Tim Sparke Responds To George Monbiot

Response: Don't believe the official 'conspiracy' theory - guardian.co.uk

We have to ask who stood to gain the most from the appalling events of 9/11, says Tim Sparke

Tuesday February 13, 2007
The Guardian

George Monbiot's explicit attack on the film Loose Change (A 9/11 conspiracy virus is sweeping the world ..., February 6) has no basis in fact. While we accept that there are flaws in the current version of the film, we stand by its overarching theme that the official "conspiracy" theory of 9/11, constructed in the hours, days, weeks and months after 9/11, is false.

In uncritically endorsing the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) report, Monbiot neglects to say that the collapse mechanism for the entire World Trade Centre building was never documented by NIST - it didn't see it as its job. Additionally, in accepting that the towers collapsed at virtually free-fall speed ("the weight of the collapsing top storeys generated a momentum the rest of the building could not arrest"), Monbiot shows no awareness that this explanation violates the law of conservation of momentum.

Monbiot also appears oblivious to NIST's failure to explain that, although fire could not have melted any steel, there were pools of molten metal under the rubble, and these pools remained molten for weeks after the collapse; that dozens of people, including firefighters, news reporters and fleeing victims, all reported massive explosions; the clear video evidence of explosions taking place; that virtually all the concrete was pulverised into tiny particles; the apparent disintegration of the central steel core; and the destruction of all the evidence from America's biggest crime scene, which was covertly transported to Asian and African shores before any forensic examination could take place.

Monbiot then endorses the idea that Building 7 collapsed because "thousands of gallons of diesel [were poured] on to the fire" - oblivious to the fact that, even if an enormous fire could have caused a symmetrical collapse (which required all 81 steel columns to miraculously fail simultaneously), there was, as photographs and eyewitnesses reveal, no enormous fire. Monbiot also appears unaware that several engineers and demolition experts, after studying videos, have declared that this collapse can only have been caused by explosives.

Monbiot suggests that thousands of people must have been involved in the conspiracy, as if the official story must therefore be true. We have no clue as to how many (though some suggest probably fewer than 1,000); but wasn't the Manhattan project, involving 100,000, kept secret, even from Vice-President Truman, until weeks before the first atom bomb was dropped?

Monbiot then suggests that CounterPunch - by refuting the film's claims - has to be correct, because it is a left-leaning newspaper. But acceptance of the official "conspiracy" theory is not a left or right political issue. It is about whether we should accept unconditionally a story which defeats the laws of physics, denies the abundance of witness testimony, and rejects video evidence put forward by an organisation, which, in hindsight, we know had the means, motive and opportunity, and also has a record of being economical with the truth.

We agree that our movie can't answer all the questions that millions of people now have - but the fact that Loose Change is the most downloaded film in internet history is the strongest argument for an honest public debate, and a truly independent inquiry. As we say in the 9/11 Truth Movement: ask questions, demand answers, investigate 9/11.

Tim Sparke is executive producer of Loose Change Final Cut. tim@joiningthedots.tv

Jon Gold posting about Loose Change?? THE END IS NEAR!

Soon you'll be shouting about missles and emergency landings at the NASA camp!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!

"I'm Jon Gold, and I approve this message." It must be legitimate then.

911dvds@gmail.com - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info


"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

Why all the hate on Jon?

Why all the hate on Jon? Personally, I don' t know TOO much about the man.
But everything I've seen posted here for the 6 months I've been a member has been spot on, 100%.
He's the most consistently good poster on this blog besides maybe Jenny.
Not to take away from anyone else because a lot of you are GREAT. But I don't see as much hate as I do with Jon.
What's up?

twas just a joke by DHS,

twas just a joke by DHS, nothing more im sure.

i joke i joke i kid i kid

Jon knows I love him.... in a platonic way, not a Socratic way.

we're all pals here... dz sensed the nonsensical nature of my post.

perhaps I should use <\ joke\> and <\sarcasm\> tags.

911dvds@gmail.com - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info

Haha no i realized this was

Haha no i realized this was a joke...but I've seen other semi-attacks.
But, in all honestly, DHS and dz you guys never cease to amaze me.
I'm not just here to heap praises on people. I honestly mean it....I read 9/11 Blogger multiple times a day and I am in awe of all the work you guys have done.
Many of you regulars inspire me on a daily basis.

That being said, I will also point out that half the posters on these boards are set on causing in-fighting between us all.
This has to cease.


Thanks guys!



Thanks, card51short! That

Thanks, card51short! That means I should be annoying enough people to get my monthly 911 stipend. So, Jon, is there a form you fill out? Any documentation I need?

Seriously, I think it's because they know what he looks like. Being visible means being a target. And as you know the more effective AND visible one is, the faster they move you to the front of the queue for aggravation.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.


The standard form.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

Internet blogging is ONLY

Internet blogging is ONLY $10 an hour?!? With or without benefit?

We need a union--the Local 911!

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Yes but...

How many hours are you on the internet compared to all of the other ones? You will probably make more on that plan than the others.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton


By the way... that form, and this entire conversation is a joke (for those that didn't know).

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

Now you tell me...

I've just faxed my CV to the CIA Shillquarters... Sheesh

Never mind ;)

You mean...

You haven't already done it? Oh. That's news to me.


"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton


Please Digg these top 11 Stories if you can to help our movement here:


Show "2-D Animation in CNN Video Proves TV-Fakery!" by CB_Brooklyn
Show "Several?" by JamesB

we'll name one for every one

we'll name one for every one of yours who has gone on record.

Show "OK, I am Waiting" by JamesB

John L.

John L. Gross
Cornell University, Civil (Structural) Engineering,
B.S., 1969;
M.E., 1970;
Ph.D., 1980
Perversion of Scientific Method, 2003-2007
Not getting caught in a desperate lie on camera, maybe in his next life, unless he goes straight to hell.

Any of his underlings willing to acknowledge the molten iron? No? Next!

Show "Monbiot v. LC2 is about as real as WWF pro wrestling" by Nicholas


I'm sorry...how many millions of people have YOU awoken to 9/11?


Nick Levis - People Awoken: Many in the early days.
Loose Change - People Awoken: Many in the last two years.

Can't we all just get along. Dylan, you have admitted the faults of Loose Change, and have in fact, endorsed PFT as something people should watch. No one can take away the amount of people you have turned on to the movement.

Nick, lighten up.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

Show "enigs is dylan?" by Nicholas

I'd say...

Dr. Griffin has both of you beat. Then me. :D

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

Well if you think so...

PD Scott, Paul Thompson, Nafeez Ahmed, Ruppert and Chossudovsky and Jim Hoffman have the biggest ones, if you must know. And Tarpley and Hopsicker are double-barreled, unfortunately in both cases with one that shoots blanks. (How far are we going with this metaphor?)


I love a risque metaphor like the next person...

..but in your case, acting like the metaphor is a bit much.

That "kid" comment of yours reeks of controling, dominance crap. Quit.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Your comment is taken seriously

Henceforth I'll call him Avery as I would with anyone else. His childish non-response provoked me into using a personal label that is neither germane nor polite. This distracts discussion away from factual points on one side or another, so I won't do it again.


Nicholas, you seem pretty

Nicholas, you seem pretty pissed at the loose change guys. is there a history there or is it strictly jealousy/rivalry? seriously, you came on this board out of nowhere and just started spewing vitriol. LC2E has caused literally millions of people to question 9/11 or even become 9/11 activists themselves. this CANT be denied, regardless of how many flaws you think the film has. your anger puzzles me. unless of course its just because hes a "competitor" as i said. please say its not that petty. you both have contributed to the movement, Jon is right, you really dont have to attack each other like this.

No doubt

I didn't come from nowhere and questioning my motives is a privilege you deserve only if you can actually answer my argument. This isn't about resumes but about true and false.

Do you think the question of flaws in LC2 is irrelevant? Here is a rhetorical reversal of your sentence: "No matter how many literally millions of people LC2 caused to question 9/11 or even become 9/11 activists, the flaws in the film CAN'T be denied."

