A woman who claims she was stationed at Fort Meade on September 11, 2001, has given an explosive interview about how she personally heard military commanders make the decision to shoot down United Airlines Flight 93 on 9/11.

A person using the pseudonym Elizabeth Nelson told The Project Camelot website that she personally heard officials agree on the order to shoot down Flight 93. The decision was apparently made because the plane was flying in a no-fly zone near to Camp David and heading toward Site R, a military facility in known as the “backup Pentagon”.

Nelson stresses that at no time was there any talk of “hijackers,” and the plane was shot down purely because communication had been lost and standard operating procedure mandated that the plane be intercepted and destroyed.

Because the woman refuses to provide her real name, the authenticity of her story is very much up for debate, but in a 40 minute MP3 recording ( click here to listen) of the interview, she relates what she witnessed in as sincere and genuine a way as one could expect. This individual has seemingly little to gain from making up such a story, unless it’s part of a deliberate disinformation campaign.

Nelson says that she was stationed at at Fort Meade under the Kimbrough Ambulatory Care Center Hospital and was training as a radiologic technologist having finished basic training three weeks prior. On 9/11, her rank was Private First Class.

Nelson relates how 9/11 started as a routine day before a higher ranked soldier suddenly emerged from another room and exclaimed, “Holy shit! I just saw a plane crash into one of the Twin Towers.”

Nelson and her colleagues then gathered around the TV in the hospital lobby before they saw the second plane hit the tower. Despite the fact that the first plane strike was not broadcast on live television, Nelson was adamant that the soldier was referring to the first plane when he first spoke. Nelson says that when she first saw the live TV pictures, only one tower was on fire, so the soldier could not have been referring to a replay of the second hit. In the interview, Nelson speculates that the first hit could have been broadcast on an internal military channel. President Bush once famously claimed that he had seen the first plane hit and thought that it was a case of pilot error, despite there being no live TV footage of the first plane strike.

While the majority of the personnel on the base scrambled to protect the facility as part of standard operating procedure, Nelson and a colleague were offered up by their First Sergeant to act as assistants to the Commander of the Base.

“All the other departments of soldiers - the nursing department, the clerical, administrational department - everybody sent their base soldiers there and I didn’t see them anymore. So basically the hospital was not fully active at that point. Everything was on hold,” said Nelson, adding, “And so I remember the room that they took us into. And they told us that we were in charge of, you know, getting coffees, any kind of snacks from the cafeteria - not cafeteria, like from the snack machines or from the place where you can get little snacks - in charge of making photocopies because she and I had the access codes for the rooms, to get in there.”

Nelson and her colleague were sat at the far end of the room and told to face the wall as the meeting of top officials on the base commenced.

“And there was probably six or seven men around this very large table, just like you would see in a big office somewhere. And they had this funny phone. It was like a conference-call phone. And I remember them sitting there and they were talking through this phone. And it seemed to me that they were talking to one or two other places,” said Nelson, adding that she suspected the men were in contact with the West Point military base an hour north of New York City.

The men were trying to ascertain what was going on and quickly expressed concern about Camp David and “Site R” and stating words to the effect of, “Protocol is that this is a no-fly zone. We have to take this plane down. Yes, it’s a passenger plane. It needs to be taken down. It’s a no-fly zone.”

According to Wikipedia, Site R, otherwise known as The Raven Rock Mountain Complex (RRMC) or the Underground Pentagon, is a United States government facility on Raven Rock, a mountain in the U.S. state of Pennsylvania. The facility houses the ANMCC (Alternate National Military Command Center), JSSC (Joint Staff Support Center), OSD/DHS (Office of the Secretary of Defense/Department of Homeland Security), and the 114th Signal Battalion. RRMC also houses the emergency operations centers for the Army, Navy and Air Force.

“I didn’t hear a thing about hijackers,” states Nelson, “We just heard that this plane was flying in a no-fly zone and they couldn’t make contact with the plane, or something like this. There was no communication. Protocol says it has to be taken out. And so I was in this room when the decision was mutually made by the people talking on the phone in the room that I was in, to shoot this plane down.”

“It didn’t feel like anybody knew that there was anything with terrorists,” added Nelson, saying that the officers mentioned the attack on the twin towers but only in the context that they didn’t know where Flight 93 was heading. She got the impression that they were genuinely unaware of the wider 9/11 plot, as would be expected in a compartmentalized structure, and that they were simply following military protocol.

Nelson recalls how she later felt revulsion after she saw news reports about how Flight 93 had supposedly been taken down by brave passengers.

“I remember the distinct feeling inside of me of when I saw on the news that there was this story that there were terrorists on this plane, and that the people overtook the pilot and crashed the plane, - I mean, overtook the terrorists and crashed the plane themselves. And how this was leaking out as these people being heroes,” she states.

“And I remember the extreme moral frustration inside of me, of feeling: But that’s not true! That’s not true at all! We shot this down. And a huge conflict inside of me, of knowing that the world is made to believe this story that’s not true.”

Nelson subsequently felt frustrated when anyone talked about the manufactured myth of the Flight 93 heroes.

“I also remember the confronting feeling when I would be around … because there were civilians that worked in the hospital as well. And then when they would talk about the heroes and these things, the conflict that I had inside of myself was wanting to bust out and say: That’s not true!,” she states.

“They didn’t crash the plane. If they would have crashed it, there would have been a skeleton of the plane. There was no… Nothing. It was blown up.”

Nelson speculated that the errant aircraft could have been originally heading for New York City (Building 7?) before the passengers retook control of the aircraft and started aimlessly flying it elsewhere.

“The only thing I can think is if the third plane was also intended for somewhere in the city [New York City] as well, and that the people actually did take over the hijackers and divert the plane so that the plane ended up flying aimlessly someplace else. And of course the people don’t know how to talk over the radio or any of these things. And that’s maybe something that happened,” she states.

The biggest argument against Nelson’s claims is the hard to accept notion that she and another Private were allowed to sit within earshot of top military commanders making monumental decisions about national security. If the commanders had needed people to make photocopies of documents and bring snacks and drinks as Nelson describes, then why not just have them on call in a different room? One would expect that a military complex have sophisticated communication connections that would have easily facilitated such a scenario.

Then again, if all the other active duty personnel were busy defending the base it could be argued that in the midst of the chaos, Nelson and her colleague were called upon.

Whether or not Nelson’s story is true, the fact that Flight 93 was shot down is one of the most glaring holes in the official 9/11 story.

Footage of the crash site showed barely any debris whatsoever. Compare this to any other plane crash in history and the contrast is astounding.

The debris field of Flight 93 was eight miles wide - investigators found a second debris field three miles away from the main crash site at Indian Lake, and a third debris field in New Baltimore, eight miles away. This is entirely consistent with the plane having been shot down.

Several eyewitnesses described hearing explosions before Flight 93 crashed and others said they heard missiles.

The Flight93Crash website has a compilation of eyewitness reports all attesting to the fact that the plane was shot down.

Donald Rumsfeld himself said that Flight 93 was “shot down” in an apparent slip of the tongue on December 24, 2004.

Related Posts

• Iran blames Israel and U.S. for nuclear scientist’s murder
• Cindy Sheehan - March to Bush’s Home in Dallas
• Debunking the 9/11 “Dust” Theory
• Hundreds of Thousands of Unemployed Run Out of Benefits
• Oppressed snappers focus on police in London and Chatham
• It’s official: Ron Paul’s son running for US Senate
• Blackwater Said to Pursue Bribes to Iraq After 17 Died
• Ahmadinejad challenger calls off Tehran rally to avert further bloodshed
• Billionaire club in bid to curb overpopulation
• Swine flu death rate similar to seasonal flu: expert

NEW YORK — The Freedom Tower is out. One World Trade Center is in.

The agency that owns ground zero confirmed Thursday that the signature skyscraper replacing the towers destroyed on Sept. 11 will be more commonly known as One World Trade Center.

The building under construction at the site was named the Freedom Tower in the first ground zero master plan. Officials at the time said the tallest, most symbolic of five planned towers at the site would demonstrate the country’s triumph over terrorism.

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey chairman Anthony Coscia says the agency refers to the building as One World Trade Center. He says it’s the building’s legal name and “the one that’s easiest for people to identify with.”

Related Posts

• Hersh: Cheney Ran SS-Style Political Assassination Unit
• Hannity suggests Christianity compatible with torture
• Biden Urges NATO Allies to Help Tackle Problems in Afghanistan
• 9/11, Deep State Violence and the Hope of Internet Politics

The BBC is set to launch another savage smear attack on the 9/11 truth movement with two documentaries about the September 11 attacks and the 7/7 bombings that attempt to debunk evidence of government complicity and smear doubters of the official story as holocaust deniers, Neo-Nazis, and crop circle fanatics.

	The BBC has also completed a documentary on the 7/7 bombings, set to air in Autumn, which puts forward an individual called Nick Kollerstrom as the main proponent of “conspiracy theories” surrounding the 2005 London Underground attacks.

Having taken its rightful place alongside Popular Mechanics and The History Channel as one of the 21st century’s most plentiful peddlers of yellow journalism with their first 9/11 hit piece last year, “Auntie Beeb” is set to have another crack at the whip on July 6th when it airs a documentary about the collapse of WTC Building 7, the 47-storey skyscraper that imploded into its own footprint on 9/11 without being hit by a plane, called The Third Tower.

The preview clip for the show claims that the program will offer the solution to the “final mystery of 9/11,” presumably self-satisfied that the BBC’s previous woeful effort to debunk 9/11 truth dismissed the mountains of other contradictions and outright falsehoods of the official story.

Judging from the end of the clip, it seems as if the BBC is ready to violate the fundamental laws of physics and proclaim that fire caused the steel-framed building to collapse, an unprecedented event in history.

