Massive Weekend Grabbag

Lots of news to post, if we have missed yours, feel free to send it in again. Between all of us, we must get 50-60 submissions in total a day, so its easy to miss one here and there. Thanks to everyone who sent these in:

Jim Marrs on the Charles Goyette Show:

42 MB local mirror here:

Two new articles at the Journal of 9/11 Studies:

118 Witnesses: The Firefighter's Testimony to Explosions in the Twin towers:

NIST Data Disproves Collapse Theories Based on Fire:

History Channel Ad for an Airing of Loose Change 2 on September 11 at 7PM in New Zealand:

September 11 Photography Exhibit:

Hosted by Chicago Arts District Exhibitions
Only 5 Minutes South of Downtown Chicago
1915 S. Halsted Avenue - 19th & Halsted

Whistleblowercomes forward regarding 9/11 environmental concerns:

9/11: A One Man Play:

The Process of Transformation:

Do It Yourself Impeachment:

Did Insiders Milk Terror Plot for Criminal Trading?

Only 20% Of Britons Believe Blair On Terror Threats:

new front page

I made a new front page to my site, check it out.

if anyone's got photoshop skills that are better than me and can improve or re-design what i've done, contact me and i'll send you the files.

Looks nice. IMO you should

Looks nice. IMO you should make the large '911' more bright and saturated. Just an opnion.

I can't download that Jim

I can't download that Jim Marrs interview on the Charles Goyette show, is there no other server on which it can be placed??

Hey Anonymous, I have set up

Hey Anonymous, I have set up a local mirror to download from, refresh your page...

Everyone Should Carefully Read This Article...

Posted here yesterday, a very strong article by Dr Judy Wood (and Morgan Reynolds) attacking Professor Jones' work. Read the article carefully. You may become sick to your stomach, but will conclude that Jones is either being manipulated/controlled, or worse, actually in on it. Assuming it's true, I would be the last one to have to admit this, with all the work I've done promoting his theories.

Also see the article titled Strange Coincidence. Dr Wood and Michael were doing experminents on molten aluminum to prove Jones' theory wrong. Michael got killed, Dr Wood got fired, and the molten metal video referenced in Jones' paper is possibly fake. (It did look funny to me when I watched it months ago, but turned a blind eye.)

IMO, Steven Jones' work, at the present time, is a limited hangout.

What will expose media complicity in 9/11, will be scientists coming forward to explain that aluminum jumbo jets do not slice through structural steel like the Roadrunner through a cliffside, assuming that's correct.

BS Alert

These attacks on Jones are so superficial and transparent.

He must really have some people worried.

in denial.... not looking at evidence

just like believers in the boxcutter theory.

If you found that

If you found that transparent hit piece and No Planes Theory promo "a very strong article" I think you need to reevaluate some things.

you're in denial... not looking at evidence

just like believers in the boxcutter theory

holy crap the no planers are

holy crap the no planers are on the attack, watch out everybody!

Anonymous, for a Truther you should be ashamed of yourself

There's evidence that Jones' analysis is faulty. It has nothing to do with the NPT.

Are you a disinfo agent? If not, then stop discouraging people from looking at evidence. That's what disinfo agents would do :-)

No Plane Theory has been

No Plane Theory has been adequetely disputed, please see JT's response.


I find it hard to give much credibility to this paper when they argue steel ablation/vaporization of the north spire and invoke secret unproven weapons technologies such as scalar weapons when a simply viewing of public video shows that the north tower spire simply collapsed and there was no such exotic process in play. See:

I have written both Morgan and Judy about this and has not yet received a response.

Although I had heard Michael was killed, I had not heard Judy was fired. Could you please provide a reference. This is news to me.

Also, Morgan and Judy seem to be aligned with the No Plane view, which I have only begun to review. However, a quick view of Dr. Jones Questions and Answers PDF, shows a frame by frame analysis of the second plane impacting the tower and it shows a decceleration takes place suggesting the plane is indeed what is looks like, a real object. Also a Moire analysis of displacement of the left most window on the 70th floor of WTC2 shows oscillitory behavior indicative of something with significant kinetic energy impacting the building (slide 171 - 174)... Also, if the no plane theory is in fact true, then there should be many amateur videos taken which show ONLY a WTC explosion and no plane impacting the building. I have yet to see this. (And yes, I have seen video of an explosion with no plane in it... However, the zoom and viewpoint of the filmer precluded the ability to capture a view of the aircraft trajectory in these videos. Nobody is arguing that there weren't many people who saw or videotaped ONLY the explosion, but unless the video shows both the explosion and the aircraft trajectory with no aircraft visibility immediately preceeding the explosion, it does not prove anything in my opinion.)..

