Friday, June 02, 2006

Moron the Media Blackout

Here's a rather amusing piece regarding a talk given by CT fruitcake Morgan Reynolds at the University of Wisconsin. The writer's understanding of the media is rather amusing:

Despite the prestigious speaker and venue, and the gravity of the charges aired, for most Americans -- indeed most Madisonians -- the event never happened. Why? Because it was censored, subjected to a total media blackout. Not a word in the State Journal. Not a word in The Capital Times. Not a word on the local TV news. Not a word on local radio news. And, of course, not a word in the national media.

Why the blackout? Because Reynolds violated the ultimate U.S. media taboo. He charges the Bush administration with orchestrating the 9/11 attacks as a pretext for launching a preplanned "long war" in the Middle East, rolling back our civil liberties, and massively increasing military spending.


Oh, the irony! Complaining that there's a taboo on publishing unfounded charges against the Bush administration in the Capitol Times, in an editorial published by... you guessed it, the Capitol Times!

As a Watergate-era graduate of the University of Wisconsin School of Journalism, I was taught that exposing government lies and corruption is the supreme duty of the Fourth Estate. I simply cannot fathom the current situation. I do not understand the 9/11 truth blackout. I wish someone would explain it to me.

I'd be happy to perform that service. The media don't cover you guys because the place that nutty conspiracy theories gets covered is the National Enquirer (although it would help if you claimed that the Martians did it).

LGF comes to the same conclusion.

Hat Tip: JREF Forums.

14 Comments:

At 02 June, 2006 15:17, Blogger ScottSl said...

I guess he missed the article about himself in the Washington Times

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050613-102755-6408r.htm

 
At 02 June, 2006 15:24, Blogger MarkyX said...

The only reason why Watergate worked is because there was fact behind it.

 
At 02 June, 2006 15:53, Blogger undense said...

After watching the media hack up the Iraq war (You'd think nothing good ever happens there by listening to them.), how could anyone get the silly idea that the media is a purveyor of truth?

And this guy claims to be a journalist?

 
At 02 June, 2006 16:27, Blogger BG said...

Here's an interesting link with video: Spying, Israel, and 9/11

Fox News started this series of 4 episodes and mysteriously had second thoughts after the 2nd airing.

 
At 02 June, 2006 17:15, Blogger ScottSl said...

Old story..the file was declassified/leaked long ago
http://www.911myths.com/html/other_contributions.html

See Bruce Rolston's article

Although these aren't as good as Rolston's work.
Camera did some follow up articles also.
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=6&x_journo=149

 
At 02 June, 2006 17:39, Blogger Pat said...

BG, that's the stuff Raimondo harps on. I've no doubt the Israelis are spying on us.

 
At 02 June, 2006 17:46, Blogger JoanBasil said...

Yeah, its so much more important to cover the National Spelling Bee. I saw 2 stories on it today.

 
At 02 June, 2006 18:19, Blogger shawn said...

Joan, I'd hate to see some nutjob take the wind out of some kid's sails.

 
At 02 June, 2006 19:11, Blogger James B. said...

A growing list of scientists has lined up behind BYU physicist Steven Jones and MIT engineer Jeff King in support of Griffin's position, as evidenced by the growth of Scholars for 9/11 Truth (st911.org) and Scientific Professionals Investigating 9/11 (physics911.net).



Talk about misleading. Yes, Steven Jones is an actual physicist at BYU, but Jeff King is not an engineer at MIT. He got his degree from MIT in the early 70s, in electrical engineering. Unless the collapse of the world trade center is based on the wiring shorting out, this is not very relevent.

 
At 03 June, 2006 05:58, Blogger JoanBasil said...

James,
Who do you think knows more about physics, you or Jeff King?

 
At 03 June, 2006 09:56, Blogger shawn said...

James,
Who do you think knows more about physics, you or Jeff King?


What does that matter? He's not a structural engineer.

 
At 03 June, 2006 10:17, Blogger ScottSl said...

"Who do you think knows more about physics, you or Jeff King?"

LOL!! I'd guess most anyone here.

 
At 03 June, 2006 17:37, Blogger insidejob said...