The making of the show was undoubtedly motivated by the BBC themselves having been shamed last year by footage that emerged of them reporting the collapse of Building 7 before it had happened, a revelation that prompted a series of blundering PR gaffes on behalf of the corporation and seemingly a vendetta against 9/11 truthers who bombarded the company with bad publicity at the time.

The BBC’s flustered attempts to adopt damage control over questions about why their correspondent reported the collapse of Building 7 before it happened only provoked a firestorm of new interest in 9/11 truth and exalted questions surrounding WTC 7 to the point where it is now the Achilles’ heel of the official conspiracy theory.

The new hit piece features an interview with 9/11 shill extraordinaire and former chief counter-terrorism adviser to the White House Richard Clarke, who denies a controlled demolition took down Building 7.

The BBC’s first stab at debunking the 9/11 truth movement was a jaw-dropping exercise in journalistic prostitution more befitting of state-controlled TV stations in Communist China or Zimbabwe.

The show was a tissue of lies, bias and emotional manipulation from beginning to end, structured around fallacy, lying by omission and an overwhelming dearth of impartiality.

During a follow-up radio debate, producer Guy Smith had no answers for the plethora of inaccuracies that littered the program.

The BBC has also completed a documentary on the 7/7 bombings, set to air in Autumn, which puts forward an individual called Nick Kollerstrom as the main proponent of “conspiracy theories” surrounding the 2005 London Underground attacks.

Despite the fact that we were at the forefront of 7/7 coverage immediately after it happened and have produced scores of articles on the subject that received millions of readers, the BBC did not choose to speak to us and instead interviewed a radical astrologist who also dabbles in crop circles, holocaust denial and making apologies for Hitler.

Kollerstrom is just about the wackiest person the BBC could have picked to represent alternative explanations behind 7/7. The idea behind it is simple - pick a nutcase closet Neo-Nazi to talk about 7/7 thus sending a very clear message to the viewer - anyone who questions the official government story behind 7/7 is a holocaust denier, a lunatic, and potentially dangerous.

In pursuing such dirty smear tactics once again, the BBC has proven itself to be not only biased and agenda-driven, but the producers of the show have displayed their complete ineptness in judging who to interview for the documentary.

“The stakes are high because conspiracy theories are spreading suspicion about the official account of what happened, ultimately questioning whether the authorities can be trusted,” writes producer Mike Rudin. “Establishing whether what is argued is true or false, and scrutinising the way proponents conduct themselves, is clearly in the public interest and is a serious and legitimate task for the BBC.”

Oh diddums, now we wouldn’t want to question whether the authorities should be trusted now would we Mike? Because we know governments never lie, have never engaged in any conspiracies and always have the interests of the people at heart.

The BBC thinks it is in the “public interest” and a “legitimate task” to run defense for this criminal Blair-Brown government that has already aided in the slaughter of over 600,000 innocent people in Iraq based on their own conspiracy theories about weapons of mass destruction, by smearing anyone that questions the official story behind 7/7.

This is a damning indictment of how the BBC views itself and corporate media today as a whole - not as an independent media outlet tasked with putting politicians’ feet to the fire, muckraking, and asking hard questions - but acting as a Ministry of Truth to put a lid on the shocking facts behind 7/7 and backing up a Labour government that has refused all along to allow a proper investigation into the bombings come hell or high water.

“Scrutinising the way proponents conduct themselves,” as Rudin calls it is merely newspeak for “taking the piss out of mentally unstable Neo-Nazis and then claiming they represent conspiracy theorists.”

The BBC masquerades as some kind of credible arbiter of “case closed” truth, yet the corporation is almost universally loathed in the United Kingdom because Britons are forced to fund its existence through a TV license tax and in return the BBC provides them with utter garbage on a regular basis.

The BBC’s latest serving of yellow journalism is likely to be little improvement.

We invite readers to leave a comment on producer Mike Rudin’s blog so as to give him the opportunity to write a new blog expressing his phony outrage to hostile put-downs of his career in yellow journalism.

Related Posts

• Government Itself Won’t Swear To Official Theory of 9/11

While many people question the government’s conclusions about 9/11, rest assured that the government agencies tasked with investigating 9/11 are confident that the government’s answer to the following questions is correct:

(1) How could a rag-tag bunch of hijackers penetrate the strongest military in history and disable normal defensive procedures?

(2) How could 3 super-strong, over-engineered buildings become the first modern steel-frame high-rises in history to collapse due to fire, falling at virtually free-fall speed, and exhibiting many indications normally associated with controlled demolition?

At least the government itself is confident about the answers to these questions, right?

Well, actually:

• Bush, Cheney and all other key officials refused to testify under oath, and Bush and Cheney would not even speak to the 9/11 Commission unless they did so together

• The 9/11 Commission admits that the U.S. military intentionally lied about what happened that day, the Commission reached conclusions based on political considerations, and that its conclusions were largely based on third-hand information conveyed through military spokespeople about what severley tortured, crazy people supposedly said

• NIST admits “We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse”

• FEMA admits that its best hypothesis for why WTC 7 collapsed has only “a low probability of occurring”

It is not very reassuring when the professional whitewashers tasked with defending the government’s version of what happened on 9/11 themselves willing to swear to that version.

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/

George Washington George Washington is a pen name. I am using the pen name, with the approval of the publisher, because I have received death threats due to my 9/11 research and writing. I am using a pen name to protect myself and my family.

Related Posts

• BBC Set To Launch New Smear Attack On 9/11 Truth

Aaron Dykes / JonesReport.com | April 25, 2008

Members of We Are Change UK questioned ex-BBC reporter Phil Hayton about the early reporting of WTC 7’s collapse during a speaking appearance.

Hayton failed to recollect even being in the studio on the day of 9/11– at first– but then recalls the situation when it is described in detail, including the actions of Jane Standley, who reported the collapse some 26 minutes in advance with WTC Building 7 still visible in the background.

“A lot of eyebrows were raised,” We Are Change reporters point out in summary, because many saw it as a clear controlled demolition, including a number of engineers.

Hayton responded, pointing out that he was not aware of the situation with WTC 7. “This sounds so significant– I’m just amazed I didn’t know about this… This is completely news to me.”

“So, is there no official explanation?” Hayton further probed.

We Are Change continues to explain the delayed NIST report on WTC 7 as well as the response from a BBC editor who claimed 9/11 tapes were “lost” in a ‘cock-up.’

“I sense that you think there’s a conspiracy here– but you might be right,” Hayton concluded.

On a previous occasion, We Are Change UK reporters contacted Jane Standley by phone about the telling incident. Standley, unlike Hayton, was not surprised by the revelation, but became uncomfortable and hurriedly ended the conversation, only commenting that she had been “harassed” about the situation already.

Surely, it is clear that neither Standley nor Hayton were ‘in on a conspiracy’– rather they were used and fed information. However, Hayton seems willing to admit it while Standley has thus far been unable to answer for the suspicious incident ahead of the unexplained collapse.

The suspicion surrounding early media reporting of WTC7’s collapse– which Aaron Brown of CNN also announced– only exacerbates the demolition apparent that many police, fire fighters and other emergency workers were told about in advance and which many other news anchors described as being like a ‘deliberately destroyed’ building.

Further, WTC lease holder Larry Silverstein said that the building was “pulled” and rescue worker Kevin McPadden has reported hearing a countdown to Building 7’s demolition.

Related Posts

• No link between global warming and melting glaciers: India
• Former NBA Player John Salley: Majority of White America Hates Obama
• U.S. Warrantless Wiretapping predates 9/11
• Will Ireland Go Euro?
• Traders’ Cell Phones Would Be Recorded Under FSA Plan
• The Coming of the Ron Paul Democrat
• Financier Jim Rogers denies saying pound will collapse
• FBI Veteran Executive Calls For Special Counsel Investigation, Prosecutions in Sibel Edmonds Case
• Cheney, Neocons Considered Killing Americans in Pretext to Attack Iran
• Democrats worry Bush setting up war with Iran

Paul Joseph Watson / Prison Planet | April 17, 2008

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s bumbling comments about 9/11, in which he crudely questioned the official story by referring to the death toll, play right into the establishment media and the Neo-Cons’ hands and give them an ample opportunity to debunk the entire truth movement - don’t think for a minute they won’t seize the chance.

“Four or five years ago a suspect event took place in New York,” President Ahmadinejad said.

“A building collapsed and they said 3,000 people had been killed but never published their names,” he said in a speech in the holy city of Qom.

People like BBC reporter Greg Palast have long suspected that Ahmadinejad is actually a stooge who is in bed with the Neo-Cons, and his latest buffoonery only lends credence to that summation.

First of all, Ahmadinejad sets the scene by displaying his ignorance of when 9/11 even happened, it was nearly seven years ago, not “four or five”.

Since Ahmadinejad has also repeatedly questioned the scale of the Holocaust, this gives debunkers a perfect opportunity to link 9/11 truth with Holocaust denial, a pathetic smear that they have always longed to anchor to some actual evidence, since none whatsoever exists.

Naturally, when a French actress says something about 9/11 or the fool Ahmadinejad opens his mouth, the establishment media afford it lavish attention for days on end, but when hundreds of scholars, professors, architects and scientists go public, the silence is deafening.

That’s because the media chooses its targets - they only give attention to someone who they can easily debunk.

The U.S. government wasted no time in posturing feigned incredulity yesterday when they reacted to the comments.

“I am not sure what you say about a statement like that. It leaves one speechless,” said State Department spokesman Sean McCormack.

“It is just misguided, misinformed rhetoric,” McCormack said.

Ahmadinejad’s bizarre doubting of the official death toll, something which is not shared by the 9/11 truth movement as a whole, is a perfect straw man argument that the establishment can use to shoot down and then tar the rest of the truth movement with the same brush.

So to all the debunkers out there - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does not represent the 9/11 truth movement - and your obsession with prevaricating on his comments only proves that you are frightened to go head to head with credible figures who are asking real questions about the official story - people like Japanese MP Yukihisa Fujita and former Italian President Francesco Cossiga.

Related Posts

• Masonicare Monitors the Elderly
• U.S. To Increase Troops In Afghanistan
• 34,000 troops will be sent to Afghanistan
• Kashkari Accused Of Bailout “Bait and Switch” During Angry Hearing
• “Emergency Control” of the Internet
• Olbermann’s Special Comment: Freedom of speech has been destroyed
• UN threatens to act against Britain for failure to protect heritage sites
• Confirmed: No Supporting Evidence For DHS “Rightwing Extremism” Report
• Swine Flu A Hoax, But Martial Law All Too Real
• UK is ‘facing 70s-style blackouts’

I know many of you have already contributed, but if you can make another contribution of $10, $25, or $50, it would help us tremendously.

Donations

100% of the operating income for the FealGood Foundation is provided by undesignated contributions.  You can help improve the lives of 9/11 first responders and their families by supporting the FealGood Foundation  and making your tax deductible gift today.

Donations are accepted via Paypal (please direct payments to feal13@aol.com) or by sending a Personal Check to the mailing address listed below.

Credit Cards (Visa/Mastercard/Discover) can be accepted via phone only at (631) 724-3320.

FealGood Foundation

144 Shenandoah Blvd
Nesconset, New York  11767

Related Posts

• Gordon Brown: Oil Crisis Now Worse than in the 1970s
• America slides deeper into depression as Wall Street revels
• Borg Hive Technology Now Nearly Main Street
• Siberian winds usher in record lows in Beijing
• Bush torture ‘architect’ sits on court that will rule on another torture ‘architect’
• Tillman’s parents want general’s record reviewed
• Ex-inmate recalls days of abuse at Abu Ghraib
• Chris Matthews Compares Debra Medina to Southern Racists
• Ventura on The View: If waterboarding is fine, why don’t cops do it?
• At Least One Central Bank Held Fake Gold

David Miller is a single case. Out there are thousands like him, with tens of thousands undiagnosed. Again, We ask: What can we–the able bodied citizens–do to help? If we can raise $400,000 for a blimp, we should be able to raise money–and awareness–on behalf of the 9/11 Community. It is their stories that fuel our movement, the ones to bear the cross of the greatest crime in American History. Their stories must be heard–and taken to hear–by each and every one of us. David, we hear you, brother. Hang tough. Our hearts and minds are with you.

Related Posts

• Full Text of Senate Banker Bill
• Obama Pressured to Back Off Iraq Withdrawal
• North Hollywood Installs “Talking Cameras”
• UPI Editor Equates 9/11 Truth Activists With Fort Hood Killer
• The Alex Jones Show – L I V E – January 4th With Lord Monckton
• Britain’s Prime Minister Argues for Global Governance
• America is on the Brink of Fascism! Jesse Ventura
• Alex Jones: CPS Bill to End 4th Amendment in Texas
• Obama: No Comment on Gaza Slaughter
• Cheye Calvo Details SWAT Raid in His Home

As an example, consider the following blogger on the KXMC website:

“He’s one of my favorite artists. His songs are always on my iPod playlist, but now I’m not sure I’m going to be able to enjoy his music the way I once did after listening to this interview with Ron Paul buddy Alex Jones,” rants the nameless blogger. “As a conservative, I’m used to having to overlook the politics of the artists I like. Entertainers tend to be very liberal. It’s a fact of life that I’ve learned to deal with. But trutherism is more than just disagreeing on the war or domestic policy. Trutherism is equivalent to holocaust denial in my book… Shame on you, Willie.”

Of course, this guy is not a “conservative,” he is a neocon, but then the neocons hijacked the title years ago. It is also a squalid and disingenuous neocon tactic to claim “trutherism” is akin to Holocaust denial, never mind there is not a shimmering iota of likeness between the two. It is just another neocon cheap trick, a shabby effort to get the clueless and politically infantile to react in emotional fashion to the fact distant Muslim cave dwellers — expensively tailored by the CIA and no shortage of fanatics in Pakistan — were unable to change the laws of physics. Such brain death and tawdry emotionalism stink to high heaven, but without such despicable theatrics the murderous neocon plan to decimate the Muslim and Arab Middle East would fall in on itself like a house of cards in a mild breeze.

No doubt we should expect more of this desperate behavior in the days ahead, now that the Associated Press and Fox News have reported Willie’s interview with Alex Jones. “On Sept. 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked planes, crashing them into each of the World Trade Center’s twin towers in New York City, the Pentagon and a Pennsylvania field,” the Associated Press is wont to tell us, once again fronting the official fairy tale version of events, minus absolutely any credible evidence or substantial proof that 19 hijackers were any where near those planes on September 11.

If the supposed hijackers were near anything, it was the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Florida, the Air War College in Montgomery, Alabama, and Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas, a fact reported by none other than Newsweek on September 15, 2001 — an uncomfortable fact that has since found its way to the memory hole.

In Bushzarro world, repeating harebrained fables passes for objective journalism, same as rehashed Trotskyism passes for Reagan conservatism.

Problem is, for the neocons, it no longer works, even with preposterous allusions to the Holocaust attached.

Related Posts

• Boat Sparks 9/11 Security Scare
• Save the People of Iceland: the Official Petition
• Russia’s RTS, Micex Stock Markets Closed Down
• 9/11 commissioner slams Bush
• Former ISI Chief: Mumbai And 9/11 Both “Inside Jobs”
• China suspends military ties with US
• Handcuffed Woman Tased in Police Station
• 9/11 Commission ‘played with fire’
• Military Hush-Up: Incoming Space Rocks Now Classified
• US ‘prepared’ for N Korea missile

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, October 16, 2007

The National Institute for Standards and Technology has been forced to admit that the total free-fall collapse of the twin towers cannot be explained after an exhaustive scientific study, implicitly acknowledging that controlled demolition is the only means by which the buildings could have come down.

In a recent letter (PDF link) to 9/11 victim’s family representatives Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine, NIST states, “We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.”

A 10,000 page scientific study only offers theories as to how the “collapse initiation” proceeded and fails to address how it was possible for part of a WTC structure to fall through the path of most resistance at freefall speed, completely violating the accepted laws of physics.

In addition, NIST’s own studies confirmed that virtually none of the steel in either tower reached temperatures hotter than 500 degrees. The point at which steel weakens is 1000 degrees and melting point is reached at 1,500 degrees, according to NIST itself.

“NIST’S 10,000-page report purports to explain what it calls “collapse initiation” — the loss of several floors’ vertical support,” writes Kevin Barrett of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. “In order to dream up this preposterous scenario, NIST had to ignore its own tests that showed that virtually none of the steel got hotter than 500 degrees f. It had to claim that somehow the planes took out many core columns, despite the fact that only a direct hit by an engine would have been likely to do so, and that the chances of this happening even once are fairly low. It had to preposterously allege that the plane that nicked the corner of the South Tower took out more core columns than the one that hit the North Tower almost dead center. It had to tweak all the parameters till they screamed bloody murder and say that the steel was far weaker than it actually was, the fire was far hotter than it actually was, the sagging was far greater than it actually was, and so on. And so NIST hallucinated a computer-generated fantasy scenario for “collapse initiation”–the failure of a few floors.”

“But how do you get from the failure of a few floors to total collapse at free-fall speed of the entire structure? The short answer: You don’t. Anyone with the slightest grasp of the laws of physics understands that even if all of the vertical supports on a few floors somehow failed catastrophically at exactly the same moment–a virtually impossible event, but one necessary to explain why the Towers would come straight down rather than toppling sideways–the top part of the building could not fall THROUGH the still-intact, highly robust lower part of the building, straight through the path of most resistance, just as fast as it would have fallen through thin air.”

“Thus total free-fall collapse, even given NIST’s ridiculous “initiation” scenario, is utterly impossible. The probability of it happening is exactly equal to the probability of the whole building suddenly falling upward and landing on the moon,” concludes Barrett.

NIST have yet to properly address the sudden freefall collapse of WTC Building 7, which imploded on the late afternoon of 9/11 despite not being hit by a jetliner.

In August 2006, NIST promised to scientifically evaluate whether explosive devices could have contributed to the 47-story building’s collapse but no answers have been forthcoming.

In August of this year, James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, called for an independent inquiry into NIST’s investigation of the collapse of the twin towers.

Quintiere said NIST’s conclusions were “questionable”, that they failed to follow standard scientific procedures and that their failure to address Building 7 belied the fact that the investigation was incomplete.

&nbsp

Related Posts

• You Can’t Print Production and Prosperity
• China Urges US to Control Deficit to Stabilize Dollar
• No rescue in sight for what ails economy
• I Was a TSA Porn Star
• Day One for the Global Savior Barack Obama
• US gold ends above $1,090/oz on currency volatility
• U.S. problem bank list hits 416, insurance fund falls
• Crowds seeking aid in Haiti met with pepper spray and rubber bullets
• CrossTalk: Soviet Amerika
• The Alex Jones Show – ARCHIVE – February 15th Open Lines

WikiScanner discovered that American Airlines changed their Wikipedia entry to state that Flights 11 and 77 never flew on 9/11.

Original entry was:

Two American Airlines aircraft were hijacked and crashed during the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack: American Airlines Flight 77 (a Boeing 757) and American Airlines Flight 11 (a Boeing 767).

New entry is:

Two American Airlines aircraft were hijacked and crashed during the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack: Flight 77 (a Boeing 757) and Flight 11 (a Boeing 767). Although these flights were daily departures before and a month after September 11, 2001. Neither flight 11 nor 77 were scheduled on September 11, 2001. The records kept by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (www.bts.gov/gis/) do not list either flight that day.

A Google search of the IP address that made the change - 144.9.8.21 - is located at American Airlines.

Why the change American airlines? Did the flights actually operate or did we just imagine all of that?

Related Posts

• Marxists Marchers Against Global Warming in Copenhagen
• U.S. uptick doesn’t mean crisis is over, says top economist
• Chavez says US ‘weapon’ caused Haiti quake
• NKorea fires five short-range missiles: official
• UPI: 9/11 Truther Found Not Guilty Of Assaulting Disabled Girl
• UCLA Report: Illegals Not a Burden on Health Care
• Copenhagen unveils the new world order
• Bilderberg Wants Global Department Of Health, Global Treasury
• Gates Memo Announces Final Assimilation of National Guard and Reserve
• Brown’s secret Iraq war investigation will be seen as cover-up, warn Army and intelligence chiefs

The 9/11 tragedy is the most successful and most perverse publicity stunt in the history of public relations.  I arrive at this conclusion largely as the result of the research and clear writing by  David Ray Griffin in his fabulous books about 9/11.  I first met him when he was a speaker at a scholarly conference unrelated to 9/11.  He immediately impressed me as a brilliant, outstanding philosopher - theologian - author, a Whiteheadian scholar motivated by an intense curiosity to know everything possible about the world.

On the plane home and for the next two days I did little else but read Griffin’s first book about 9/11, The New Pearl Harbor .  From there I went on to read his even more disturbing account of the bogus 9/11 Commission Report, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions , which provides overwhelming evidence that the official story is contradictory, incomplete, and unbelievable.

It is clear to me that David Ray Griffin and his fellow critics are correct: the 9/11 “new Pearl Harbor” was planned in astonishing detail and carried out through the efforts of a sophisticated and large network of operatives.  It was more complex and far more successful than the Allende assassination, the US bombing of our own ship the “Maine” that began the Spanish-American war (and brought us Guam, Puerto Rico, Cuba, and the Philippines), the Reichstag fire that was used to justify the suspension of most civil liberties in Germany in the 1930’s, and even Operation Himmler , which was used by Germany to justify the invasion of Poland, which started World War II.

Whoever is responsible for bringing to grizzly fruition this new false-flag operation, which has been used to justify the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as unprecedented assaults on research, education, and civil liberties, must be perversely proud of their efficient handiwork.  Certainly, 19 young Arab men and a man in a cave 7,000 miles away, no matter the level of their anger, could not have masterminded and carried out 9/11: the most effective television commercial in the history of Western civilization.

I suggest that those of us aware and concerned demand that the glaringly erroneous official account of 9/11 be dismissed as a fraud and a new, thorough, and impartial investigation be undertaken.”

• Bio: http://www.chelseagreen.com/authors/LynnMargulis

Author of over 130 scientific works and numerous books.  Recent publications include Mind, Life, and Universe (2007 with Eduardo Punset), Dazzle Gradually: Reflections on the Nature of Nature (2007, co-authored with Dorion Sagan), Symbiotic Planet: A New Look at Evolution (1998), Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of Species (2002, with Dorion Sagan), Early Life: Evolution on the Precambrian Earth (2002, second edition with Michael F. Dolan), Luminous Fish: Tales of Science and Love (2006), What is Sex? (1997, with Dorion Sagan), What is Life? (1995, with Dorion Sagan), Mystery Dance: On the Evolution of Human Sexuality (1991, with Dorion Sagan), Microcosmos: Four Billion Years of Evolution From Our Microbial Ancestors (1986, with Dorion Sagan), and Origins of Sex: Three Billion Years of Genetic Recombination (1986, with Dorion Sagan), Kingdoms and Domains: Illustrated Guide to the Phyla of Life on Earth (4th edition, co-authored by Michael J. Chapman, Academic Press, 2008 in press), Symbiosis in Cell Evolution (second edition, 1993).

Related Posts

• Obama’s Stimulus Not Enough to Avert Biggest GDP Drop Since 1946
• Israeli media trumpets ruse used to surprise Hamas, kill more Palestinians
• Bush Tells U.N.: International Community Should Take Action Against Iran
• Britain’s Bravest Soldier: Joe Glenton
• ‘Naked Shorting’ Crackdown Exposed as Another Failed Effort to Prop Up Stocks
• Obama and the “Keeper of the Secret”
• Assaults on border agents increase
• Drivers could have speed limited by satellite devices
• Wall Street Seeing Goldman in Rare Reversal With Morgan Stanley
• Russia considers nuclear missiles for Syria, Mediterranean, Baltic

One of the experts the History Channel cited to debunk claims that the collapse of WTC 7 was a controlled demolition during its 9/11 Conspiracies: Fact or Fiction special Sunday night, spun a wild conspiracy yarn of his own, claiming that Building 7 burned for eight hours having caught fire before either of the twin towers collapsed.

Matthys Levy, P.E. is a structural engineer and also author of the book Why Buildings Fall Down.

He was one of the chief engineers for a study commissioned by WTC leaseholder Silverstein Properties Inc. to support a $7 billion insurance claim for the destruction of the World Trade Center complex. The investigation concluded that the twin towers collapsed as a result of the failure of support columns but the study did not touch upon why Building 7 fell.