Again, by the same logic, the 9/11 Commission with their novel have swayed literally millions of people into thinking they acquired a complete, final understanding of 9/11. So what follows from that?
(And I am quite jealous of Kean's and Zelikow's speaking schedules and government-paid staff. Is this relevant?)

"Truth is not measured in mass appeal."


ridiculous argument

Nicholas-"Again, by the same logic, the 9/11 Commission with their novel have swayed literally millions of people into thinking they acquired a complete, final understanding of 9/11. So what follows from that?

Loose Change was made for dirt cheap and has caused millions of people to question 9/11 while having zero promotion outside of the internet until it was neccessary for the MSM to attack it because of its numbers.

the Official 9/11 Commission Report has the backing and promotion of the most powerful media in the world, has the backing of virtually EVERY elected official and as you said has caused millions of people to think they have a full account of what happened on 9/11. do you not see the flaws in this logic?

let me take your rhetorical

let me take your rhetorical reversal:"No matter how many literally millions of people LC2 caused to question 9/11 or even become 9/11 activists, the flaws in the film CAN'T be denied."

and even if thats the case, how can you ignore the millions of people that its caused to question 9/11? how is that so easy for you to do? is that not a good thing? jealousy is a bitch and will make your heart burst. calm down "kid".

In Plane Site. not exactly

In Plane Site. not exactly heavy on the verifiable facts right? now ask people in the movement if this was the film that caused them to become activists. go ahead. you'll be surprised at how high the number is. it seems to me that some people just dont understand the point of activism. its about waking up as many people as possible, its about causing as many people as possible to see things your way and to take action. are you gonna deny that LC2E has done that in spades? but no, lets all attack each other and blame each other for the movements downfall despite the evidence showing otherwise. PFT has done nothing but help the movement and cause people to question 9/11. LC2E has done the same thing. do you really care what douchebags like Mark Roberts and Popular Mechanics think about Loose Change? or is the important thing here the fact that its caused millions to question 9/11?

What I care about? It's not PopMech...

I care about the truth. I don't believe that little lies are acceptable in the service of a higher truth.

As far as audience impact is concerned, everyone here is talking anecdotes out their ass. Sure, maybe you know a lot of people who were convinced by "the Pod" in In Plane Site. Does this tell you how many ended up laughing at it, and having their prejudices about "conspiracy theory" confirmed? No, because those people have no incentive to act on it. They do not become activists (with the exception of a few dozen Mark Roberts types).

Have you tested any of these videos on random audiences to see how they react? Have you surveyed large numbers of viewers about their views of 9/11, before, immediately after, and then again months after seeing LC2?

Do you really know what the impact is to a group of readers when Popular Mechanics *correctly* points out a real flaw in LC2?

Is there any excuse for knowingly propagating such flaws?


Please could you elaborate...

on what these "real flaws" are in LC2.

I am genuinely interested in this list, especially as I hear the same argument ad nauseam without anyone actually listing the flaws they are referring to.


I mention several in the original post...

Meaning my original comment up there ("Monbiot v. LC2 is like WWF...") that started this whole argument.

Basically, too many people in this "movement" never understood that less is more. Two claims for a case if they're solid are worth more than adding a third that's dubious. LC is typical for its overkill: why not go for all claims, regardless of their confirmability?

What's not realized is that chain of command response, "air defense" and WTC 7 alone, plus the cover-up and lies, plus historical context of covert ops and false flag, are sufficient as probable cause for a criminal investigation, showing both that the case is open and that the government is culpable.

They're also easier to package to the average person who is skeptical of such claims.

(follow to "complaint" and see the evidentiary appendices)

Whereas pretending that you've got a definitive complete scenario merely invites debate on that scenario, distracting from the focus on the government's obligation to tell the truth -- or be dissolved.

In its cases for Shanksville and the Pentagon, LC2 uses selective or simply false readings of a few photos released by the government; omits contrary evidence; posits huge unnecessary conspiracies and has no sense whatsoever of the alienating impact of these claims ("Mrs. Hoglan, you're a liar. Your son didn't exist!").

Mistakes are common throughout and I think the problems with LC2 have been very well-covered by Jim Hoffman here:


I don't have hours to review this here, so please read that before you complain that I'm not being specific, okay?

I don't like how Hoffman rhetorically overemphasizes "disinformation," suggesting that LC2 is intentionally wrong. I try not to speculate about motives, anyway it's obviously possible that the LC makers are themselves being taken in by hoaxes hatched by others, and falling into their own "confirmation bias" of accepting any dubious claim if it supports their case.

Even sharper is Michael Green's excellent analysis of LC1 (Producer: Phil Jayhan, inventor of the Pod. Doesn't that say it all?) But of course not all of it applies to LC2:

"Truth is not measured in mass appeal."

Well then I suggest the

Well then I suggest the Loose Change guys hault production on Final Cut for just a bit and focus all their energy on a new Nicholas Cut.
After all, if Nicholas isn't satisfied with the overall quality of your film (although, of course, he has zero films himself) you're not gonna win over the public.

This bickering is so juvenile I can't even believe I'm responding to this AGAIN.
Bermas, Avery and Rowe have ADMITTED to having flaws in their movie. A lot of the "flaws" were simply suggestions.
Why do you think they are making a Final Cut?
Are you really that jealous?
God damn...make a better movie if you don't like Loose Change...don't sit here whining that it doesn't fit to your exact standards.
Millions have been woken up. The trio are American heroes for the history books.



He is attached...

To Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime and Improbable Collapse. They are not "his" movies, but he had something to do with them.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

The Best Presentation of the Facts

is the most compelling presentation.

Misleading arguments (straw-men, and other mostly unintentionally misleading or deceptive arguments) as presented in some 9/11 documentaries don't impress everyone.

Result: They don't become inspired to join the movement.

If you want to impress, the truth and the truth alone is what will do the job. Stick to the smoking guns. Stick to the PROVABLE facts. Avoid unanswerable speculation that can't be proven.

If it can't be proven... don't talk about it unless absolutely necessary. Prove 9/11 was an inside job. Convert the skeptics. Don't flood them with arguments that don't persuade or convince.

It's not our job to prove exactly what happened. We can prove the official story is wrong. We can prove that 9/11 was an inside job.

This is why Press for Truth is such an excellent 9/11 truth movie. THERE IS NO SPECULATION. It is only facts.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

I was actually refering to

I was actually refering to the "pulling out your member..." bit that BEGAN with "kid"--but thanks anyway for your sardonic compliance.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.


Very early on, it was PDS, Paul Thompson, Nafeez, Ruppert, Chussodovsky, and Jim Hoffman. Dr. Griffin based a lot of his writing on their work.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

remember it was Alex Jones

remember it was Alex Jones who started this BEFORE 9/11. People need to give him more credit.

We also have to give credit to...

Sen. Dianne Feinstein who said on 7/21/2001, "one of the things that has begun to concern me very much as to whether we really have our house in order, intelligence staff have told me that there is a major probability of a terrorist incident within the next three months."

I take nothing away from Alex's prediction, but at the time, it wasn't really "rocket science."

Which AGAIN shows that at the VERY LEAST, 9/11 was allowed to happen.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

not rocket science but......

did she say it was going to be a false flag blamed on Bin Laden like Alex did? : )


She did not go that far.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

Wait, the entire south face was covered in smoke

but mysteriously, there were no signs of fires whatsoever on the adjacent faces.

Quite startling, isn't it?

What do you mean? Having

What do you mean?
Having ZERO pictures of the "huge chunk" ripped out of building 7 doesn't mean anything.
Behind the smoke, we can all assume (since our loving government has informed us) that there is a huge gaping hole which caused the building to fail.
Why should we question this?
Just take their word for it! It's not like they have a history of lying or that they benefited from the attacks or anything.
Cmon guys!

Guess you got me wrong

I'm saying that the fact that the amazingly distinct difference between the south face smoking like Woodstock and the adjacent west face showing not even the slightest hint of a fire to supply all this smoke is fishy. Very fishy. Also note the clear vertical cut along the corner, does this look natural?

I don't think so.

No, there are pictures of

No, there are pictures of the hole in the southwest corner. What remains an unknown is how severe these fires on six floors were. But I don't think that's a point truthers should engage, because the answer is irrelevant. How many steel-reinforced skyscrapers, even with six floors of raging fires, ever collapsed at freefall speed, symmetrically, into their own footprints? None. And why were there pools of molten metal still burning below WTC7 several weeks after it "collapsed"?

The "raging fires" discussion is a distraction.

If one could bring down a skyscraper into its own footprint in a tidy pile by lighting random fires, we wouldn't need demolition companies.

There are no pictures of the

There are no pictures of the entire hole. All of the pictures I've seen have been mostly covered up by the smoke.
Are there pictures that exist of the entire huge gaping hole?
Why wouldn't the building fall towards this hole?
Why does the furthest building (and biggest in the area) from the towers fall when the closer ones didn't even come close, including the building in between it?

There were no raging fires. There were small fires, however.

Here is the damage to the

Here is the damage to the southwest corner.

And you can't say for sure how strong the fires were. The smoke obscures too much.

But like I said, the issue of damage to WTC7 is irrelevant.

That photo you linked is looking at the "west" side of WTC-7,

that is the far narrower side of the building, compared to the south & north sides.

So a couple of feet into that corner of WTC-7 may have been ripped by a beam ejected out of the North Tower by the explosives in there, and that photo is very deceptive (by design) of the very minor damage to WTC-7.

Don't try to underplay the importance of WTC-7 to 9/11. It is key!

I can honestly see no

I can honestly see no rational whatsoever for anyone who says that the damage caused in that picture is anywhere NEAR enough to bring a building down, let alone STRAIGHT DOWN. Buildings 5 + 6 alone were WAY more damaged, there is clear evidence of this!
Seriously, anyone who can't see this by now about Building 7 is in COMPLETE denial or is just not very bright at all.

I'm not sure why you people

I'm not sure why you people are hammering away at this. As I keep saying, the damage to WTC7 is irrelevant given the features of the collapse. It was definitely demolished.

What giant hole? WTC-6 (or WTC-5) had a huge hole in it, not

WTC-7. That "smoke" is likely the result of the picture being taken after the collapse of one of the towers.

It was more like 6 WINDOWS on the SAME floor with fire,

not 6 floors of raging fire.

Please don't help them exaggerate the small, scattered fires in WTC-7.

But this makes sense

The damage from the collapse of WTC 1 was sustained on the south side. That is where you would expect the fires to start from damage, and to be caused and fed by leaks from the many diesel tanks throughout the building (it wasn't just OEM's on the 7th floor but a whole network of generators with tanks - covered in Improbable Collapse using diagrams of generator placements provided by NIST).

In no way does this explain the manner of collapse. Diesel tank explosions, damage to the south side, a failure of the 5th floor cross beam, a failure of column 81 - none of these explains the symmetry, smoothness, collapse speed, squibs or containment of rubble to the footprint. In every way it shows a classic controlled demolition.

Which may explain why it's now six or seven months after the latest of three or four release dates specified by NIST for its WTC 7 report! In total it's almost two years late.


Stop with the "diesel tanks" "generators" gasoline pipes all

over the place. WTC-7 was a pristine NYC office building completed around 1985, not an oil rig off the coast of Texas in 1933 or something.
(It was also 350 feet from the nearest tower. Why should shit be on fire & blowing up in there anyway?)


A minor correction: WTC 7 was completed in 1987.

I agree that much of the smoke being pushes upwards in front of WTC 7 seems to be coming from the debris of the Twin Towers. In some videos one can see part of it rising from somewhere near the ground.

Vesa, Colombo (WTC 7)

The fire could not have brought WTC 7 down in the way it came down, so there is no need to minimize the fire or to twist the pictures into saying what you want them to say.

The high-quality preview footage shown by the LCF producers of the south side of WTC 7 (full frontage) in the afternoon of 9/11 leaves no doubt that the smoke is streaming out of WTC 7, and that the fires are on many floors. It is not from the dust cloud produced by either Tower.

Furthermore, WTC 7 was across the street from Tower 1 (a lot closer than 350 feet) and there is no doubt that it was pummeled by North Tower debris falling on its south side. Again, this damage could not cause it to later fall completely, smoothly, symmetrically and neatly into the footprint. So you can admit it - instead of arguing things that are untrue - and lose nothing from the argument that it was demolished.


Not minimizing

It's just that I have examined a few videos showing the smoke in front of WTC 7, and from one such video it is clear that *some* of it is coming from elsewhere than the building itself. My WTC 7 analysis can be found here:


If you have a look at it, you can see what weight I assign to the fires.

That photo could well have been taken just after one of the

towers came down. There were huge pyroclastic flows of smoke/dust/powder all over lower Manhattan at those times.

WTC-7 was 350 feet away from the nearest tower, and had some flames (arson?) coming out of about 5 of the 2,000+ windows. Absolutely no reason for it to implode other than a professionally controlled demolition.

Show "millions" by Nicholas


We can not control what the media chooses to focus on. I wish we could.

"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton

Wrong. It is 9/11 Omission Report that is "full of mistakes,

and logical fallacies" not Loose Change.

Not a contradiction

1. The 9/11 CR is full of omissions and falsehoods.
2. Yet it has reached millions of people.
3. It is therefore valuable and good!

If that logic is invalid for the 9/11 CR, it is equally invalid for LC2.



IMO there is some valuable criticism in Nicholas post.
Please dont turn this into a 'how many people have you...' contest. This is all about making loose change more debunker-proof, hence more effective. Im pretty sure thats what you want LCF to be, too...

I agree with a lot of the

I agree with a lot of the criticisms of LC (specifically the Flight 93 and Flight 77 segments), but the level of animosity in your comments is best reserved for people like Nico Haupt. The LC guys are changing their work for LC:FC, and I think they deserve some respect for listening and adjusting their presentation.

I agree with your criticism, but I totally disagree with your level of animosity towards them.

hes a "competitor" for lack

hes a "competitor" for lack of a better term. im just saying.......

Fight 77 did NOT strike the Pentagon, & Flight 93 did NOT

evaporate in some hole in the ground @ Shanksville.

What are you trying to accomplish with this post?

It is hard to tell.

Why so negative?

Can you say anything positive about the films Loose Change 1 and Loose Change 2?

What are you trying to accomplish with this post?

critical thinking is a good in itself

It need not be aimed at "accomplishing" something. I read something posted by Gold, decided to respond... I'm a very fast typist, so a lot comes out.

Sorry if it's "negative" - I do express myself forcefully, sometimes over the top.

Positives? LC1 - pretty much none. LC2 - some effort was made to improve on LC1, for example the first 10 minutes. Still quite a few whoppers, and about half of it is fiction, especially the Shanksville section.

How does it help to get stuff wrong? Even in the case of wrong details used to support an otherwise correct conclusion? Ever?


LC2E the attitude counts

The lesson to take from the loose change boys is to:

Don't wait until everything is perfect before taking action. Improve on the product with every edition and learn from mistakes. Take massive action.

I thought the first edition was quite flawed, but the second one was a huge improvement on the first and, despite its flaws, was able to bring millions to 9/11 truth. They did manage to make some arguments that make people say "hmmmm....That can't be right..."

Remember that David Ray Griffin said that the case for 9/11 government complicity is a CUMULATIVE, not DEDUCTIVE, argument.

I feel that the Final Cut will be of superb quality because this time, they have met with many of the scientists and fellow patriots who have given them CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM, which allows them to make it even better.

This time, they have the resources to send pre-release copies of the film to 9/11 researchers to be double/triple/quadruple checked for accuracy.

Now I wish I had taken the same type of massive action that they did. Despite the flaws of LC2E, I admire the Loose Change boys.

Why so much antipathy toward

Why so much antipathy toward Nick? He's merely pointing out what Dylan Avery himself must know by now: that LC2E is right in its basic premise, but wrong on many details.

Let's not fear the baby must be thrown away with every drop of bath water discarded.

Of course. Dylan has

Of course. Dylan has already admitted the errors. But how much have we learned in the last 2 years?
The case builds with each year.
I believe they will have a complete analysis of the attacks with all the info that has leaked in just the last 2 years alone, let alone all the smoking guns from before.

Less than a thousand!?

I agree with NIck that it is very unfortunate that the author used the phrase "less than a 1000". Less than a thousand!? It could have easily been pulled off with less than a hundred -- which by the way is still less than the numbers involved in Operation Gladio. Gladio was a DECADES LONG campaign of false flag operations every bit as wicked as 911, indeed wider in scope, if not as spectacular. The Guardian itslef has reported on the scandal.

This would have been a great opportunity to mention the war games, as well, and how they served to paralyze would-be responders.

Otherwise it's a concise and well-written response. I just wish people wouldn't insist on focussing on the physical evidence to the exlusion of everything else.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

Show "Thanks for posting this," by u2r2h

("the weight of the collapsing top storeys generated a momentum

the rest of the building could not arrest")

The above quote is preposterous as no building, let alone the WTC, would collapse due to a chain reaction or domino effect. They are built to hold any & all weight above them.

(By the above reasoning, then how could the first story hold the above 109 stories up at all?)

Yes, and it should also be

Yes, and it should also be noted with regards to free fall, that free fall is not mass dependant. As such, any difference in time, from absolute free fall in air (about 10-12 seconds), would be the alloted time remaining, for every single joint, weld, and bolt to fail, along the entire remaining length of structure, to the ground. Count one second, or two, max. One two. Now ponder the absurdity of that for while..

Or try this, as a simple thought experiment.

Take the north tower, for example, and imagine the fourteen or so floors above the fire area (around the 96th floor) suspended above the few fire damaged floors as though they are not there, awaiting conditions for "colapse intiation" to occur.

Now, beside that, imagine the same scenario, except in this case, imagine a very very tall crane, higher that the north tower suspending that same chunk of building above, well, nothing at all.

Now, drop both, and consider that, in the second instance, with the top section falling through nothing but air, it hits bottom only one or two seconds later.

Finally, consider that the majority of the mass of building material was ejected in a fountain like debris plume, leaving in its wake, quite literally nothing but atmosphere above the remaining length of structure, resulting in increasing weighLESSness above the remaining structure, a structure that was tapered ever thicker towards the bottom.

The official story is a violation of Newton's laws of intertia, within the context of Gallileo's law of free fall bodies.

What NIST is asking people to believe, is utterly absurd!

The engineering mind

"Now, drop both, and consider that, in the second instance, with the top section falling through nothing but air, it hits bottom only one or two seconds later."

I think that should read "only one or two seconds EARLIER" -- the section falling through nothing but air hits bottom only one or two seconds earlier than the section falling through the building mass.

What I'm fascinated by is this: if everything is that simple (and I tend to think it is!), why aren't there many more engineers saying the official explanation is absurd?

I can easily think of reasons why many are silent. But how many, I wonder, have even pondered about this and then shrugged off their suspicions?

And what kind of evidence would be needed to convince a typical engineer? Is it the matter of how the reasoning is expressed, how convincing it sounds? If so, the movement should come up with simple but powerful formulations and market them to engineers the world over.

Reader comments (fire melts steel, etc)

Reading through the comments posted in response to Tim Sparke's writing I get the feeling that some of the commentators are paid to write things like "Shame on the Guardian for giving these deluded basement-dwelling morons a mainstream platform". This theme is repeated in many comments.

Another strategy seems to be to muddle waters by writing about aliens etc.

I'm a little surprised that there were not more comments from truthers. Where *were* we, guys? Well, I was at work until now, and now I'm not sure if its worth contributing...

Anyway, here are some reader comments dealing with the current topic:


I'll only respond to the most obvious whopper: conservation of momentum. At the beginning of the collapse of each tower, the tower, plus the plane debris embedded in it had zero momentum: it wasn't moving. Yes, there was an impact, but the buildings remained standing for some time after that. Newton's second law says that momentum changes in proportion to the force, and the only forces operating are gravity, and the building's own resistance to collapse. Should the building lose structural integrity, we therefore expect it to collapse in the direction of gravity: straight down. Also, steel need not melt to lose most of its strength, it only needs to get hot enough. "But it looked just like a building demolition", people say. No kidding; engineers who demolish buildings simply weaken the structural supports of the building and let gravity do the rest. An alternative approach to weakening the structural supports that no one had ever thought of before is to use a full planeload full of jet fuel.

No person who passed and understood basic physics would claim a violation of conservation of momentum.

This doesn't mean that there aren't any genuine mysteries to unravel, but too many people are circulating alternative "theories" about what happened on 11 Sep 2001 that don't withstand the laugh test. True, I don't understand what happened to WTC 7. But clearly I'm not going to learn anything from people who are so obviously wrong about very basic things.

Not sure why the speed of a building's collapse would be influenced by explosives or otherwise. As the weakining took place several floors from the top, presumably the entire weight of the top floors started down at once - placing an unimaginable weight on non-load-bearing parts of the structure, which gave way, rapidly adding their own weight to the falling mass.

You don't need "O" level chemistry to know
that fire melts steel - and at relatively low
temperatures causes it to buckle and weaken.

The intellectual level of all this typified by the bizarre statement that fire cannot melt steel. Does rather depend on the temperature, doesn't it?

"Additionally, in accepting that the towers collapsed at virtually free-fall speed ("the weight of the collapsing top storeys generated a momentum the rest of the building could not arrest"), Monbiot shows no awareness that this explanation violates the law of conservation of momentum."

This explanation does not violate the law of conservation of momentum, in fact it is an example of conservation of momentum at work. I conclude that the author does not have an even basic knowledge of physics and so should be mistrusted on this and other scientific issues.

All these comment boards

should be required to post a disclaimer that reminds their readers of the War Department's budget for propaganda spamming.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month


I found the time to post something utilizing Robert's comment above.

Show "Dynamic vs Static Load" by JamesB


Hold a bowling ball on your hand. Drop it approximately 1-2 percent of the distance to your foot, onto the other hand. Does it hurt? No, not really.

Well, maybe a little--but

Well, maybe a little--but not enough to crush the bones in your hand--to powder.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

What the hell are all the fatal flaws & errors you guys keep

harping about re: LC???

Do you exaggerate this stuff because you think truth is getting out too fast & we need to put on the breaks for a while?

I assure you, it's not getting out too fast. Bush & Co. are still on an insane rampage as if nothing is wrong.

Have a Cigar Colombo...

You have more than earnt it :)

You're my kind of detective, you see through the BS and smokescreens and ALWAYS get the perp(s) in the end !!!

Top job sir, I salute ya.

Best wishes

Just a note on Digg

If you look at this post, you see the same story was submitted to digg twice, and one was very successful. The difference seems to be one mentions the BBC. Perhaps if this story had a title like Guardian: Don't believe the official 'conspiracy' theory it would get more play on digg. That may be a bit misleading, though I bet it would get more play.

:sniff: goddamn it smells

:sniff: goddamn it smells like jealousy in here(hint hint).

Actually smells like avoidance

As in, you haven't answered a single criticism of LC2 - you have only attacked the messenger.

"Truth is not measured in mass appeal."

you sure got the hint though

you sure got the hint though didnt you? you know what it looks like dont you? how old are you calling dylan "kid" and acting like you are right now? im genuinely interested in how old you are after all of that petty bullshit.


You already said this several times to me above, so it was hardly a "hint." (Speaking of childish games...)

I'm too fucking old man. It sucks.

Now, unless you're going to actually answer with something substantive -- and whatever your problem with the rhetorical frills, I have presented a variety of substantive criticisms of LC2 above -- I wish you a happy day.

"Truth is not measured in mass appeal."

really? because to me it

really? because to me it looked like you sprinkled in quite a bit of personal attacks and childish bullshit with your "substantive criticism". someone of your age shouldnt be so angry. its really not good for you, i should know.

So let's pack me off to therapy then...

Meanwhile, can you answer this?


Basically, too many people in this "movement" never understood that less is more. Two claims for a case if they're solid are worth more than adding a third that's dubious. LC is typical for its overkill: why not go for all claims, regardless of their confirmability?

Pretending that you've got a definitive complete scenario merely invites debate on that scenario, distracting from the focus on the government's obligation to tell the truth -- or be dissolved.

In its cases for Shanksville and the Pentagon, LC2 uses selective or simply false readings of a few photos released by the government; omits contrary evidence; posits huge unnecessary conspiracies and has no sense whatsoever of the alienating impact of these claims ("Mrs. Hoglan, you're a liar! Your son didn't exist!").

Mistakes are common throughout and I think the problems with LC2 have been very well-covered by Jim Hoffman here:

I don't like how Hoffman rhetorically overemphasizes "disinformation," suggesting that LC2 is intentionally wrong. I try not to speculate about motives, anyway it's obviously possible that the LC makers are themselves being taken in by hoaxes hatched by others, and falling into their own "confirmation bias" of accepting any dubious claim if it supports their case.

Even sharper is Michael Green's excellent analysis of LC1 (Producer: Phil Jayhan, inventor of the Pod. Doesn't that say it all?) But of course not all of it applies to LC2:

What's not realized by the LC cheering crew is that chain of command response, "air defense" and WTC 7 alone; plus the post-9/11 cover-up, exploitation and lies about it; plus historical context of covert ops and false flag, are sufficient as probable cause for a criminal investigation. They show that the case is open, hat the government is culpable, that there is a rap sheet of priors, and that there is an ongoing danger.

They're also easier to package to the average person who is skeptical of such claims. Regardless of how many "millions" are swayed by LC2 -- they may have watched it, but are they swayed?

(follow to "complaint" and see the evidentiary appendices)

"Truth is not measured in mass appeal

jealousy..........(give up

jealousy..........(give up already man, this just looks bad. i never said LC2E was perfect, its far from that, and there are things they actually left out that should have been included as well as putting some things in that didnt need to be there. regardless, the positive impact of LC2E cant be denied. no matter how much crying you do on this board. grow up.)

I think the opportunity to repeat ourselves ad infinitum

Has you coming across as the inflexible one. I provide the arguments and links, and you mount no defense of LC, merely imputing motives and wringing your hands that this holy icon should be put to question.

This is not argument, it's religion. No, to be more precise: fandom. And I'd rather be accused of jealousy than of star worship.

"Truth is not measured in mass appeal."

hello jackass, LC2E is far

hello jackass, LC2E is far from perfect but rather than dwell on the ammo it gives to Mark Roberts and other shills whos opinions you clearly care way too much about, i can see the good it has done in recruiting people into the movement. hero worship? nope, its called reality. try facing it sometime you jealous old bastard. i only defend LC2E when shills like you feel the impulsive need to drag it down and ignore the good its done. personally, i usually go with 9/11 Mysteries now over LC2E anyway. no disrespect, its just my favorite dvd to hand out now. LC2E is no "holy icon" but i have seen time and time again how it has changed peoples views about 9/11. the vitriol you have for it speaks volumes about your character and how you deal with competition. we have the same goals, its sad you feel the need to attack your own like this.

Apologies to Dylan Avery

Considering Dylan Avery's clarification on his Loosechange website regarding Kevin Barrett I sincerely apologize for flipping out and hurling insults in anger.

As well I apologize to anybody else who was offended.

While I feel my concern was justified the insults were clearly not. and I could have done better

Best of luck to everybody. Looking forward to Loosechange final cut..


I thought you were leaving?

I thought you were leaving?

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

DZ hasnt cancelled my account yet

and given the turn of events I wanted to set the record straight.

And please leave it there Col. Jenny Sparks..

Okay. Whatever. But you

Okay. Whatever. But you have to admit it looked odd.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.



"Accountability time. I resign my posting privileges

For being out of sync with the general consensus in the last news item I will accept that the massive voting down of my posts there constitutes a vote of "non-confidence"

I hope this will demonstrate that I take seriously the concept of being responsible to larger goal of outing the truth and accepting that the general consensus was that I was not being helpful towards achieving that end.

I wish the best to all of you in your noble efforts.

I will be writing DZ shortly to cancel my account. Good luck to all. "

Submitted by BMAC on Mon, 02/12/2007 - 3:38am."

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

I'm pleased how it turned out

I stand by what I said except I retracted the insults and tried to exit somewhat gracefully..

Why are you pressing the issue?

*sigh* roll eyes

Look at the date stamp. It was posted AT THE SAME TIME as your post "to please drop it".

Sorry, I'm not using my time machine to go back JUST to delete this post.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Not sure what you're referring to: edit perhaps

Is this productive and what is the meaning of the antagonism.

Is this "a better world" you are creating?

Patience is a virtue...

I mean the date stamp--on the lower right--where you will also find the time of your post.

The time I finished copy/pasting/editing your "leaving us" was 6:11 pm. Moments before, at 6:10pm--so close they crossed paths so to speak--, you posted your explaination Since my agreement to drop it was on/around 6:13pm(can't see that window right now)., looking at the times you can see that came AFTER my 6:11 post, and so that post (6:11)CANNOT be a sign of me trying to pursue anything.

Personally I think this is all self explainitory if you look at the post times. Maybe you're just tired. But now it might look to some like YOU want to keep this alive.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Are you a man Jenny and "is this manly",(Saddam)?

You are out of line. Please spell out the substance of your paranoia and be willing to be accountable for any untoward insinuations.

"A better world " indeed..


Right. This must be the JREF forum. Nothing makes sense there either.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Actually I'm CIA, FBI, Army intelligence and

anything else you like.

As well I just contacted DZ to cancel my request to cancel my account.

Thanks for luring me back on board.

"A better world indeed."

I have to say this is quite

I have to say this is quite informative. Considering how bland this sub-thread it(leaving/not leaving/time stamps) people feel very strongly about it--or rather supporting their "team". All I have to do is watch the rating numbers go up and down to see how many of our mates are reading.

So far looks like three of yours are here, and two of mine. No worries; I'll catch up.

Cheers all!

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

KGB, Al Quaida, DHS Dolphin training squad ,ISI

Airport security and neighbourhood watch.....

I'm starting to have fun..

"A better world" indeed..

Monbiot also wrote a book

Monbiot also wrote a book with the subtitle "A Manifesto for a New World Order";

Amazon link

Thanks for posting this,

Thanks for posting this, Jon.

Its a pleasure to read concise arguments.
e.g. Tims few sentences above ALONE qualitfy to impeach, indict.

Here is a funny photo to take your mind off 9/11 for a moment:

I read your blog again and

I read your blog again and it stuck me as odd the thousands of gallons of desiel fuel keeps getting trotted out as an explaination of the WTC 7 collapse.

Hmm, deisel fuel must be cheaper than RDX--perhaps someone should tell demolition firms to switch from explosives to petrol? If we are to believe the OT, the result is the same!


Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

When You are grasping for straws...

and find that diesel fuel is in the building...Viola! Another hydrocarbon! Just like Kerosene, except the explaination about how that diesel fuel got fed throughout trade center 7 is quite a fable itself. Diesel fuel is not explosive like Kerosene is and it certainly does not burn any hotter, but wouldn't somebody have thought to cut the power so those pumps would stop? I'm not a firefighter, but I would believe it would make sense to cut the power to reduce the risk of electrocution by an unseen live wire.
They certainly notify utility companies to shut off the gas, why not shut the electricity off also?

No George Monbiot, These Are The Facts of September 11th 2001

February 16, 2007
No George Monbiot, These Are The Facts of September 11th 2001
By johndoraemi
Response to The UK Guardian Hit Piece

Crimes of the State

Mr. Monbiot has taken the standard media attack approach: conflate the internet film "Loose Change" with the subject of September 11th US government complicity. How brave to redo the same smear that has gone around for several years now focusing on the easily challenged claims, and ignoring the full breadth (and breathtaking amount) of evidence.


1. The president of the United States, when informed that a second plane had struck the World Trade Center, continued to read about a pet goat.

2. This same president was moved from his high rise hotel in Genoa Italy two months previously for security reasons, because of a known al Qaeda plot for hijacking and "crashing an airliner into the Genoa summit of industrialized nations." The assumption in July 2001 was that there existed a plot that "terrorists would try to crash a plane to kill Bush and other leaders" (LA Times, 9-27-01).

3. The Secret Service did not secure the president, even though his location was publicly disclosed in the press for days before the school photo op on 9/11. This was a break in standard operating procedures that left the president vulnerable in the middle of a purported "attack" on America.

4. NORAD has told three different and conflicting stories explaining why no ! jet figh ters intercepted any of the four hijacked airliners.

5. Vice President Richard Cheney was placed in charge of anti-terrorism training and military preparedness exercises by Bush on May 8, 2001. This gave him command authority during the 9/11 attacks because as many as nine war game exercises involving military and intelligence agencies were occurring simultaneously.

6. The military's "Air Piracy" regulations were rewritten on June 1st 2001 to require the "Secretary of Defense" to give "approval" for military escort aircraft in the event of a hijacking. Donald Rumsfeld gave no "approval" that day.

7. More than an hour and fifteen minutes after the first hijacking was reported by FAA, the US military headquarters at the Pentagon was struck without any defensive action taken to stop the attack. The impact was on the west side, for some reason the only side that had been "hardened" with blast-proof windows and specially reinforced walls. None of the highest ranking military leadership were located on that side.

8. (TRANSCRIPT) Air Force General Richard Myers: "When it became clear what the threat was, we did scramble fighter aircraft, AWACS, radar aircraft and tanker aircraft to begin to establish orbits in case other aircraft showed up in the FAA system that were hijacked..."

Senator Carl Levin: "Was that order that you just described given before or after the Pentagon was struck? Do you know?"

Air Force General Richard Myers: "That order, to the best of my knowledge, was after the Pentagon was struck."

Reality intrudes. It became "clear what the threat was," the moment the first hijacked airliner struck the North Tower at 8:45am. This congressional testimony is inexcusable and grounds for investigation into criminal negligence, dereliction of duty, and treason.

9. "President Bush personally asked Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle Tuesday to limit the congressional investigation into the events of September 11..." ..."Tuesday' s discussion followed a rare call to Daschle from Vice President Dick Cheney last Friday to make the same request."

10. The Project For a New American Century, which wrote of the need for a "catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor," had members throughout the top of the government on 9/11 including Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, Bolton, Armitage, Abrams, Wurmser, as well as Bush's brother, the governor of Florida, Jeb.

11. Four days before 9/11, Jeb Bush activated the Florida National Guard, "Based on the potential massive damage to life and property that may result from an act of terrorism at a Florida port." (Executive Order 01-261).

12. On 9/11 Jeb Bush declared a "State of Emergency" in Florida (E.O. 01-262). "I hereby delegate to the Department of Law Enforcement the operational authority to coordinate and direct the law enforcement resources and other resources of any and all state, regional and local governmental agencies..." And by 2am on 9/12/01, Jeb Bush was reported to have confiscated the police records in Venice, FL related to the Huffman Aviation flight school. Two rental trucks full of these records drove onto a C-130 military aircraft at Sarasota Airport and flew out with Jeb Bush aboard.

13. Huffman Aviation flight school, where Mohamed Atta and other alleged hijackers trained, had a Lear jet seized by the DEA with "43 pounds of heroin" onboard. No one was ever prosecuted in connection with the "biggest drug seizure in central Florida history."

14. The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States ("9/11 Commission") was a blatant and obvious cover-up under the control of Bush administration member and "Executive Director" Phillip Zelikow. This cover-up can be proven easily with one example: the time of Dick Cheney's arrival at the Presidential Emergency Operations Center ("PEOC bunker"). Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta testified under oath that Cheney was present at 9:20am and issuing "orders" related to the plane that struck the Pentagon. Mineta's testimony was completely omitted from their final report, and a fraudulent time of 9:58am for Cheney's arrival was given instead (book pg 40 / .pdf file pg 57).

15. The 9/11 Commission was originally only given $3 million to investigate the greatest terrorist attacks on US soil in our history. The Bush administration then witheld requested documents forcing the Commissioners to issue subpoenas to FAA and the Department of Defense.

16. So many lies were told by Bush administration officials regarding warnings before the attacks, that it is difficult to count them. Ari Fleischer's two word response, "No warnings," aboard Air Force One on 9/11, sums up the administration' s claim.

17. Contrary to the Bush administration' s claim: "Newspapers in Germany, France, Russia and London reported in the months before September 11th of a blizzard of warnings delivered to the Bush administration from all points on the compass. The German intelligence service BND warned American and Israeli agencies that terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft and use them as weapons to attack important American targets. Egypt warned of a similar plane-based plot against Bush during the G-8 summit in Genoa last June [2001], a warning taken so seriously that anti-aircraft batteries were placed around Columbus Airport in Italy. Last August [2001], Russian intelligence services notified the CIA that 25 terrorist pilots had been trained for suicide missions, and Putin himself confirmed that this warning was delivered 'in the strongest possible terms' specifically regarding threats to airports and government buildings." -Newsweek, May 20, 2002

18. In July of 2001, CIA Director George Tenet and CIA counterterrorism chief J. Cofer Black claim to have made a detailed presentation and warned National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Attorney General John Ashcroft of imminent attacks on US soil by Al Qaeda operatives. This was also omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report.

19. Many more warnings stretching back to the early 1990s were known to intelligence agencies and to FBI. These warnings expose as a lie National Security Advisor Rice's response: "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile."

20. March 7, 2001: "The Russian Permanent Mission at the United Nations secretly submits "an unprecedentedly detailed report" to the UN Security Council about bin Laden, his whereabouts, details of his al-Qaeda network, Afghan drug running, and Taliban connections to Pakistan and the ISI. The report provides "a listing of all bin Laden's bases, his government contacts and foreign advisers," and enough information to potentially locate and kill him. It is said to contain an "astonishing degree of information. " The US fails to use the information in any noticable manner. Alex Standish, the editor of the highly respected Jane's Intelligence Review, concludes that the attacks of 9/11 were less of an American intelligence failure than the result of "a political decision not to act against bin Laden." [Jane's Intelligence Review, 10/5/2001; Times of India, 10/8/2001]

21. On August 6, 2001 a CIA briefer went to Bush's Crawford ranch to read the president a briefing called, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" (2 redacted pages out of 11 reported). After the briefing, Bush told the CIA man, "All right. You've covered your ass, now." Bush then went fishing.

22. Minneapolis FBI Agent and Legal Advisor Colleen Rowley (21 year veteran) said that the FBI Headquarters Special Supervisory Agent, "seemed to have been consistently, almost deliberately thwarting the Minneapolis FBI agents' efforts ...continued to, almost inexplicably, throw up roadblocks and undermine Minneapolis' by-now desperate efforts to obtain a FISA search warrant, long after the French intelligence service provided its information and probable cause became clear. ...Even after the attacks had begun, the SSA in question was still attempting to block the search of Moussaoui's computer, characterizing the World Trade Center attacks as a mere coincidence. ...HQ personnel never disclosed to the Minneapolis agents that the Phoenix Division had, only approximately three weeks earlier, warned of Al Qaeda operatives in flight schools seeking flight training for terrorist purposes!"

23. FBI Special Agent Robert Wright (12 year veteran) said: ""[T]here existed a concerted effort on the part of agents conducting counterterrorism intelligence investigations to insulate the subjects of their investigations from criminal investigation and prosecution. " ..."The supervisor ...started yelling at me: 'You will not open criminal investigations. I forbid any of you. You will not open criminal investigations against any of these intelligence subjects.'" ..."(T)here is virtually no effort on the part of the FBI's International Terrorism Unit to neutralize known and suspected terrorists residing within the United States."