First of all, 9-11 was in inside job. The motive? To establish control over oil in the Mideast under the guise of the "war on terror." As for building 7, the decision to collapse that building with controlled demolition, in addition to the Towers, probably had something to do with the fact that it was housing elements of the CIA and Secret Service, who were all evacuated immediately after Flight 11 hit the North tower, where as the occupants of the South tower were encouraged by Stratesec (the company that provided security for the WTC – Marvin Bush and his cousin were the principals of this company, and Bush’s contract was set to end on 9/10/01) security guards to stay in the building. Building 7 was also housing files for numerous ongoing SEC investigations, like the investigation of Enron and Worldcom. Building 7 did not have “massive structural damage” before its collapse, as some claim, and the fires were on isolated pockets of two floors:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc7.html

Those who push nitpick about Loose Change ignore the real documentaries that are high quality: Denial Stops Here, The Truth and Lies of 9/11, The Great Conspiracy, and the footage from the 9/11 Citizens Commission hearing in New York City on September 9, 2004. Links to these and other films are at www.oilempire.us/movies.html There are some good clips on-line that are free, particularly the 9/11 Citizens Commission hearing, and this footage of David Ray Griffin’s talk about the 9-11 Commission:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6837001821567284154

here are a couple of good web pages that make strong arguments that the makers of Loose Change were duped somewhat by the makers of “In Plane Site” which was part of a deliberate disinformation campaign – it blends false claims with true claims in order to discredit the truth movement. there is a huge mass of very strong evidence that 9-11 was an inside job, and a lot of serious researchers are putting it together, and Loose Change and In Plane Site both ignore most of the best evidence, while blending in a lot of false claims. mixing false claims with true claims is a common disinformation tactic. The cover of the Loose Change DVD actually sandwiches 2 false claims with 2 true claims, but who knows whether or not this was intentional. The websites below give strong evidence that In Plane Site was intended to throw people off the scent of the real evidence of an inside job. The author of the first site writes "if it (Loose Change) is not naive, foolish, uninformed and ignorant, then it is the work of a calculating mole or at best a naïf who has been used by such." in other words, the authors of Loose Change may be trying to throw us off from the real evidence of an inside job, or they may have good intentions but have been fooled somewhat by, for example, the maker of In Plane Site (I think they probably had good intentions, unlike the makers of “In Plane Site”):

http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/JoeR/2005_07_21_Michael_Green_Loose_Change_analysis.htm

http://www.oilempire.us/loose-change.html

People are right to debunk the errors in Loose Change, but 9-11 was definitely an inside job.

The “Flight 77 didn’t hit the Pentagon” nonsense is the biggest part of the deliberate disinformation:

here is a link to a bunch of eyewitness accounts of people who saw Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. it would make no sense at all for the conspirators to try to hit the Pentagon with a missile, when they were perfectly capable of hitting the WTC towers with airplanes, or at least getting terrorists to do so by using ISI operatives as middle-men, especially considering that it doesn't make any sense that they would risk people seeing the missile or something other than what they said hit the Pentagon. there were so many people around to see what actually hit, and they did see it:

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html

this site talks about the removal of the passengers' bodies:

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/13_AP70bodiespentagon.html

too many people would have had to have been in on the conspiracy for them to have hit the Pentagon with a missile (emergency responders galore, numerous FBI agents, CIA personnel, and so on).

the real question to ask ourselves is, why won't Rumsfeld release the videos that actually show Flight 77? why do they keep releasing only videos that show nothing, when they have the videos from the Sheraton Hotel (eyewitnesses there actually watched the tapes over and over in horror before they were confiscated - so they would have noticed if it was a missile instead of a 757) and the Freeway camera. they are trying to bait us. it's reeeally clear to me now. that's why Rumsfeld had his little 'slip-up' about a 'missile' hitting the Pentagon, and that's why Fox News and CNN showed clips from Loose Change (Fox News actually interviewed Dylan Avery), while they completely ignore the real truth movement, the real documentaries (Denial Stops Here, The Truth and Lies of 9/11, The Great Conspiracy, and the footage from the 9/11 Citizens Commission hearing in New York City, and so on), and the powerful evidence and numerous improbable 'coincidences,' (such as the inexplicable and methodical collapse of Building 7, which was housing files for numerous ongoing SEC investigations and was housing elements of the CIA and Secret Service, the presence of sulfidation and rapid corrosion in the steel beams, indicating the use of thermate cutter-charges, the unexplained evacuations of the WTC Towers in the three weeks prior to the attacks, Larry Silverstein's unprecedented privatization of the WTC just 6 weeks prior with an insurance policy specifically covering acts of terrorism and a 3.5 billion dollar payout, which was way more than Silverstein had paid, the multiple war games on 9-11 that crippled the Air Force's ability to respond, the 3-year project reinforcing that particular section of the Pentagon that was hit by Flight 77 against an attack of just such a nature, and the completion of that renovation on the very day of the attacks, put-options on Boeing and American Airlines stock in the weeks before the attacks, the Mossad agents (implicating Israel, the American government's bosom-buddy), Silverstein's connections with Israel, the mailing of Anthrax to Democratic officials (Anthrax which was found to have come from a U.S. military lab), Porter Goss' meeting on the morning of Sept. 11th with the Pakistani general who had had $100,000 wired to Mohammed Atta - all these improbable 'coincidences' that, when multipled (the multiplication rule of the laws of probability), make the probability that 9-11 was not an inside job about 1 in 1,000,000.

There are disinformation websites out there: The site www.911myths.org, which I think the makers of the ScrewLooseChange blog simply copy and paste their info from, claims to be an objective website, saying that it only wants to show that some claims are without merit, but the site seems to me to be a deliberate disinformation website. They cherry-pick the claims that they can most easily cast doubt on, and they never mention the numerous and damning true claims – the real evidence. They don’t allow people to contact them to refute their claims (and thus test their objectivity), and their dishonesty is often obvious. For example, in “debunking” the claim that progressive collapse hasn’t happened before, the website mentions L’Ambience Plaza and the Ronan Point apartment building. They expect website visitors to not actually look into what actually happened in these 2 incidents:

L'Ambience Plaza was still in the early stages of construction and was using a special construction method – the lift-slab system – and wasn’t doing it properly. The Ronan Point incident, which happened in London in 1968, is most often cited by disinformation websites, although they don’t tell you what actually happened - this incident actually consisted of one tiny corner of balconies, and the collapsed balconies were short cantilever sections supported by the building's main structure - so there were no steel beams to prevent this little corner of balconies from collapsing progressively. To use these incidents to “debunk” the clear evidence of controlled demolition, without mentioning what actually happened, shows deliberate dishonesty.

my humble assessment of what happened on 9-11: hijackers were involved, but they were puppets of Washington insiders, without knowing it. Pakistani intelligence agency (ISI) was the middle-man. Israeli intelligence agency (Mossad) and Israeli government knew the attacks were coming, and may have been directly involved (note - this isn't saying 'the Jews did it.' there are many many Jewish people who oppose the Israeli government, including Israelis). Flight 77 definitely hit the Pentagon, and the missile claim was a deliberate red herring to discredit the truth movement. the CIA recently released videos, but they don't show anything more than the 5 previously-released frames, and this is more bait, considering that they definitely have videos that clearly show Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon (such as from the Sheraton Hotel). they may be planning to later release the videos that actually show Flight 77 at some point and say, "look fools. here's flight 77 hitting the Pentagon." The war games on Sept.11, under the direction of Cheney and Rumsfeld, were a smokescreen and an excuse to explain why the Air Force did not respond for over an hour. Finally, without a hint of uncertainty, WTC 1, 2, and 7 were definitely brought down by controlled demolition. WTC 7 is the most damning:

(1) WTC (a) WTC 1, 2, and 7 were the first 3 steel-frame buildings in history to (allegedly) collapse due to fire. Several steel-frame skyscrapers around the world have had huge fires that burned throughout several floors for several hours, and none of these buildings collapsed. The official explanation of the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 claims that the impact of the aircrafts weakened the structures (which of course they would have to some degree), but NIST actually admits to fudging its models to make them more plausibly (to the casual researcher) explain the collapses, and it also simply lies and contradicts itself. For example, they alter the path of flight 175 so they can argue that it damaged the core columns. The report is misleading in many other ways. much more here:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/

The NIST Report completely ignores building 7, saying it will be considered “at a later date.” As far as the 9-11 Commission, there's a great book out about the 9-11 Commission: 911 Commission Report: Ommissions and Distortions:

(I gave this link earlier):

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6837001821567284154 .

First Bush tried to appoint Kissinger to head the Commission, which didn't go over so well, considering his history of involvement in scandals, secret coups against democratically-elected leaders, and coverups. Then Bush appoints 3 other people with histories of coverups in scandals, like Iran-Contra and the October Surprise. the rest were airline executives. The 9-11 Commission, like the NIST Report, ignored building 7 - most Americans don't even know about building 7, because the media have ignored it. Also, if you look at the video of the North Tower’s collapse, you can see that the top portion above the impact zone actually collapses in on itself from the bottom up, before the rest of the collapse proceeds (b) WTC 7 is the most obvious - no jet hit this building, and although some mention that the fuel tanks in the building may have contributed, FEMA said they were all intact, and, as already noted, fires do not make steel-frame buildings collapse, and random fires could not, by any stretch of the imagination, make a steel-frame building collapse so methodically into a neat little rubble pile within its own footprint, maintaining perfect radial symmetry all the way down, and falling at freefall speed. This only happens with controlled demolition. Unfortunately, most people are unaware of building 7, but the word is spreading thanks to many serious researchers. FEMA was actually able to obtain sections of the steel beams from WTC 7, and it found sulfidation in combination with rapid corrosion – a trademark of the use of thermate (the military version of thermite) cutter chargers – the presence of sulfidation and rapid corrosion can only be explained by the use of thermate. the fires in WTC 7 were only on partial sections of 2 floors, and even if the fires had engulfed the building for days, it would not have collapsed. Silverstein's slip-up about 'pulling it' also gave it away. his publicist later claimed that Silverstein meant 'pulling' the firefighters out of the building. 'pulling' is a term commonly used to refer to controlled demolition. FEMA has actually admitted that it cannot explain the collapse of building 7 (b) the official explanation ignores the thermal conductivity of steel. There would have been a massive heatsink from the steel beams, and the heat would have spread to other parts of the steel-beam mesh, rather than weakening nearby beams (b) the 'Pancake Theory', used to describe the collapse mode, has never existed as a collapse mechanism theory in structural engineering before 9-11. ‘Pancaking’ has happened before, but to one building (L'Ambience Plaza) that was still in the early stages of construction and was using a special construction method – the lift-slab system – and wasn’t doing it properly, and what happened wasn’t called ‘pancaking’ before 9-11. the term 'progressive collapse' has been used before, but no steel-frame building has ever collapsed due to this mechanism. the Ronan Point incident, in 1968, is most often cited by disinformation websites, although they don’t tell you what actually happened - this incident actually consisted of one tiny corner of balconies, and the collapsed balconies were short cantilever sections supported by the building's main structure - so there were no steel beams to prevent this little corner from collapsing progressively. (c)'squibs', a trademark of controlled demolition, can be seen in the videos of the collapses, and are especially obvious in WTC 7. the offical story attempts to explain them away as concrete dust and debris being pushed out of the windows by the force of the collapse, but they occur much below the level of collapse, and they occur just prior to the initiation of collapse in WTC 7. (d) Marvin Bush's contract with Stratesec(Securicom), the company that provided security for the WTC, United Airlines, and Dulles Internation Airport, was set to end on 9/10/01, the day before 9/11. Marvin Bush and his cousin were the principals of Stratesec (e) There were several unexplained evacuations in the WTC towers in the weeks prior to the attacks: Ben Fountain, a financial analyst with Fireman's Fund, was coming out of the Chambers Street Station, headed for his office on the 47th floor of the south tower. "How could they let this happen? They knew this building was a target. 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." (Source: People Magazine. Sept. 12th 2001). (f) Battalion Chief Orio J. Palmer had reached the 78th floor of the South Tower by 9:48 -- 11 minutes before the explosive collapse began -- and reported via radio "two isolated pockets of fire." (g) all three buildings maintained prefect radial symmetry as they collapsed – if the buildings had collapsed due to randomly-placed fires (which simply doesn’t happen – even full-fledged infernos don’t make steel-frame buildings collapse), they would not have fallen straight down into their own footprints (h) Steven Jones, a physics professor from BYU, points out that flowing pools of molten steel were reported by eyewitnesses – impossible with hydrocarbon fires, but easily explained by the use of thermate cutter charges:

(This is from http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html):

“There are several published observations of molten metal in the basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 (“Twin Towers”) and 7. For example, Dr. Keith Eaton toured Ground Zero and stated in The Structural Engineer,
‘They showed us many fascinating slides’ [Eaton] continued, ‘ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster’. (Structural Engineer, September 3, 2002, p. 6; emphasis added.)

The existence of molten metal at Ground Zero was reported by several observers (see first photograph above), including Greg Fuchek:
For six months after Sept. 11, the ground temperature varied between 600 degrees Fahrenheit and 1,500 degrees, sometimes higher. “In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel,” Fuchek said. (Walsh, 2002)
Sarah Atlas was part of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue and was one of the first on the scene at Ground Zero with her canine partner Anna. She reported in Penn Arts and Sciences, summer 2002,
‘Nobody's going to be alive.' Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet. (Penn, 2002; emphasis added.)
Notice that the molten metal (probably not steel alone; see discussion below) was flowing down in the rubble pile early on; so it is not the case that the molten metal pools formed due to subterranean fires after the collapses.


(i) the temperatures simply were not hot enough, and weren’t sustained long enough, to weaken the steel, let alone melt it, in such a short period of time, especially considering the thermal conductivity of steel (j) the explosive force of the collapses cannot be explained by mere gravity – debris was ejected out several hundred feet – huge steel beams were found 300 feet away.


Pakistani Intelligence Agency (ISI, which was founded by the CIA and still has close ties with the CIA, like Al Qaeda) was the middle-man between Washington insiders and the clueless terrorists:

October 9, courtesy of the Times of India:
"While the Pakistani Inter Services Public Relations claimed that former ISI [Pakistani intelligence] director-general Lt-Gen Mahmud Ahmad sought retirement after being superseded on Monday, the truth is more shocking. Top sources confirmed here on Tuesday that the general lost his job because of the 'evidence' India produced to show his links to one of the suicide bombers that wrecked the World Trade Center. The U.S. authorities sought his removal after confirming the fact that $100,000 were wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan by [Omar Saeed] at the instance of General Mahmud [Ahmad]."

September 9—two days before 9/11 — Karachi News made the following observation:
"ISI Chief Lt-Gen [Mahmud Ahmad's] week-long presence in Washington has triggered speculation about the agenda of his mysterious meetings at the Pentagon and National Security Council . . . What added interest to his visit is the history of such visits. Last time Ziauddin Butt, [General Ahmad's] predecessor, was here during Nawaz Sharif's government, the domestic politics turned topsy-turvy within days. That this is not the first visit by [General Ahmad] in the last three months shows the urgency of the ongoing parleys."

Israeli intelligence agency (Mossad) and government insiders knew the attacks were coming, and may have been involved in them:

Mossad agents were filming the towers before the airplanes even hit them, and began dancing and celebrating when the planes hit and when the towers collapsed:

This is a link to the article originally published by ABC News:

http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/noframes/read/1405

Source: ABC News, Saturday, June 22nd, 2002.

“A counterintelligence investigation by the FBI concluded that at least two of them were in fact Mossad operatives, according to the former American official, who said he was regularly briefed on the investigation by two separate law enforcement officials.”

Source: The Forward, March 15th, 2002

This has been reported on by several mainstream media outlets, but has simply been forgotten.

Larry A. Silverstein – signed a 99-year lease on the World Trade Center 6 weeks before the attacks. A $3,500,000,000 insurance policy, specifically covering acts of terrorism, was included in the lease. This lease was an unprecedented privatization of the WTC complex. After 9/11, Silverstein demanded $7 billion, claiming that the two planes constituted two separate acts of terrorism.

Larry A. Silverstein is a close friend of Ariel Sharon, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Ehud Barak: “Shortly after the events of September 11, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon called Larry Silverstein, a Jewish real estate magnate in New York, the owner of the World Trade Center's 110-story Twin Towers and a close friend, to ask how he was. Since then they have spoken a few more times. Two former prime ministers - Benjamin Netanyahu, who this week called Silverstein a "friend," and Ehud Barak, whom Silverstein in the past offered a job as his representative in Israel - also called soon after the disaster.”

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=97338&contrassID=3&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=0


Flight 77 and the Pentagon:

JUNE 2001: The Pentagon initiates new instructions for military intervention in the case of a highjacking. these new instructions state that, for all nonimmediate responses (whatever that means), the Department of Defense must get permission directly from the Secretary of Defense (Rumsfeld).

Source: Joint Chiefs of Staff Document:

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf
http://www.911review.com/means/standdown.html



October 24, 2000: the Pentagon conducted the first of two training exercises called MASCAL (Mass Casualty), which simulated a Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon.

Source: The U.S. Army Military District of Washington (MDW)

Charles Burlingame had actually retired 20 years earlier, but he still participated in the MASCAL exercise at the Pentagon, a year before the attacks:

Charles F. Burlingame III was the pilot of flight 77. He was an F-4 pilot in the Navy, and as his last Navy mission, he had helped craft Pentagon response plans in the event of a commercial airliner hitting the Pentagon. He had retired from the Navy 20 years earlier, but was still a Navy Reservist.