So.. Although this paper raises some interesting points, in no way shape or form does it prove Dr. Jones is some sort of credibility problem. In fact, until Reynolds and Wood address this Northern Spire metal ablation/vaporization claim which is in contradiction with public video, their credibility is greatly in question in my mind.

We Must Work Together

This whole thing must be a set up for the Truth Movement. But since we can not prove it, why not beat them at their own game? The point we must get across to the public is that we don't know what really happened on 9/11. I definatly believe that planes DID hit the towers, but the point is that we have unanswered questions about 9/11 and we need an independent investigation (or all out revolution).

Either way we must work together and not battle eachother's credibility. My take on the recent Morgan Reynolds article is that, Scholars for 9/11 Truth is the most credible 9/11 organization, and at least 75% of the truth movement confirm with their claims, therefore I see this as an op to discredit the Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

I don't know the physics behind whether

aluminum would penetrate or snap off when crashing into structural steel at 500MPH, but I'm becoming more and more convinced that the video/pictures of molten metal pouring from the south tower is a fake. If it is a fake, then so is Jones' work.

Dr Wood, with degrees in Civil Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, etc. explains how it's physically impossible for a jumbo jet to do that. I will await someone with similar expertise to counter her claims.

I personally don't see why anyone would assume real 767s were used. What's the purpose? But, hey,, that's just me!!

The purpose? the cover

The purpose? the cover story. What other possible way could they blame the destruction of those towers on just 19 men? Planes being flown into the buildings was the myth they wanted to sell, that should be easy to understand.

Reynolds and Wood. Their

Reynolds and Wood.

Their credibility has just disapeared down the toilet with that paper.
I had respect for Wood and now? The paper is a joke,hence the Roadrunner comparison,hardly serious and scientific is it?
I just cant believe they would seriously propose that the images we all saw on live television of the second plane impact,the obvious plane,the huge fireball,the debris flying out all over the shop,were fake? That the plane didnt exist in reality?

Has anybody watched "911 In Plane Sight",yes i know that some of the claims in that particular DVD are rediculous aswell,such as the "pod" rubbish. But there is a woman eyewitness on there,recorded on tape looking up,fleeing with the crowd right after the second plane hit declaring "that was not an american airlines". Whether she thought the plane was something other than an American Airlines or not,she DID see a plane hit the WTC.
So was the women not realy there either? Was she fake? Was she a plant? An actress?

Judy Wood,if you really are serious about revealing the truth then come back to reality. Or is your agenda different from ours and decent honest people like Steven Jones?

don't let the North Spire issue disprove all else

and I never said I believed the NPT 100% anyway.

Look into the South Tower molten aluminum pix/videos. What Judy said is true... the flow does switch windows. Why won't Jones explain why/where the tape was spliced?

Whether a "secret weapon" was used isn't the point. And this is something I've been wondering for a long time... but decided to just trust good ol' Dr Jones without question... how did all that concrete and steel get pulverized from just thermite and RDX? It just doesn't seem very plausible.

Jones' previously-molten-metal samples are not authenticated. Any results from a scientific analysis of unauthenticated samples mean absolutely nothing. In fact, if it's not authenticated, then the analysis cannot even be considered scientific. There is no arson invesigation. It's nothing but a distraction.

Jones is a full professor in a major university. BYU hasn't suffered any budget cuts, have they? If Rep Nass can mess up UW's budget because of Kevin Barrett...

This is getting old

These attacks on Jones are getting old.

Go earn your Ph.D. in physics, write a peer-reviewed paper, and prove him wrong.

Stop smearing him with this junk science.

Truthers need to be strong

But perhaps you're right. Jones will be here in NYC in a couple weeks. We should ask him, specifically, why he claims to be doing an arson investigation, when there's no proof of authenticity of his samples. Maybe he has proof but just keeping it secret??