"A lawyer speaking for (FBI Special Agent) Wright after 9/11 will blame Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division Michael Chertoff for refusing to take Wright's concerns seriously before 9/11." Chertoff will later be appointed to become head of the Orwellian-named Department of Homeland Security.

"Larry Klayman, one of two lawyers now representing [FBI Agent] Wright, later says he calls the Justice Department a few days after 9/11 and asks that Wright be allowed to present his issues to Attorney General John Ashcroft. Klayman claims he receives a reply from Michael Chertoff, then head of the Criminal division, who refuses to meet with Wright and says, "We are tired of conspiracy theories."

FBI Agent Wright says at his press conference: "Corruption is knowing when something is not being done, knowing when the American people are being left unprotected and when you make a decision not to do something to protect the American people... And you effectively allow 9/11 to occur. That is the ultimate form of government corruption-derelict ion of duty. That's subject in the military to prosecution, to court martial.... Frankly, if not treason."

24. FBI Agent Harry Samit, who before 9/11 sent 70 communications to supervisors warning them of Moussauoi's plan to hijack a commercial jet and crash it -- to no avail -- has said, "...(I)f you're not going to advance this the FISA route, or if you don't believe we have enough for a FISA, I shudder to think-and that's all I got out. And [Supervisory Special Agent Mike Maltbie] cut me off and said, 'You will not question the unit chief [David Frasca] and you will not question me. We've been through a lot. We know what's going on. You will not question us.'"

25. On July 10, 2001 FBI Agents in Phoenix AZ issued a memo to FBIHQ requesting that headquarters investigate flight schools across the U.S. to look for middle eastern filight students connected to international terrorist organizations. Nothing was done, and the information was not shared.

26. "The [FBI Inspector General] report attributes the inaction and inattention to the lack of resources committed to anti-terrorist activities in the summer of 2001. For instance, there was only a single research analyst assigned to the FBI's Bin Laden Unit in 2001, and she was transferred to another unit in July 2001."

27. "Although the FBI's counterterrorism budget tripled during the mid-1990s, its counterterrorism spending stayed fairly constant between fiscal years 1998 and 2001" ..."Then-acting FBI Director Thomas Pickard said he appealed to Ashcroft for more money for counterterrorism but on Sept 10, 2001, one day before the attacks on New York and Washington that killed nearly 3,000 people, Ashcroft rejected the appeal."

28. "At issue is a July 5, 2001, meeting between Ashcroft and acting FBI Director Tom Pickard."

"'Mr. Ashcroft told you that he did not want to hear about this anymore,' Democratic commission member Richard Ben-Veniste asked on April 13. 'Is that correct?'"

"'That is correct,' Pickard replied."

..."(A)nother senior FBI official tells NBC News he vividly recalls Pickard returning from the meeting that day furious that Ashcroft had cut short the terrorism briefing. Several sources familiar with the investigation say Garcia confirmed to the commission that Ashcroft did indeed dismiss Pickard's warnings about al-Qaida."

29. FBI Translator Sibel Edmonds has become the most gagged whistleblower in the country's history. In a letter to 9/11 Commissioner Thomas Kean, she said, ""If Counterintelligence receives information that contains money laundering, illegal arms sale, and illegal drug activities, directly linked to terrorist activities; and if that information involves certain nations, certain semi-legit organizations, and ties to certain lucrative or political relations in this country, then, that information is not shared with Counterterrorism, regardless of the possible severe consequences. In certain cases, frustrated FBI agents cited 'direct pressure by the State Department,' and in other cases 'sensitive diplomatic relations' is cited. ...Your hearings did not include questions regarding these unspoken and unwritten policies and practices. Despite your full awareness and understanding of certain criminal conduct that connects to certain terrorist related activities, committed by certain US officials and high-level government employees, you have not proposed criminal investigations into this conduct, although under the laws of this country you are required to do so."

Another FBI translator, who had been "shielding" the targets of FBI investigations, told Sibel Edmonds: ""Why are you doing this, Sibel? Why don't you just drop it? You know there could be serious consequences. Why put your family in Turkey in danger over this?" Sibel Edmonds' sister was reportedly sought by Turkish police shortly after this incident.

30. The FBI's top Al Qaeda investigator, John O'Neill, "resigned in July of 2001 in protest over the obstruction of terrorist investigations."

31. Two of the alleged hijackers lived openly in San Diego with an FBI informant for over a year: "The FBI inspector general's report reveals for the first time that the CIA not only failed to inform the FBI about [Al] Mihdhar, but that CIA officials intervened to suppress a memorandum drafted by an FBI agent detailed to the CIA-run Counter-Terrorism Center (CTC), who wanted to notify the FBI about the suspected terrorist with a US visa."

"One FBI official familiar with the case will later complain, "[The CIA] purposely hid [Almihdhar] from the FBI, purposely refused to tell the bureau. ...And that's why September 11 happened. ...They have blood on their hands." [Bamford, 2004, pp. 224, A Pretext for War: 9/11, Iraq, and the Abuse of America's Intelligence Agencies]

32. The 9/11 Commission, at the orchestration of Bush administration member and "Executive Director" Phillip Zelikow, wrote: "To date, the US government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. ...Ultimately the question of the origin of the funds is of little practical significance."

33. The Times of India reported that Indian Intelligence had traced the wire transfers of over $100,000 from British born terrorist and reported MI6 and ISI asset Omar Saeed Sheikh in the UAE to Mohamed Atta in Florida, on the orders of the head of Pakistani intelligence Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad. This was reportedly confirmed by the FBI. The Pakistani ISI chief Ahmad resigned immediately, but he has never been sought by US authorities for funding and participating in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

34. ISI chief Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad was in Washington DC the week prior to 9/11, meeting with CIA Director George Tenet and other high ranking US officials including Tenet's replacement at CIA Porter Goss.

35. During the ISI chief's stay in Washington, Osama bin Laden was reportedly admitted to the Pakistani military hospital in Rawalpindi on September 10, 2001 by CBS News.

36. Osama bin Laden was also reportedly admitted to a US MILITARY HOSPITAL in Dubai, UAE, in July of 2001 for kidney dialysis treatment. There bin Laden is said to have met with the CIA station chief, Larry Mitchell.! < /div>
37. Senator Bob Graham, head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said: "I was surprised at the evidence that there were foreign governments [Plural!] involved in facilitating the activities of at least some of the terrorists in the United States." ..."I think there is very compelling evidence that at least some of the terrorists were assisted not just in financing -- although that was part of it -- by a sovereign foreign government and that we have been derelict in our duty to track that down, make the further case, or find the evidence that would indicate that that is not true."

38. Senator Bob Graham also said: "High officials in [the Saudi Arabian] government, who I assume were not just rogue officials acting on their own, made substantial contributions to the support and wellbeing of two of these terrorists and facilitated their ability to plan, practise and then execute the tragedy of September 11." These investigations remain blocked, classified, covered-up and unresolved to this day by the Bush administration' s clear Obstruction of Justice.

39. Senator and 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned, saying: "This is the most serious independent investigation since the Warren Commission. And after watching History Channel shows on the Warren Commission last night, the Warren Commission blew it. I'm not going to be part of that. I'm not going to be part of looking at information only partially. I'm not going to be part of just coming to quick conclusions. I'm not going to be part of political pressure to do this or not do that. I'm not going to be part of that. This is serious."

40. At least 7 of the alleged "hijackers" were reported to be still alive. Neither the FBI nor the 9/11 Commissio! n correc ted the identities, and the government has treated the issue of who exactly attacked America on September 11th as relatively unimportant. The flight manifests released by the airlines did not contain any of the names of the hijackers (who supposedly bought tickets just like everybody else), and there are discrepancies in the number of persons reported to be onboard the airliners. This also has not been explained by officials, at all.

41. The Dulles Airport security camera video released as evidence of hijackers has no time or date stamp, nor any other coded information, which suggests that it may not be authentic.

42. The aircraft "black boxes" from the World Trade Center site were admittedly recovered by NYC Fireman Nicholas DeMassi. The FBI, NTSB and the 9/11 Commission all deny they were ever recovered at all.

43. Congress shoveled $15 Billion of taxpayer money to the airlines immediately after 9/11 as one of the first responses to the attacks.

44. The autopsy report from the Pentagon crash site contains no mention of any of the hijackers.

45. Up to 200 Israeli agents were arrested and detained in relation to September 11th. This includes five Mossad agents who were celebrating the World Trade Center job with "cries of joy and mockery." The Justice Department (sic) released all of the Israelis, and the entire matter was made "classified. "

46. "According to several Weehawken neighbors of the [Israeli MOSSAD front operation] Urban Moving Systems warehouse, the FBI, upon searching the warehouse, discovered fertilizer, other chemicals for making explosives, pipes, caps, and traces of anthrax. After anthrax was discovered, investigators wearing hazardous material suits went through the warehouse."

47. "On the night of the Sept. 11 attacks, the White House Medical Office dispensed [the anthrax drug] Cipro to staff accompanying Vice President Dick Cheney as he was secreted off to the safety of Camp David..." The public was not warned about anthrax or alerted about Cipro for another six weeks, when anthrax-laden letters were sent through the mail to top Democratic congressmen and to others.

48. "Palestinians" were accused of committing the 9/11 attacks by Israeli MOSSAD operatives. One of the arrested MOSSAD agents told the police, "We are Israelis, we are not your problem. Your problems are our problem. Palestinians are the problem." A phone call to the "Jersey City Police Department ...claimed 'Palestinians' in Arab clothes were seen celebrating the attacks." Was this MOSSAD referring to their own covert agents? At 9:43am on 9/11, "Abu Dhabi television reports it received a call from the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, claiming responsibility for crashing two planes into the WTC. However leading officials later deny the claim."

49. Israeli instant messaging firm Odigo received warnings of the World Trade Center attacks 2 hours before they occurred.

50. Zim American / Israeli Shipping broke its lease in the World Trade Center and evacuated one week before the attacks. The company is 49% owned by the Israeli government.

51. Although the Israeli government sent MOSSAD officers to "warn" the U.S. about imminent terror attacks in August 2001: "'They had no specific information about what was being planned but linked the plot to Osama bin Laden and told the Americans that there were strong grounds for suspecting Iraqi involvement,' said a senior Israeli security official." Mixing Osama bin Laden together with his enemy Saddam Hussein has been a ridiculous propaganda exercise, and exposed as such.

52. Fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused a steel-framed building to completely collapse. Three gigantic steel-framed skyscrapers were alleged to have collapsed from the effects of fire, including the 47 story building 7 which was not hit by a plane. The Twin Towers and building 7 displayed numerous characteristics of controlled demolition including free fall speed, collapsing into footprints, pulverization of all the concrete, and the sounds and appearances of explosive charges, as reported by many eyewitnesses. Needless to say, this has not been investigated officially, because officials refuse to admit the possibility existed at all.

53. "Fire Engineering [Magazine] has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything."

54. "'The decision to rapidly recycle the steel columns, beams and trusses from the WTC in the days immediately after 9/11 means definitive answers may never be known.'[NY Times] The next week, Fire Engineering magazine said: 'We are literally treating the steel removed from the site like garbage, not like crucial fire scene evidence ...The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately. '" (Griffin)

55. Ben Fountain, who worked in the South Tower, told People Magazine, "Over the past few weeks we'd been evacuated a number of times, which is unusual. I think they had an inkling something was going on."

56. On Thursday, September 6, 2001 bomb-sniffing dogs were removed and the security threat level at the World Trade Center was downgraded.

57. Scott Forbes who worked in the South Tower described a "power down" on the weekend before 9/11, which was corroborated by WTC janitor William Rodriquez in his RICO lawsuit. The power down knocked out communications, computer systems, and security cameras. Numerous workmen were reported, and the sounds of heavy construction, and a pervasive grey dust was found on the 97th floor by Forbes.

58. William Rodriguez also reported bombs in the basement levels and on various floors. After describing a series of explosions, Rodriguez heard that floor 65 had completely collapsed (nowhere near the plane impact zone). Rodriguez also claims to have heard construction on floor 34 affter the plane impacts, a floor that wasn't in use.

59. President Bush's brother Marvin Bush had been a director for Securacom (now Stratasec) that was in charge of security for the WTC, United Airlines and Dulles Airport (where Flight 77 originated). An Israeli security firm, ICTS International had security responsibilities at Boston Logan airport and other airports involved in the September 11th attacks.

60. On September 10, 2001 Willie Brown, the mayor of San Francisco, received a warning not to fly. He credited who he called "my security people at the airport." No FAA warnings had been issued however "in recent days."

61. "On Sept. 10, NEWSWEEK has learned, a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns."

62. "The author Salman Rushdie believes that US authorities knew of an imminent terrorist strike when they banned him from taking internal flights in Canada and the US only a week before the attacks. On September 3 the Federal Aviation Authority made an emergency ruling to prevent Mr Rushdie from flying unless airlines complied with strict and costly security measures."

63. "The Federal Aviation Administration said Friday it provided 15 warnings to airlines regarding possible terrorist attacks -- including al Qaeda hijackings -- in the months leading up to September 11. ...The FAA mentioned Osama bin Laden or al Qaeda in alerts the agency sent to domestic airlines." At this same time, July 2001, the FAA inexplicably terminated a firearms certification program for commercial airline pilots, which had made it legal for pilots to be armed since 1961.

64. A military data mining operation called Able Danger created a presentation chart in 2000 that allegedly included four future 9/11 hijackers. Their recommendation to send the data to the FBI was thwarted by military lawyers and by higher ranking officers. Yellow stickers were placed over the photographs of Mohamed Atta and the others. Although this information was brought directly to several of the 9-11 Commissioners, including Phillip Zelikow, it was never mentioned in their final report.

65. Purported "lead hijacker" Mohamed Atta was already known to US intelligence when he was living in Germany. "He is 'reportedly observed buying large quantities of chemicals in Frankfurt, apparently for the production of explosives [and/or] for biological warfare.' ...'The US agents reported to have trailed Atta are said to have failed to inform the German authorities about their investigation, ' even as the Germans are investigating many of his associates."

66. "Military records show that hijackers Saeed and Ahmed Alghamdi listed their address on driver licenses and car registrations as 10 Radford Blvd., a base roadway where residences for foreign-military flight trainees are located, according to Newsweek (9-15-2001) ...(A) now-mysteriously deceased, Pensacola naval flight instructor from the Royal Saudi Air Force had the same name [Alghamdi] and also lived and worked at the U.S. naval air base."

67. "U.S. military sources have given the FBI information that suggests five of the alleged hijackers of the planes that were used in [the 9/11] terror attacks received training at secure U.S. military installations in the 1990s."

68. "Ali Mohamed was involved with most of the major al Qaeda attacks against U.S. interests: ...the 1993 WTC bombing, the African Embassy bombings in 1998 and, even though he was arrested in late 1998, [Peter] Lance proposes that he also helped train some of the 9/11 hijackers in hijacking techniques. Astoundingly, Mohamed participated in these operations while also being a U.S. citizen, being enlisted in the U.S. military, ...and being an FBI informant in California. Importantly, ...he also had ties to the CIA."

69. While "Loose Change" is attacked for getting some things incorrect, the film does correctly describe Operation Northwoods, which was approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1962. The military planners expressly said: "We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington [DC]. ...Harassment of civil air, attacks on surface shipping, and destruction of US military drone aircraft by MIG type planes would be useful as complementary actions. ...We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute to Florida (real or simulated). ...At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases."

70. And, while Operation Northwoods was not implemented, another U.S. state-sponsored terror campaign called Operation Gladio did murder innocent civilians across Europe at the orchestration of the CIA (BBC Documentary on Operation Gladio).

If you would like to suggest additions or corrections to this article, please email your evidence to johndoraemi -- at -- yahoo.com.

Authors Bio: John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog: http://crimesofthes tate.blogspot. com/

We must be the change we wish to see in the world. M Gandhi