Source: Associated Press. August 22, 2002

http://anderson.ath.cx:8000/911/pen08.html

Barbara Honegger, who worked in the White House under Reagan, points out another coincidence. Researching press reports, she found a 9/16/01 Washington Post story about the pilot of AA flight 77 that, on the morning of 9/11, was said to have crashed into the Pentagon.

Here's Barbara Honegger:

...the main pilot of the 9-11 Pentagon plane, former Navy and then Navy Reservist pilot Charles Burlingame, had recently, in a Reserve assignment at the Pentagon, been part of a Task Force that drafted the Pentagon's emergency response plan on what to do in case a plane hit the building - which his own plane then did. It is therefore very possible - in fact extremely likely, if not certain - that this 'task force' that Flight 77 pilot "Chick" Burlingame was part of was the Cheney counterterrorism preparedness task force, and that the Pentagon plane pilot, therefore, directly knew and even worked with/for Cheney. and

Burlingame's 9-11 Pentagon plane not only hit the Pentagon that morning, it struck a Command and Control center for that morning's counterterrorism "game" exercise, killing most, if not all, of the "players". We know this because Army personnel from Ft. Monmouth, New Jersey were on special duty assignment at the Pentagon that morning for an emergency response exercise and were killed when Burlingame's plane hit. Ft. Monmouth, New Jersey also happens to be the headquarters for White House/Presidential communications, including therefore probably also for Air Force One (this is discoverable) -- and recall the warning "Air Force One is next" and the 'secret code' which was called into the White House that morning which WH press secretary Ari Fleischer revealed as a means of explaining why Pres. Bush left Florida for a military base and did not return to the White House. This "warning" was probably called into the White House, if true, by either the Ft. Monmouth White House communications headquarters and/or the Ft. Monmouth counterterrorism exercise "game" players temporarily at the Pentagon that morning.

This means the pilot of Flight 77 participated in MASCAL in October of 2000, an exercise which simulated a Boeing 757 crashing into the Pentagon.


Flight 77 hit the one and only section of the Pentagon that had been renovated to withstand just such an attack:

"Luck — if it can be called that — had it that the terrorists aimed the Boeing 757 at the only part of the Pentagon that already had been renovated in an 11-year, $1.3 billion project meant to bolster it against attack. That significantly limited the damage and loss of life by slowing the plane as it tore through the building and reducing the explosion's reach." Source: USA Today (1/01/02)

“Not all the offices were occupied that morning because of the renovation. In addition, the outer ring had been reinforced by floor-to-ceiling steel beams that ran through all five floors. Between them was a Kevlar-like mesh, similar to the material in bulletproof vests, which kept masonry from becoming shrapnel. Together, the beams and the mesh formed a citadel that kept the top floors from collapsing for about 35 minutes, time enough for some people to escape. New blast-resistant windows above the crash site didn't shatter. A new sprinkler system kept the fires from consuming the entire place.
When the plane hit wedge 1, workers were just a few days away from completing a three-year renovation of that section."

Source: USNews (12/10/01)


“The Pentagon has been undergoing some structural upgrades and retrofits, including new blastproof windows made of KevlarT that were, fortuitously, in place on the side of impact. This reinforced section of the building had a significant effect on reducing the extent of damage.”

Source: Fire Engineering Magazine (11/02)

"The 1,000,000-square-foot wedge was five days away from completion when it was struck by hijacked American Airlines Flight 77." Source: Annual Status Report to Congress (3/01/02)


FAA delayed reporting the hijackings for an hour, whereas it was bound by law to report them. The top FAA officials were appointed by Bush, and were close friends of Bush.

Norad (Pentagon) response was delayed, once FAA finally reported.

The jets that responded would have made it in time if they had flown at full speed. Why didn’t they fly at full speed? The Pentagon (Norad) must have given this order.

Several war games had been planned by Rumsfeld and Cheney on September 11th, in which most American fighter jets were off fighting imagined enemies. A particularly telling detail is that the CIA was conducting an exercise on Sept. 11th, under Cheney’s direction, that simulated a plane hitting NRO (National Reconnaissance Organization headquarters (near Dulles Airport, Virginia) - this was not a "terrorism" exercise but it did result in the evacuation of most NRO employees just as the "real" 9/11 was taking place, making it more difficult for the nation's spy satellites to be used to track the hijacked planes.


Terrorists were given visas based on incomplete forms. President Bush appointed James Ziglar commissioner of the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) one month before September 1lth

 
At 03 June, 2006 20:31, Blogger ScottSl said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home