The Anonymous handle is

The Anonymous handle is getting old. Grow a pair and use a screen name.

S4, what if Jones is a fake?

I hate to think it, but I have been suspicious even before Wood/Reynolds paper. This is very unsettling. The way he lumped WTC 7 with the Towers in his paper did not seem right to me, nor his claim that thermite couldn't have been used for cleanup because the truck headlights were still on. (What does *that* have to do with anything?)

Also the North Tower antenna seems to literally turn to dust on all video footage with the exception (of course) of the Zionist controlled MSM footage.

And the video of molten metal pouring from the south tower never looked, even from the beginning. Similar to that "plume" photo from flight 93... funny looking.

I get the feeling we've all been bamboozled.

S4, what if Jones is a fake?

I'm not sweating it, CB. We were doing just fine as a movement before Jones and the rest of the squirrely bunch of scholars came along. We've already proven that the official 9.11 story is a lie. No one can change that.

"You don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows." -Dylan

"I hate to think it, but I

"I hate to think it, but I have been suspicious even before Wood/Reynolds paper. This is very unsettling. The way he lumped WTC 7 with the Towers in his paper did not seem right to me, nor his claim that thermite couldn't have been used for cleanup because the truck headlights were still on. (What does *that* have to do with anything?)"

Man - you're literally "bambling rublles"!
Do you know this guy? Does CB_Brooklyn was always like this?
Thermite haven't been used for cleanup - it's been checked. (Why am i responding to this bullshit anyway?)

it's amazing how brainwashed ppl within this movement really are

Thermite haven't been used for cleanup - it's been checked. (Why am i responding to this bullshit anyway?)

totally unscientific and childish statement. Not looking at facts. Making blind assumstions. I'm getting the feeling 9/11 Truth is a waste of time. If people within the Movement itself won't wake up....

Re: This is getting old

Your Anonymous handle is getting old. Grow a pair and use a screen name.

molten metal video fake?

CB, I've seen another video of it -- from a news helicopter I believe. Do you know which one I'm talking about? If not, I'll try to find it. Anyway, planes hit the towers. Anyone who is promoting no planes is disinfo -period. There are far too many witnesses who heard and saw the planes. Anyone promoting that BS needs to be drummed out of the movement.

ummm.. I wouldn't jump to conclusions

scientific analysis versus eyewittness accounts..


*something* hit the towers, I agree on that!!

please find that other link if you can.

Re: I wouldn't jump to conclusions

Too late. CB, planes hit the towers -period. Don't fall into the no plane disinfo trap. I'll try to find the video.

what type of plane

767, 737, airbus, cessna?

none of those is a hologram,

none of those is a hologram, and none are consisitent with the "No Plane Theory"

my understanding is NPT has many variants

CGI (on-the-fly, live video overlay) is very believable though. Baseball, football use it all the time.

As far as no plane at all, or a flying device of some type that does not look a plane, I'll respond with a quote from Judy Wood in an email she sent me: "You don't need to worry about the hologram issue. We need to start with WHAT happened, before we can figure out HOW it happened."

So... what happened? Did aluminum wings cleanly slice through structural steel and vanish inside the buildings? Is that physically possible? Only those with the required expertise are qualified to debate and determine this. Jones has not addressed this as of yet. He should have the expertise

CGI isn't believable at all,

CGI isn't believable at all, because of the thousands of witnesses and all of the amatuer videos. No one would ever plan this attack in New York and not take that into account, the fact that you would have all these amatuer videos pointing at the towers after the first stricke.

Case closed on CGI/holograms.

Now what kind of plane hit? 767, 737, modifications, etc.? All of that goes against the NPT.

Darleen Druyun - Person of Interest

Darleen Druyun, former No. 2 acquisition executive for the Air Force and future Boeing vice president, was sentenced to 9 months for treason - for illegally modifying Boeing aircraft.

look here

here and here

Re: what type of plane

IMO nothing smaller than a 737 was used on the 2nd tower. The first tower I don't know, because there's not enough video footage to determine what type of plane hit it.

CB, is this the video Reynolds and Wood are saying is a fake?

If that's what you're talking about, I know for a fact that there's at least one other video taken from another angle -- the helicopter footage I mentioned earlier. Still looking for it, though, can't remember where I saw it.

look at these pictures.

Although there's a six minute gap between them, notice anything strange?




Nice one.

But it still leaves too much room for me to allow shifting debris, and path of least resistance.

Are you suggesting both have been manipulated, I suspect not.

Addressing another point from above, and as a metal worker myself... I do not see aluminum, but more likely steel (iron) spilling from any number of locations and reasons.

What I do see without any doubt in my mind... (based on such photos which I have no way to authenticate, and the official story to-date) is HEAT, far more intense and concentrated to produce an incandescent flow in daylight. I can not compute enough BTUs from jet fuel and office material burning in such a disorganized and oxygen depriving manner capable of producing such a flow, without the crucibles' glow showing through (some-kind of crucible formed by extraordinary chance of throwing tin-darts and lamp-oil into an erector set and office equipment. I'm choking on the impossibility of it all)


"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.

look at this pix

Is it scientifically possible for an aluminum wing to cleanly slice through structual steel like that?

Dr Judy Wood, PhD in Civil Engineering and MS in Mechanical Engineering says no. I await another scientist with similar credentials to (scientifically) counter her claims.

Let's not fall for a "Romero"!! Unscientific, "certainly the buildings came down from fire" :)

Time for some real hardcore science to find out what really happened, leaving no stone unturned, as Bill Manning put it.

Re: look at this pix

buy a hologram from this company




quote from here: As to the hologram technology, the U.S. Air Force has a theory manual illustrating the use of such projectors, see with this illustration of a stealth fighter projecting the hologram of an airplane in a different location:


9/11 book group

If you are into any of the 9/11 books or like to read, please join my 9/11 truth book group at LibraryThing.

I invited quite a few people already on the site who had 9/11 books, and have a pretty good group going, it would be great to get some more critical mass there so we could be at the top of their groups list.

Disinfo agents are out in

Disinfo agents are out in force. Dr. Jones must be scaring the shit out of the perps.

yeah, seriously. disinfo is

yeah, seriously. disinfo is working HARD! Is it because other labs are about to verify the thermate fingerprints on the steel?

they are? I hope you're right. However....

Jones said that he's having trouble getting cooperation from outside labs. He said this is his recent interview on Non-Random Thoughts (I believe). You do listen to all his interviews, don't you?

btw, take a look at my "homepage" link. Don't you dare call me disinfo ever again. What have YOU been doing to promote Jones' work???????????

I personally have contacted

I personally have contacted thousands of journalists about 9/11 truth, and have even gotten some to admit in writing that they know 9/11 truth but are being censored by their paper, and have helped run seminars, and I am the news editor for the only site I know of promoting 9/11 truth to the Christian community, as well as promoting 9/11 truth to thousands of ministries online, so don't act like you are the only one doing anything.

If you support that Reynolds/Wood hit piece with obvious falsehoods like the North Tower and obviously wrong assertions like the 'No Plane Theory' at the WTC, some people will take that as promoting disinfo.

that will change

when people start actually looking into the evidence instead of making assumptions.

Please explain the falsehood of the north tower antenna.

(btw, remember, I never said I believe the NPT 100%. But I certainly don't believe 767s hit the towers.)

Is that like being a little

Is that like being a little bit pregnant?

hope not


I have an idea this chit chat doesn't belong in the comments

but in the Shout box. I gotta go anyway... midnight

See everyone later

hey CB why don't you concentrate on the Best evidence

such as... WTC 7 controlled demolition, pentagon hole too small plus too little plane wreckage (as well as shanksville) or the even more obvious lies of the 9/11 commission. stick to evidence that is easiest for people to digest, especially for people not already in the movement. If you are dividing people within the movement you are definitely not helping the movement, period!

Only those who don't look at the evidence

will be left out in the blue.

We need MORE evidence. To

We need MORE evidence. To analyze the little of it in the public domain like the grainy TV footage is beating a dead horse.

new record!

