonstrably planted, that should suffice. Same for the videos--one fake and they're all in doubt. The last time I tried to talk to anybody about this, though, it led to not only reductio ad totum but reductio ad insults.

I am not your best conversation partner for the technical questions, but I would encourage you to proceed if that is where your interests are. It may just be possible to present some piece of evidence clearly enough that it cannot be refuted.

But as far as I'm concerned we reached that point a long time ago. I don't think there are really any technological issues at stake anymore. The truth is known: Bush-Cheney are guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, to say the least, and should be impeached. The evidence is in.

And having reached this point, one wonders why even in the 911 "truth" movement there is so little support for impeachment, and not only that, it is actually a DIVISIVE issue. Can you tell me how anyone could be stupid or naive enough not to see the obvious point that impeachment is not about winning votes, but about the political PROCESS it would engender? Why do people, even in the 911 movement, insist on siding with Nancy Pelosi in saying that since it "won't work," we won't do it? First they whined about not having majorities, and now they whine about not having a 2/3 majority in the Senate to convict. I expect that from Pelosi et al., because they are part of the problem, but not from the 911 movement! Believe it or not, I have made enemies simply trying to get the owners of various 911 websites to join in flying a simple banner like this.

With this level of political opposition, I have to confess that I lose interest in the technological issues.

No, it is not a typo

Both Jones and Salter have stated that the amount of deceleration is a function of how much the initial kinetic energy of the aircraft is reduced by impact with the building.

Salter says it here,

at page 16:

"The plane does decelerate as it enters the building, losing about 12% of its velocity and 25% of its kinetic energy."

Jones says it here:

scroll down to the image of page 174.

Professor Jones cites to Salter's video analysis, which claims to show a deceleration of 18%. I will assume for the sake of argument that this is accurate.

Salter says:

"The conclusion is undeniable: The Fairbanks footage [of "Flight 175"] shows a physically realistic impact."

Clearly, he is saying that the an assessment of whether the video footage is physically realistic depends on the relationship between observed deceleration and the amount of kinetic energy loss.

Professor Jones then says that

"Stefen Jones cites an MIT professor's analysis which claims that the plane would have lost about 25% of its kinetic energy in the collision with the building."
(Consistent with the data, within allowable tolerances.

Clearly, the "data" is Salter's 18% decleration, and Professor Jones is saying that this is consistent with a 25% loss in kinetic energy.

So clearly, Professor Jones agrees with Salter that an assessment of whether the video footage is physically realistic depends on the relationship between observed deceleration and the amount of kinetic energy loss.

Newer research by Karim/Hoo Fatt which critiques the above MIT professor's work (following standard practice of acknowledging the literature on the subject), shows a much higher loss of kinetic energy just to get the plane through the external columns, even without considering the resistance of floors.

I think that Jones and Salter would agree that the much higher loss of kinetic energy is the more accurate, and that therefore, on their own reasoning, the videos to not reflect physical reality.

I can only assume that they were unaware of this more recent literature, and would not have reached the same conclusion if they had known about it.

Therefore, I think it is fair to say that we agree---the videos are faked.

If they do not agree, then they should publish another study that at least acknoweldges this more recent literature on the subject.

I would impeach, but not yet for 9/11

First, at the very least they are guilt of covering up 9/11, and I would impeach on that basis alone. The problem is that Congress has gone along all the way.

I would impeach for Iraq, privacy invasions, signing statements, etc.

I certainly don't side with Pelosi. They need to be impeached now.

But I would not yet impeach them as perpetrators of 9/11, not yet. Cheney I definitely see involved, and Bush maybe. But getting read of them will not prevent this from happening again---it's much bigger than them and they are expendable. An impeachment investigation of the cover up might be a way of getting at the truth on 9/11.

The technological issues are key to cleaning out the cesspool, and again, they are really common sense.

The planes are faked, it is patently obvious, and any movement that works to cover that up, as it is clear this movement is doing, is a More 9/11 Lies Movement.

911 lies

If it can be shown that 911 "truthers" are lying, this is a bigger scandal than impeachment, so first things first.

What is patently obvious to you or me can be patent nonsense to someone else. If you know a way to solve that problem, more power to you. Jones does not admit to video fakery. Get him to do that and you've hit a milestone.

Short of that, impeachment for the crimes excluding 911 is enough, but should include impeachment for (at the very least) incompetent investigation of 911 and launching the never-ending war on terror and the Constitution on the basis of that incompetent (and most likely purposely distorted) "investigation." Of course 911 should be part of impeachment proceedings!

The wheel is planted

"If the wheel you mentioned is demonstrably planted, that should suffice."

It is, and you don't have to be a physicist to know it. Do you really think that wheel could fly all the way through the North Tower and exit at 105 mph? It is absurd.

If you are concerned about 9/11, you need to be concerned about technical issues, at least enough to know that facts and theories are being suppressed for unsound, illegitimate reasons. Professor Jones has anointed himself they sayer of all things reasonable, when he cannot even make rational arguments on an issue on which he should have some expertise, and doesn't even seem to be trying.

This is not the first time this has happened. Gerard Holmgren saw what he was doing from the beginning, saying that "no planes" is "junk science" even though he knew nothing about it. Jones apparently responded to this criticism by cobbling together a "junk science" response.

The wheel

As above to ningen, it's not enough to say it is, regardless of whether I or anybody else believes you, and (unfortunately) regardless of your arguments (Reductio ad Totum). You have to engage the opponent directly, wrestle him to the floor, pin his shoulders down and hold him there until he cries "Uncle."

"Uncle" in this case would be something like (from Jones), "Ok, yeah, that wheel was planted, but maybe it was moved for good reasons and that doesn't mean anything else was planted." That would be the most you could hope for--but it would be a lot.

But how are you going to get him in the ring? That's the problem.

declaration = deceleration

Spell check told me deceleration wasn't a word and I complied without looking at its choice.

"Observed declaration" in my comment means "observed deceleration."

More arguments

My main points are here, but I argued that "peer review" was unevenly applied to the plane/no-plane papers by Journal of 9/11 Studies, in an introduction to the above comment that I posted here: