911oz - Australian 9/11 Truth Movement

contact: admin@911oz.com

Bookmark and Share   PageRank Checking Tool    RSS

buildingwhat.org
Just Foreign Policy Iraqi Death Estimator

Syndicated Articles

To share your thoughts, join the 911oz Forum

Architects & Engineers
for 9/11 Truth

As seen in this revealing photo the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all the characteristics of destruction by explosions:

1.

Extremely rapid onset of “collapse”

2.

Sounds of explosions at plane impact zone — a full second prior to collapse (heard by 118 first responders as well as by media reporters)

3.

Observations of flashes (seen by numerous professionals)

4.

Squibs, or “mistimed” explosions, 40 floors below the “collapsing” building seen in all the videos

5.

Mid-air pulverization of all the 90,000 tons of concrete and steel decking, filing cabinets & 1000 people – mostly to dust

6.

Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds

7.

Vertical progression of full building perimeter demolition waves

8.

Symmetrical collapse – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance

9.

1,400 foot diameter field of equally distributed debris – outside of building footprint

10.

Blast waves blew out windows in buildings 400 feet away

11.

Lateral ejection of thousands of individual 20 - 50 ton steel beams up to 500 feet

12.

Total destruction of the building down to individual structural steel elements – obliterating the steel core structure.

13.

Tons of molten Metal found by FDNY under all 3 high-rises (no other possible source other than an incendiary cutting charge such as Thermate)

14.

Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.

15.

FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples

16.

More than 1000 Bodies are unaccounted for — 700 tiny bone fragments found on top of nearby buildings

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.

1.

Slow onset with large visible deformations

2.

Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)

3.

Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel

4.

High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”

9/11 - Key Issue of our Time

Australian 9/11 Truth Movement Statement
11 September 2010

Bob Dylan, 1971 - Concert for Bangladesh - Blowin'

I regularly spend time trawling youtube for interesting live performances of great songs. This, in my opinion, is Bob's best live rendition of Blowin' In the Wind.


http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=A4nPJ-YYHBc

FDNY lieutenant on 9/11: Building 7 "would be taken down"

"We had heard reports that the building was unstable, and that eventually it would come down on its own or it would be taken down."


http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=1KQA1KOKrPc

I have one question. If it was known in advance that the building would collapse, why is it that the lead investigator, Dr. Shyam Sunder, described the collapse as a "rare event"?

posted 22 Dec 2008 21:14 | Permalink | Leave a comment.

Army officer sues Rumsfeld & Cheney over 9/11

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/911_survivor_blasts_Rumsfeld_Cheney_No_1217.html

12/17/2008 @ 2:29 pm
Filed by Stephen C. Webster

Army officer April GallopA career Army officer who survived the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, claims that no evacuation was ordered inside the Pentagon, despite flight controllers calling in warnings of approaching hijacked aircraft nearly 20 minutes before the building was struck.

According to a time-line of the attacks, the Federal Aviation Administration notified NORAD that American Airlines Flight 77 had been hijacked at 9:24 a.m. The Pentagon was not struck until 9:43 a.m.

On behalf of retired Army officer April Gallop, California attorney William Veale has filed a civil suit against former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney and former US Air Force General Richard Myers, who was acting chairman of the joint chiefs on 9/11. It alleges they engaged in conspiracy to facilitate the terrorist attacks and purposefully failed to warn those inside the Pentagon, contributing to injuries she and her two-month-old son incurred.

"The ex-G.I. plaintiff alleges she has been denied government support since then, because she raised 'painful questions' about the inexplicable failure of military defenses at the Pentagon that day, and especially the failure of officials to warn and evacuate the occupants of the building when they knew the attack was imminent" said Veale in a media advisory.

Gallop also says she heard two loud explosions, and does not believe that a Boeing 757 hit the building. Her son sustained a serious brain injury, and Gallop herself was knocked unconscious after the roof collapsed onto her office.

The suit also named additional, unknown persons who had foreknowledge of the attacks.

"What they don't want is for this to go into discovery," said Gallop's attorney, Mr. Veale, speaking to RAW STORY. "If we can make it past their initial motion to dismiss these claims, and we get the power of subpoena, then we've got a real shot at getting to the bottom of this. We've got the law on our side."

Cheney authorised the torture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

The confession by Cheney that the criminal case against KSM is built on evidence acquired through torture gives us some of the best evidence so far in support of the 9/11 Truth Movement's claim that a new investigation of 9/11 is urgently needed.

Dick Cheney has admitted in an ABC television interview that he personally authorised the water-boarding of the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM).

This is surely prima facie evidence for criminal charges. As noted in a recent Raw Story piece, after World War II Japanese soldiers were tried and convicted of war crimes in US courts for water-boarding.

Wikipedia defines water-boarding as:

a form of torture that consists of immobilizing a person on their back with the head inclined downward and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages. Through forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences the process of drowning and is made to believe that death is imminent.

In 1968, a U.S. soldier was court-martialed for water boarding a Vietnamese prisoner.

The efficacy of torture methods for extracting useful information from prisoners has been thoroughly debunked by experienced interrogators and Cheney's claim that the program has been "very effective" is ridiculous in the light of the multitude of implausible confessions made by KSM, including plots to assasinate Jimmy Carter, Bll Clinton and Pope John Paul II. He claimed to have personally beheaded Daniel Pearl, as well as overseeing the Bali Sari Club bombing in 2002. He most astounding confession was a plan to bomb the Plaza Bank in Washington State, which was founded three years after his arrest.

More recently the withdrawal of confessions by KSM and four others has made a complete mockery of the Guantanamo Bay trial.

The very notion that the primary purpose of torture is to extract information is false. Torture is a tool of intimidation and totalitarian control, nothing more, As the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services director told Congress:

"... torture is the deliberate mental and physical damage caused by governments to individuals to ... terrorize society."


http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=WkILjPu3KTE

posted 18 Dec 2008 09:04 | Permalink | Leave a comment.

Strategy for truth - dealing with the "who cares?" response

We need a new strategy for communicating to friends, strangers, colleagues and the mass of the population.

This monstrous crime and its coverup must be exposed. We must take the moral high ground. We must never accept the charge that we are wasting time talking about it, and we must never allow the "who cares?" response to go unchallenged.

Those who say "who cares?" about 9/11 insult and degrade themselves and everyone else in such an extreme way that they must be given a firm response. They must be made to realise the depravity and profanity of such an attitude. They must not be allowed to walk away thinking they are ok.

They must be shamed. They must be outed and held up as an example of what NOT to do. They must be reminded that by not caring about 9/11 they are collaborators in genocidal crimes.

We need more public events. We need to project into the real world in many more ways. We need to confront politicians, journalists and corporate CEOs. We need to be more insistent. We need to not give up and never back down.

Government officials in this country who stood by and did nothing must be made accountable. There must be prosecutions. They must be confronted with what they have done and 'the people' must serve justice upon them.

Unless that occurs we are doomed as a society.

Whitehouse transition team endorses torture

In a chilling development which is the subject of a recent Counterpunch article, Silvestre Reyes, chair of the House Intelligence Committee, has advised the Obama team that some parts of the CIA's "controversial alternative interrogation program" should be allowed to continue.

It gets back to a world that is very dangerous…there are some options that need to be available…We don't want to be known for torturing people. At the same time, we don't want to limit our ability to get information that's vital and critical to our national security. That's where the new administration is going to have to decide what those parameters are, what those limitations are.

This kind of language is very disturbing, considering the amount of evidence already accumulated that the Bush administration authorised massive human rights violations amounting to war crimes, under the rubric of "tough measures". The justification for all of these abuses, from the beginning has always been the "changed climate" in the wake of 9/11.

How long will we put up with this con game? How much more human suffering must take place before citizens rise up and retake their democracies?

The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind.

Truth Action + Christmas Party

For more info on the following please contact John Bursill (m. 0414 878 499).

11am - Eleventh of Every Month Action

The Rocks/Circular Key from 11am till 4pm

We will meet in the park at the western side of the ferry terminal on the Rocks side

Please if your late call me 0414878499 for meet up on day!

We hope to carry out Civil Informationing/Peaceful Protest on the foreshore of Circular Key near the Terminal six, this may not be possible due to restrictions imposed by the council, we will see! We should know more on Monday so please keep your eyes out for the next e-mail. We may move to the Rocks near the "Fortune of War" Hotel

Xmas Dinner and Drinks 2008 - Thursday the 11th of Dec 2008

Meet at the Sydney Harbour View Hotel at 6pm - dinner around 7pm

Harbour View Hotel

Dinner at reasonable price available

E-mail/Text me if you want dinner as reservation being made

Drinks only is fine!

PS - I and 911oz and all the regular activists are coming so what a great time to catch up with us and meet up with some great 9/11 Truth people!

PPS - Thanks Naomi and Maria for organising this event!

posted 10 Dec 2008 21:30 | Permalink | Leave a comment.

9/11 Patsies Withdraw Confessions

http://www.washingtonpost..../2008/12/08/AR2008120801087.html

By Peter Finn
Washington Post
Tuesday, December 9, 2008; A01

GUANTANAMO BAY, Cuba, Dec. 8 -- Five of the men accused of planning the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks said Monday that they wanted to plead guilty to murder and war crimes but withdrew the offer when a military judge raised questions about whether it would prevent them from fulfilling their desire to receive the death penalty.

"Are you saying if we plead guilty we will not be able to be sentenced to death?" Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed operational mastermind of the attacks, asked at a pretrial hearing here.

The seesaw proceedings Monday raised and then postponed the prospect of a conviction in a case that has become the centerpiece of the system of military justice created by the Bush administration. A conviction would have capped a seven-year quest for justice after the 2001 attacks, but the delay in entering pleas will probably extend the process beyond the end of the Bush presidency.

The willingness of the defendants to "announce our confessions and plea in full," according to a document they sent to the judge in the case, Army Col. Stephen Henley, potentially bestows some hard decisions on the incoming administration. President-elect Barack Obama has vowed to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, but he has not indicated whether he will retain the military commissions that may be close to securing the death penalty for suspects in the worst terrorist attacks in U.S. history.

If the judge ultimately accepts guilty pleas, the ability of the Obama administration to transfer the case to federal court -- a desire expressed by some Obama advisers -- might be constrained, said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union. That could mean the new administration may have to oversee an execution resulting from a process that many Obama supporters and legal advisers regard as deeply flawed.

A guilty plea, however, could shield the Obama administration from what some legal experts view as potentially hazardous proceedings in federal court, where evidence obtained by torture or coercive interrogation would not be admitted. CIA Director Michael V. Hayden has acknowledged that Mohammed was subjected to waterboarding, an interrogation technique in which a prisoner is restrained as water is poured over his mouth, causing a drowning sensation.

Although legal analysts say Mohammed and his co-conspirators would probably be convicted of terrorist offenses, the ability to obtain a capital conviction may have been undermined by the use of practices that have been criticized as torture.

"It is absurd to accept a guilty plea from people who were tortured and waterboarded," said Romero, who is observing the proceedings. He said in an interview that the Obama administration should clearly signal that it intends to abolish the military commissions as well as the detention system, so the judge and other Pentagon officials will not move forward with the proceeding. The Obama team declined to comment Monday.

Offering to plead guilty along with Mohammed were Ramzi Binalshibh, Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi, Tawfiq bin Attash and Ammar al-Baluchi, also known as Ali Abdul Aziz Ali. Baluchi is a nephew of Mohammed. "Our success is the greatest praise of the Lord," Mohammed and the four others wrote of the attacks in a document they sent to Henley last month.

Binalshibh and Hawsawi have not yet been judged competent to represent themselves, and Mohammed and the two others said they would defer a decision on a guilty plea until all five could act together. But the motivation behind withdrawing the plea offer appears to be the prospect of execution, lawyers here said. Mohammed has expressed a desire to die as a martyr, yet Henley questioned whether a death sentence is permissible without a verdict by a military jury.

The Pentagon, in announcing formal charges against the five in May, said each was accused of "conspiracy, murder in violation of the law of war, attacking civilians, attacking civilian objects, intentionally causing serious bodily injury, destruction of property in violation of the law of war, terrorism and providing material support for terrorism."

"We all five have reached an agreement to request from the commission an immediate hearing session in order to announce our confessions," the defendants said in their letter, parts of which Henley read aloud Monday. They said they were not under "any kind of pressure, threat, intimidations or promise from any party."

The five wrote the note Nov. 4 after meeting here that day to plot legal strategy, the court heard. The men, who are being held at a secret facility on the military base here, were allowed to meet together for at least 27 hours in recent weeks, a prosecutor said.

Outside the courtroom, the defendants' civilian attorneys, who were organized by the ACLU and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, said they had considered walking out on the proceeding if the judge accepted guilty pleas. "This show trial is nothing more than an effort to blackmail" Obama and limit his options, said Tom Durkin, a civilian attorney for Binalshibh.

Prosecutors rejected any suggestion that there was a politically motivated rush to justice.

"There are some decisions that are unique to the accused; the first of them is how he pleads," said Army Col. Lawrence Morris, chief military prosecutor. "The government has nothing to do with that decision."

Attending the Guantanamo Bay proceedings for the first time were relatives of people killed in the Sept. 11 attacks. The Defense Department chose the relatives of five victims by lottery and arranged for them to travel to the U.S. naval base on the eastern tip of Cuba, a Pentagon spokesman said. "It's clear to me they know what they did and they are willing and want to plead guilty," said Hamilton Peterson of Bethesda, who lost his father and stepmother on United Airlines Flight 93 in Pennsylvania. "I think [Obama] will come to the realization that this is a very appropriate and fair venue."

The families were divided on the death penalty. Peterson and others said it was appropriate. But Alice Hoagland, who lost her son Mark Bingham on United Flight 93, said the defendants "do not deserve to be dealt with as martyrs."

Henley asked three of the defendants representing themselves -- Mohammed, Attash and Baluchi -- whether they were willing to enter guilty pleas. All said Monday morning that they were ready to do so.

Henley said he would not be able to accept pleas from Binalshibh and Hawsawi because the court has yet to hold hearings on whether they are mentally competent to represent themselves. An attorney for Binalshibh, Navy Cmdr. Suzanne Lachelier, objected to filing the Nov. 4 document on behalf of her client, saying he had "been permitted to go to this meeting" and others "without notice to me."

When the court resumed after a late-morning break, Mohammed, joined by Attash and Baluchi, changed tack and said he would not enter a plea until a decision was made on Binalshibh and Hawsawi. Lawyers had told them during the break that a plea could mean that they might not receive the death sentence and that it could cut off their two co-conspirators, according to a source familiar with the conversation.

"I want to postpone pleas until decision is made about the other brothers," Mohammed said.

The military court was told in an earlier hearing that Binalshibh, an alleged liaison between the hijackers and al-Qaeda's leadership, is being administered psychotropic drugs. And an attorney for Hawsawi, a Saudi and alleged financier of the attacks, said Monday that he had requested a mental competency hearing for his client.

Anticipating future pleas, Henley said Monday that he wanted a briefing from the prosecution and a defense response by Jan. 4 on whether he could accept guilty pleas in a death penalty case under the language of the military commissions statutes, which suggest that a death penalty could arise only from a decision by a military jury.

"The fact that the judge and the prosecution and the defense clearly don't know the consequences of a guilty plea shows the sorry state of these commissions," said Diane Marie Amann, a professor at the University of California at Davis, who is observing the proceedings here for the National Institute of Military Justice.

The prospect of a guilty plea and a possible death sentence would represent a major victory for the Bush administration, which had given up on bringing Mohammed and the others to trial before leaving office Jan. 20. In the seven years since the Guantanamo Bay detention camp opened, only three people have been convicted, one as a result of a plea agreement. Two of those found guilty have been returned home. None of the "high-value" detainees transferred from CIA custody to Guantanamo in 2006 has gone to trial.

Human rights groups said the judge should hold a full hearing to determine that any pleas are free from coercion. "In light of the men's severe mistreatment, the judge should require a full and thorough factual inquiry to determine whether or not these pleas are voluntary," said Jennifer Daskal, senior counterterrorism counsel at Human Rights Watch. Daskal also said Mohammed's possible influence over the others should be explored.

Baluchi, a Pakistani accused of having been a key lieutenant of Mohammed, told a military court this year that he was an ordinary businessman who had no knowledge of the Sept. 11 plot. And at a hearing in June, Army Maj. Jon Jackson, the military lawyer for Hawsawi, said his client was subjected to "intimidation by the co-accused" during courtroom conversations.

But the defendants insisted Monday that there was no coercion. "All of these decisions are undertaken by us without any pressure or influence by Khalid Sheik," Baluchi told the judge Monday.

Mohammed, born in Kuwait to Pakistani parents, was captured in Pakistan in March 2003 and held in secret CIA prisons for three years before President Bush ordered the transfer of 14 high-value detainees to Guantanamo Bay in September 2006. Mohammed told a military hearing in March that he planned the attacks. "I was responsible for the 9/11 operation, from A to Z," Mohammed said.

On Monday, Mohammed injected humor into his statements. Citing delays in getting documents from the defendants to the judge, he asked whether the commissions are "using carrier pigeons."

In a final outburst as court ended Monday evening, Binalshibh, speaking in Arabic, said that because it is a Muslim feast day, he wanted "to send my greetings to Osama bin Laden and reaffirm my allegiance. I hope the jihad will continue and strike the heart of America with all kinds of weapons of mass destruction."

Staff writer William Branigin and staff researcher Julie Tate, both in Washington, contributed to this report.

9/11 Suspects Ask to Make 'Confessions'

http://news.aol.com/article/911-suspects-ask-to-make-confessions/271343

By ANDREW O. SELSKY

GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba (Dec. 8) - Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said Monday he will confess to masterminding the Sept. 11 attacks, throwing his death-penalty trial into disarray and shocking victims' relatives who watched from behind a glass partition.

Four other men also abandoned their defenses, in effect daring the Pentagon to grant their wish for martyrdom. The judge ordered lawyers to advise him by Jan. 4 whether the Pentagon can apply the death penalty — which military prosecutors are seeking — without a jury trial.

"When they admitted their guilt, my reaction was, 'Yes!' My inclination was to jump up and say 'Yay!' But I managed to maintain my decorum," said Maureen Santora, of Long Island City, New York, whose firefighter son Christopher died responding to the World Trade Center attacks.

A courtroom drawing shows Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, center, and co-defendant Walid Bin Attash, left, in a pre-trial session Monday at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base

Santora was one of nine victims' relatives watching the proceedings, the first time relatives of the 2,975 people killed in the attacks have been allowed to observe the war-crimes trials. She watched from the back of the courtroom, wearing black and clutching a photo of her son in uniform.

Alice Hoagland of Redwood Estates, California, whose son Mark Bingham was on United Flight 93 whose passengers fought hijackers before it crashed in rural Pennsylvania, said the defendants should not be executed and become martyrs.

"They do not deserve the glory of executions," Hoagland said. "I want these dreadful people to live out their lives in a U.S. prison .... under the control of people they profess to hate."

In an about-face that appeared to take the court by complete surprise, the five men announced they were abandoning their attempts to mount a vigorous defense and instead requested "an immediate hearing session to announce our confessions."

However, that didn't mean they had repented.

"I reaffirm my allegiance to Osama bin Laden," Ramzi Binalshibh blurted out in Arabic at the end of the hearing. "I hope the jihad continues and I hope it hits the heart of America with weapons of mass destruction."

Hamilton Peterson, of Bethesda, Maryland, and whose father and stepmother died on United 93, said the defendants showed a "complete lack of contrition" and deserved to be executed.

The formal confessions were delayed, however, when the judge said two of the defendants couldn't enter pleas until the court determines their mental competency. The other three said they would wait as well.

"Our plea request was based on joint strategy," said defendant Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali.

In a letter read aloud by the judge, the defendants implied they want to plead guilty, but did not specify whether they will admit to specific charges.

Their letter was so unexpected that the judge, Army Col. Stephen Henley, was unsure how to proceed. He noted that the law specifies that only defendants unanimously convicted by a jury can be sentenced to death in the tribunals. No jury has been seated.

Army Col. Lawrence Morris, the chief prosecutor for the Guantanamo tribunals, said he expects a jury would be created to hear evidence in a sentencing phase of the trial and would decide on what punishment to mete out to the defendants.

Hoagland told reporters that she hopes President-elect Barack Obama, "an even-minded and just man," would ensure the five men are punished, though she stressed that wouldn't heal the loss of her son.

"I do not seek closure in my life," she said, blinking back tears.

Mohammed, who has already told a military panel he was the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, said he has no faith in the judge, his Pentagon-appointed lawyers or President George W. Bush.

Sporting a chest-length gray beard, Mohammed told the judge in English: "I don't trust you."

The five defendants said they decided on Nov. 4 — the day Obama was elected — to abandon their defenses against the capital charges. Obama opposes the trials and has pledged to close the detention center, which holds some 250 men.

Even if trials are held, it is unlikely any would be completed before Obama takes office on Jan. 20. Still, the U.S. military is pressing forward with the case until it receives orders to the contrary.

"We serve the sitting president and will continue to do so until President-elect Obama takes office," said Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman.

Human rights observers said the judge's uncertainty about sentencing highlights problems with America's first war-crimes trials since World War II, and is further evidence that they should be shut down, as Obama has pledged to do.

"The fact that the judge doesn't know whether they can be sentenced to death in one of the most important trials in U.S. history shows the circus-like atmosphere of the military commissions," said Jennifer Daskal of Human Rights Watch. "These cases belong in federal court."

One observer who lost his parents in the attacks said he supports holding the trials at Guantanamo Bay.

"The U.S. is doing its best to prove to the world that this is a fair proceeding," said Hamilton Peterson of Bethesda, Md., whose parents Donald and Jean were on United Flight 93.

"It was stunning to see today how not only do the defendants comprehend their extensive rights ... they are explicitly asking the court to hurry up because they are bored with the due process they are receiving."

posted 09 Dec 2008 16:45 | Permalink | Leave a comment.

Former ISI Head In Pakistan Says 911 Was An Inside Job

Pakistan's former Intelligence Chief, General Hamid Gul, speaks with CNN's Fareed Zakaria, says 9/11 wan an inside job.


http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=19R9H01IB1s

posted 09 Dec 2008 11:19 | Permalink | Leave a comment.

9/11 probers skipped key forensic tests

http://www.angelfire.com/ult/znewz1/trade7.html

By Paul Conant

A Znewz1 special report

Federal scientists ruled out controlled demolitions of three World Trade Center towers but declined to perform routine tests on soil and debris for traces of explosives or incendiaries, a review of National Institute of Standards and Technology publications shows.

The agency, which spent $16 million on its inquiry into the Sept. 11, 2001, collapses, said such tests weren't needed because computer simulations and other considerations had shown that controlled demolitions were improbable. In an August 2006 fact sheet, the agency frankly admits that it did not test trade center steel for the residue of explosives or the incendiaries thermite and thermate. The agency's decision to omit routine tests contrasts with its assertion that "some 200 technical experts -- including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia -- reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse."

Concerning the probe of the collapse of the two main towers, the fact sheet says, "Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors..." The agency, which failed to note that the FBI was in control of the trade center crime scene and which sent a bomb squad to the site, says nothing about the FBI or other federal investigative unit confirming that no explosives or incendiary residues were found, nor does it cite specific local police reports to that effect.

NO FORENSICS REPORTS

In fact, in its numerous public pronouncements between 2004 and 2008, NIST cites no forensic evidence gathered by criminal investigators, even though Congress had granted the agency subpoena power. For example, the final report on the collapse of the 47-story Building 7 includes the New York City fire and police departments among "cooperating organizations" that assisted its inquiry but says nothing of the FBI or other federal investigative agency.

A computer search of FBI and Justice Department documents and press releases failed to turn up any record of the FBI's findings concerning tests for explosives at Ground Zero. The FBI and another Justice Department unit, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, routinely do forensic testing of crime scenes where explosives or incendiaries are a possibility.

In an Aug. 26, 2008, technical briefing concerning the fall of Building 7, S. Shyam Sunder, who led NIST's investigation of the collapses, did not answer directly a question about residue tests, but said that a scientist, Jonathan Barnett, who had found a peculiar residue on steel shards recovered from Tower 1 and Building 7, had told the BBC that his team's findings showed nothing sinister.

Sunder was talking about Appendix C of the initial Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) study of the collapses in which three Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) professors called the "severe corrosion and subsequent erosion" of the debris a "very unusual event." They said of the residue on the steel that "no clear explanation of the source of the sulfur has been identified."

PUZZLE IGNORED

A 2002 WPI press release said the professors, who were hoping NIST would back further research, were also startled by the Swiss-cheese appearance of the shards, having expected bending but not holes. The agency said that indications and reports of molten steel were irrelevant, even though the fires were never hot enough to have melted steel, because the debris piles might have acted as ovens to cook the metal. No simulations were done to verify this idea.

In fact, the only NIST data on the strangely scarred metal seems to be Sunder's statement. Richard D. Sisson Jr., a mechanical engineering professor at WPI who is a co-author of Appendix C, told this reporter in an email that the NIST had not financed further research that the trio had hoped to do on the shards. Sisson declined to repeat what he and Barnett told the BBC's "Conspiracy Files" reporter. When this writer checked last week the July 6 episode had been removed from the BBC web site, though an episode concerning NIST's latest theory of Building 7's collapse was available.

Barnett has left his post as a WPI fire science professor and could not be reached. No response was received to an email query of a third author of Appendix C, Ronald R. Biederman, another WPI mechanical engineering professor.

The public is left to find the "research" confirming no foul play related to the shards in a webcast comment by Sunder, which refers to a BBC broadcast that has been taken offline and which the scientists involved can't or won't discuss.

DUST WASN'T TESTED

In response to a question from Steven E. Jones, a physicist who strongly challenges the NIST scenarios, Sunder said the agency hadn't checked to see whether dust gathered from Ground Zero contained red flecks because the agency was concerned only with credible hypotheses. Jones is an advocate of the idea that the incendiary thermate was used to slice through critical steel components to initiate collapses. Another critic, Kevin R. Ryan, fired from his job as a laboratory director for challenging government claims, commented that Sunder "pretended" not to be aware of a powerful spray-on thermate known as super-thermate or nano-thermate that is intended for military uses. The agency said in 2006 that the idea of thermite or the related thermate was dismissed because it would have required thousands of pounds of the substance to fell the main towers. Ryan, ousted from his job as a lab director for an arm of Underwriters Laboratories, has written that a number of NIST probers "had expert knowledge of nano-thermite."

An agency fact sheet on Building 7 asserts that the thermite theory is improbable because "it is unlikely that 100 pounds of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11 or during the day." That is, the agency justifies not running thermite residue tests on the a priori assumption that one or more security units was not compromised or complicit.

The fact sheet adds that tests for thermite or thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive, since some of the constituent chemicals are found in some of the building materials. Specifically, the sheet notes, sulfur is found in the gypsum wallboard used in many offices, but the sheet doesn't mention that sulfur is a component of many explosives and of thermate. NIST does not address the issue of the accuracy of various tests for trace chemicals, such as mass spectrometry, used by forensic scientists. Generally, scientists make evaluations based on proportions, such as parts per billion. If proportions are inconsistent with building materials, then other causes would be suspected.

The FEMA experts wrote in their 2003 report that the best scenario they could devise for Building 7's collapse had only a "low probability" of occurrence. In 2005, Sunder told reporters that the agency's "working hypothesis" was that Building 7 fell because of fuel fires coupled with structural weakening caused by falling debris from a main tower. NIST retracted that idea in its final draft of the Building 7 report, concluded in August.

FIRE TESTS SKIPPED

Instead, the agency came up with a novel conjecture about a fluke collapse -- conceding that fire had never before triggered a skyscraper's total collapse -- but declined to perform a fire test of the components involved to see whether "thermal expansion" could indeed have caused the critical structural damage. Physical fire tests were performed for the twin towers study and the results, when plugged into the computer simulations, were ambiguous (see How did the twin towers fall? Questions remain via the link above). A fire test would have taken less than a day, as opposed to the eight months of running time that was required for the various computer simulations of Building 7's collapse.

As was the case in the twin towers study, NIST built no scale models to see whether its conjecture would work for Building 7.

"I proposed a scale model approach to NIST in the beginning," James G. Quintere, a former NIST division chief, told this reporter. "Not only was it rejected but they refused to support our student project on it, and we did it anyway..."

Quintere, a University of Maryland fire science professor, said the steel debris was key to the forensics work but NIST "did not know what to do with the steel they got," adding: "They were told by me to do a grain analysis to get the temperature, and claimed ignorance until the eleventh hour."

Quintere doubts that the main towers were felled by controlled demolition but still challenges NIST's professionalism (see link above).

The agency concluded that Building 7 collapsed due to something no experts had anticipated and that had never before triggered such a collapse: the thermal expansion of a floor assembly that pushed out and buckled column 79, which triggered a catastrophic cascade of failures.

However, the agency admits that there is no visible evidence to validate its hypothesis. According to a supplementary report (NCSTAR 1-9 V2, p25), there was a "lack of visual evidence with which to validate the complex coupling of the fire and thermostructural models" used in the computer simulations.

A NOVEL SCENARIO

Conceding that Building 7's fires weren't nearly hot enough to melt or warp columns and girders, the agency conjectured that the expansion of a floor assembly occurred unevenly, so that column 79 had more thermal force applied to it than columns on the other side of the floor. A physical fire test could however have confirmed whether such a result was likely. The computer simulations make numerous assumptions and approximations that might not be reflected in the real world. Also, mathematicians say that as the number of simulation variables increases, the accuracy of prediction generally falls. In fact, the agency's main Building 7 report (p40) notes that once collapse simulation was under way, uncertainties and random processes led to decreasing precision over time.

Interestingly, an early theory reported in the press of how the main towers collapsed was that thermal expansion of floor slabs had buckled perimeter columns. The NIST did not use this theory in its 2005 report on the main towers.

The agency said that people on a news video did not turn around and look just as Building 7 began to fall, implying they had heard no explosion. Yet, if a nine-pound charge had severed Column 79, a loud report should have issued from the building, the agency said. However, the agency noted, no windows seem to have been blown out by such an explosion in the building (which had no basement). Critics say thermate would have not been overly noisy, and the agency gave no consideration for the possibility of a hastily erected blast wall.

PRE-COLLAPSE SHOCK

NIST withheld the seismic data, which was due out in 2005, until August 2008. That data, provided by Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, show that roughly 10 seconds before Building 7's collapse, seismic stations recorded a magnitude 0.6 event, followed by a higher magnitude quake for the main collapse. The agency speculated that an interior portion of Building 7 had fallen and set off the 0.6-level quake.

The seismic data record a number of 0.6 magnitude quakes associated with quarry blasts that occurred that day, indicating that a 0.6 event is consistent with explosives. Yet, the news video on nearby West Street shows that the seismic event -- which had the energy of a quarry explosion -- failed to reach the ears of those on camera.

Eric Lipton of the New York Times described a testy Aug. 21, 2008, press briefing in which Sunder was peppered with questions by apparently knowledgeable people who were skeptical of NIST claims. The agency's webcam of that briefing was taken offline, though a transcript of Sunder's opening statement is still available.

NIST had 16 videos, nine considered important, for the Building 7 investigation but the agency limits web access to some still frames and one unidentified video of the collapse, whose forensics value is unclear, posted by the agency's public affairs department.

NIST takes no notice of the fact that both CNN and the BBC had advance knowledge of Building 7's collapse. Yet the agency scenario for collapse hypothesizes a fluke event the like of which has never before occurred in a skyscraper, as the agency admits. The agency also says that there is no visible evidence to validate its scenario, indicating there is no apparent reason anyone would have had to warn of the building's collapse about an hour ahead of time. This conclusion is reinforced by the agency's description of its photographic evidence, which contains no hint that a collapse was impending an hour or 20 minutes in advance.

Yet a YouTube video shows CNN anchor Aaron Brown reporting at about 4:14 p.m. that "we are getting information now that one of the other buildings, Building 7, in the World Trade Center complex is on fire and has either collapsed or is collapsing."

Similarly, BBC reporter Jane Standley is shown on another YouTube video reporting Building 7's collapse -- which took less than 10 seconds -- 20 minutes before it actually fell at 5:20 p.m. The BBC said it could not verify the video's authenticity, the original having been lost.

NIST noted that Con Edison shut off all power to the substation at the base of Building 7 54 minutes before collapse. On the other hand, the agency reported that a decision had been made to forgo fighting the building's fires at 2:30 p.m. The power cut-off occurred 19 minutes after Brown prematurely announced the building's collapse.

It seems plausible that fire or police officials tipped the press that Building 7 was "coming down" and that on-air reporters misconstrued the information. In both videos, an apparently sturdy Building 7 is visible behind the telecasters.

One can imagine a scenario in which either President Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney gave the OK to demolish the building, which housed the CIA's New York station and other federal offices, in order to safeguard national security secrets, but that a decision was made to conceal the truth lest the public become wary of the official story of how the main towers fell.

However, as Znewz1 has previously reported, the inconsistencies and evasions in NIST's report on the main towers also bring up disturbing questions.

ANTHRAX DOUBTS

The FBI's handling of the anthrax investigation has spurred spirited debate in Congress and among experts, who either doubt that Bruce Ivins was a culprit, or, if he was, that he could have acted alone.

According to researcher Graeme Sephton, the FBI withheld its forensics findings concerning the explosion that felled TWA Flight 800 over Long Island Sound during naval maneuvers in 1996. The bureau failed to share with the National Transportation Safety Board knowledge of the fact that traces of a chemical associated with an explosive had been detected on plane wreckage, Sephton, who has fought long battles for the release of federal records, found. It appeared that only when the finding leaked to the press did the NTSB became aware of the residue, Sephton said. The residue was attributed to a spill of a chemical used in the training of bomb-sniffing dogs.

Sephton also discovered that the FBI had withheld from the medical examiner a group of pellets, recovered from Flight 800 corpses, that he said are consistent with warheads found in some missiles.

Hindu Zionists and Mossad behind Mumbai Attacks

by Steve Watson | prisonplanet.com
view original article

Wednesday, Dec 3, 2008

A renowned Pakistani strategic defence analyst has described last week’s terrorist attacks in Mumbai as a “botched” false flag operation designed to imitate the 9/11 attacks on the United States.

Zaid Hamid, a security consultant who routinely appears on Pakistani television, told reporters of the News One channel that the attacks were state sponsored by Indian military intelligence and carried out by Hindu zionists aided by Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency.

Hamid contends that the motive is to shift attention away from India’s domestic terrorists, and to justify Western intervention in Pakistan.

“They look like Hindus. No Pakistani speaks the language they chatted in,” said Hamid , claiming that the attackers wore saffron Hindu Zionist wrist bands.

“The Americans executed the 9/11 attack perfectly.” Hamid continued. “They managed the media very well. The Indians tried to repeat the formula but goofed up. The idiots made a complete mess of it,” he argued.

Video of Hamid’s comments have been uploaded to youtube.


http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=5F4_qwtM5yY

Hamid, who also hosts his own “Brasstacks” show on the News One channel, has long asserted that the U.S. wishes to eliminate Pakistan’s nuclear facilities which are seen as a direct threat to Israel’s sovereignty.

One of those men was India’s top antiterrorist officer Hemant Karkare, who was shot three times in the chest as he led his men at the Taj Mahal Palace.

Karkare was on the verge of uncovering the home-grown terror franchise of the Hindu extremists. He had also received death threats just hours before the attacks.

Karkare was investigating a bomb attack that killed at least six people near a mosque in the western city of Malegaon on September 29. In early November his Anti-Terror Squad arrested senior Military Intelligence officer Colonel Srikant Prasad Purohit on suspicion of involvement in the attack which was carried out by Hindu extremists.

Colonel Purohit was also under investigation for the 2007 Samjhauta Express bombings, which killed 68 people, mostly Pakistanis. Investigations into this will now likely be halted.

Analysts claim that the Mumbai bombings represent a desperate move on behalf of separatists within the Indian establishment who want to shift the country away from independence and into the new world order model.

Luke Rudowski and WeAreChange in NY - 11 September 2008

It is inspiring to see such large numbers of truthers in one place (over 2000). This is an indication that Truth will ultimately conquer the Lie.


http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=telX-y7Cmaw

 

Learning about self-deception

http://www.911blogger.com/node/18673

Learning about self-deception is important for all people today. That’s because many of our problems, both as individuals and as a society, are rooted in self-deception, and many of the ways in which others abuse us relate to our inherent tendency to self-deceive. We can overcome these problems, and have a decent chance at long-term survival as a species, only if we learn about such limitations, and strive to control them. One great way to rapidly learn about self-deception, and other forms of deception, is to learn about the events of September 11th.

It’s easy to see wide spread self-deception with regard to 9/11. For one thing, most people don’t know the actual official story, given by the 9/11 Commission and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). This is despite the fact that everyone, at least in the US, has invested essentially their entire future in that story, whether they know it or not.

Some have gone beyond simple avoidance of the facts, in an attempt to prevent themselves and others from looking closely at 9/11. These folks have gone to the extent of changing the definitions of common words, engaging in wild speculation and exaggerations, and suggesting that long strings of unprecedented events, including violations of the laws of nature, were possible on just that one day. These painful self-deceptions help some people dodge the emotional stress that accompanies careful examination of the events of 9/11.

In order to understand the extreme self-deception surrounding 9/11, we should first look at how people deceive themselves. There are quite a few ways, in fact, and a good book that describes some of them is Brain Fiction: Self Deception and the Riddle of Confabulation, by William Hirstein.[1] In this well-referenced book, Hirstein describes a continuum of human conditions that relate to self-deception, spanning from clinical confabulation to clinical obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). These conditions can be seen in terms of a gradual increase in “tension”, or amount of knowledge that a person has about the fact that he or she is making false claims. People who have these conditions are described as follows.

Clinical confabulator
Sociopath
Self-deceived person without tension
Normal confabulator
Neutral normal person
Self-deceived person with tension
Lying person
Obsessive-compulsive person
Clinical OCD sufferer

Hirstein explains that normal thinking patterns involve the creation of multiple mental representations for any given situation, which can be either image-like or concept-like in nature. Those representations that are false, or that do not fit with our sense of reality, are culled out before being articulated, by a checking process. Sometimes these critical checking processes do not work, and the affected person can lie easily and with full belief that the false statements he or she is making are in fact true. In those cases, the person is said to be confabulating. But when the checking processes do work, and for whatever reasons false claims are still made, tension is created and the person is considered to be self-deceived.

Hirstein’s book details the fascinating research that supports this representation/checking theory of self-deception and confabulation. Through split-brain experiments, “mind-reading” experiments, and “don’t know” tests, we have learned that people deceive themselves, through physical damage to the brain, and also through other, more natural mechanisms.

At the extreme ends of the self-deception continuum are clinical confabulation, which involves essentially no tension, and clinical OCD, where tension is highest and the checking processes are out of control. Clinical confabulation is a condition in which people make completely false claims but have no idea that they are doing so because the checking processes that prevent such claims are not in place. This can happen through brain damage, to the orbitofrontal cortex specifically. It is in the orbitofrontal cortex that the checking process is thought to occur, although the right parietal cortex has also been implicated in the decision to initiate the checking process.

Sociopathy, and a similar condition called disinhibition, are also caused by damage to the orbitofrontal cortex, and also involve very little tension. In the national discussion on 9/11, we have seen a few people who act as if they are sociopaths, lying easily and with confidence but without regard for the harm caused to others, and apparently without regret. These are the people who aggressively promote and defend the US government’s explanations of what happened that day, even as those explanations change radically, often to the point of contradicting the previous position completely. These adamant defenders of the official story of 9/11 have no regard for the truth or falsity of their claims, or for the fact that they are propping up the one and only source of power for those behind the disastrous 9/11 Wars. Such people might be sociopaths, or they might simply be professional liars.

In any case, when the normal checking processes do work, and the validity of potential claims is checked, false claims are weeded out before being articulated. This is what we see when people are functioning in what the above list calls the “neutral normal” condition. But even people who are considered “normal” tend to make false claims without being aware of it. Apparently this is due to the checking processes being diminished not by physical damage, but by the emotional stress caused by the mental imagery involved.

For example, anosognosia refers to the denial of illness or physical disability. People with anosognosia will confabulate about the loss of an arm or a leg, pretending that the limb is still intact despite being given overwhelming evidence that this is not true. It is simply too emotionally disturbing, at least initially, for such people to admit their disability.