Got to stop that CGI theory

For those who are making the CGI claim, I really wonder their motive. Exp. Right on the front page, "Proof Blue Screen Technology Faked 2nd Plane". Why? Why? Please tell me? When you have so much other evidences to present, why take that road? Unless you are trying to make truth seekers look cuckoo. So I really wonder, are they really seeking and helping the truth movement, or are they pretending? If someone who is affiliate with reading this, please please take the CGI theory out. Should stick with all solid evidences.

well let's see....

is it physically possible for an aluminum wing to slice through structural steel? Or does it violate laws of physics?

To answer your questions...

I say no to the first and yes to the second.

You also have to realize that the structural steel was backed with concrete at many points during the supposed 'impact' which would further block the flying aluminum tube from entering the building in the manner in which we were shown. (Now I don't begrudge the engines and landing gear from entering...they may have popped through if all things were cool and froody)

There is definately something not right there.

Because every other similarly constructed building on this planet would have said to an approaching aircraft, "As if" or "Bring it On", as it were.


Like I said in my blog I put

Like I said in my blog I put up a few days ago here, all of us will bow down to you no-planers once we win, but you need to realize that "CGI Planes" and "Holograms" and all of that HURTS THE MOVEMENT.

This will all come out once the story is broke. when they start to turn on each other then the insiders will spill the beans, cutting deals to save their lives and they will testify under oath what exactly happened. Then you'll get your answers about what really occurred. Until we are at that point, though, all "CGI Planes" do is hinder the truth about the government's crimes from breaking through mainstream.

This is not about getting the entire detail of the whole story down while blind because of the coverup. That isn't a realistic goal and I hope you, Nico, Dr. Wood, Reynolds, etc. understand that. This is about breaking the truth open ASAP, and then have the real investigations, trials, confessions, etc. that will ACTUALLY solve the crime.

All the 'ridiculously sounding' things do is slow down the process of getting the truth out. Even if the 'ridiculously sounding' things turn out to be right.

if people learn of this technology

they'll be wiser not to believe something just cause it's on TV

the "problem" with Dr Jones

the "problem" with Dr Jones ist simply that he's the only one. 9/11 truth will get nowhere unless other PhD physics/structure specialists will join the investigation and publish their own paper. Rome was not built on one day, and the 9/11 conspiracy won't be proven by Jones' research alone. We need more, but where are they? cowards!

They started with the fact

that none of the alleged flights was able to reach their goals hollow. I do not promote CGI, but I was convinced through german researcher Christian C. Walther that there is something wrong with the planes.

9/11 syncroicity episode 6

9/11 syncroicity episode 6 is out now... have a listen

Until these "cgi" quacks can

Until these "cgi" quacks can show some evidence that isn't easily explained by videography 101, they best STFU and stop hampering efforts at exposing 911 truth.

I just reliased... why

I just reliased...

why should you be any different from the
TRUTH-IN-THE-POCKET standard american braggarts?

Knocking Reynolds without having ANY insight,
just ignorant mistrust.

Have YOU measured radioactivity at ground zero?

Build a KFM...

it costs nothing.

you, Anonymous, are exposing yourself as disgusting as

believers in the OGCT. Not using science, but instead childish namecalling.


CB, here's another view of the molten metal dripping from the South Tower:

So that's at least two that show it. I also know for a fact that there is a helicopter shot of it too, but I haven't been able to locate it yet.

CB, stop drinking the no plane-CGI-hologram-kool-aid. It's a red herring. Anyone promoting that nonsense is helping the 9/11 criminals get away with their crime.

Anybody see "Real Time with Bill Maher" last nite?

The "Real Time with Bill Maher" show on HBO premiered last nite after a four month hiatus. Unfortunately, I thought the show sucked. I now realize (yes I am a bit slow) that Bill Maher is just another left-wing gatekeeper that KNOWS what happened on 9/11 but has no balls to admit it.

The anti-Christ, red-nosed alcoholic, Christopher Hitchens was on as one of the panelists on the show. Twice he told the audience to "f*** you" and flipped them off. Hitchens also eluded to the 9/11 conspiracy theory which Maher basically stated that "no self-respecting Democrat" believes. Hitchens might as well have a "I work for the CIA/MI6/Mossad" pinned on his forehead.

Although I love the "New Rules" part of the show, I may have to boycott it on principle.

Here is a clip from C & L of the show if you missed it... Scroll down to the pic showing the panel with Hitchens..

"A patriot must be ready to defend his country against his government" - Edward Abbey