Regarding WTC 7, “The initial fires started around 9:30 in the morning, so the building was allowed to burn for eight hours,” Levy told the History Channel during Sunday night’s broadcast.

However, according to the FEMA report and the official story, the fire broke out an hour later, immediately following the collapse of the north tower, having survived largely unscathed the collapse of the south tower over 30 minutes earlier.

At 10:29 a.m., WTC 1 (the north tower) collapsed,” reads Chapter 5 of the FEMA report, “Sending its debris into the streets below. The extent and severity of the resulting damage to WTC 7 are currently unknown. However, from photographic evidence and eyewitness accounts discussed below, it was assumed that the south side of the building was damaged to some degree and that fires in WTC 7 started at approximately this time.”

The report concludes by stating, “Approximately 7 hours after fires initiated in WTC 7, the building collapsed.”

Levy’s wild conspiracy theory, that fires in WTC were initiated before the collapse of either tower at around 9:30am and that the building burned for eight hours, seems to hint at some kind of sabotage, since the official story dictates that the cause of the fires was debris from the collapse of the north tower at 10:29am.

Levy: Someone find a tin foil hat for this guy because he’s out to lunch.

For the fires to have started half an hour before the collapse of the first tower, which was located on the opposite side of the complex, and a full hour before the collapse of the closer second tower, Levy seems to be hinting that some kind of foul play was involved.

To make such an assertion defies common sense, directly contradicts the official FEMA investigation into the collapse of WTC 7, and is also hurtful to the family members of the victims of 9/11.

Why the History Channel gave a platform to this nonsense and failed to point out the blatant factual inaccuracy of Levy’s claim is baffling.

Perhaps Popular Mechanics’ “experts” James Meigs, Benjamin Chertoff and their tea boy Davin Coburn should shift the full weight of their Hearst Publishing yellow journalism empire behind a move to debunk this kook!

&nbsp

Related Posts

• Obama to raise 10-year deficit to $9 trillion
• RFID Is Good For You
• Cafferty: I trust government to guard our privacy, don’t you?
• Climategate Crooks Recast Themselves As The Victims
• New revelations in attack on American spy ship
• MSNBC Pimp: Trust The Government And “Get Your Damn Vaccine”
• Krauthammer, Barnes Demand Unconstitutional Indefinite Detention
• List of Labor Camps Released to International Journalists in China
• Fannie and Freddie: A Run on the Bank?
• Israeli Wiretappers, the NSA, and 9/11

Initial reaction to last night’s two hour History Channel Special on the 9/11 truth movement was vehement and conclusive - the show was nothing more than another biased hit piece that manufactured straw man arguments, ignored key evidence, and afforded debunkers to talk at length while ridiculing any other viewpoints.

According to viewers who were unfortunate to have to sit through 120 minutes of yellow journalism, the program was very similar to a previous BBC hit piece - an outright smear attempt that abandoned any pretense of neutrality early on and sought to vigorously attack so-called conspiracy theories.

Though producers of the show promised Alex Jones directly that the documentary was not going to be a hit piece, according to viewers it was replete with distortion and deception, all delivered in the kind of condescending tone we have become used to from the establishment media.

- According to 9/11 researcher James Gourley, the debunkers attempted to wriggle out of Secretary Norman Mineta’s bombshell testimony about Cheney’s actions in the Emergency Operations Center, by claiming that Mineta was talking about Flight 93 and not the plane that hit the Pentagon. In reality, Mineta makes it clear in his testimony that he is talking about Flight 77, “the airplane coming in to the Pentagon,” and this is then confirmed by Commissioner Lee Hamilton.

- The debunkers admitted that temperatures inside the twin towers were not hot enough to melt steel, but claimed that they were hot enough to weaken steel and cause the collapse. The debunkers uniformly failed to address the fact that firefighters and first responders described witnessing molten steel beneath the rubble of the towers and they also ignored Professor Steven Jones’ scientific analysis of the iron-rich microspheres found in the rubble. In a website posting last night , Professor Jones stated that he emphatically pushed the dust analysis during his interview with the producers, but the topic was completely overlooked. The New York Times reported that the molten steel was “perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered” but the History Channel, mirroring NIST, failed to address the issue.

- The debunkers mentioned WTC 7 only in passing and completely failed to address why the building, which wasn’t hit by a plane, collapsed in 7 seconds into its own footprint after suffering only limited fire damage from falling debris. They also failed to mention why news outlets were reporting the collapse of Building 7 over an hour before it actually fell.

- The wargames that dovetailed 9/11 and deliberately confused NORAD personnel so as to slow response to the real attack were completely excluded.

- The Able Danger program and how the hijackers were discovered before 9/11 was completely excluded.

- The fact that the money man behind the hijackers, Pakistan’s ISI Chief Mahmoud Ahmad, was meeting with U.S. government and intelligence officials before and on the morning of 9/11 , was completely excluded.

- William Rodriguez’ first-hand testimony of explosions prior to the impact of the planes was completely excluded, as was the testimony of numerous firefighters who attested to bombs and explosions.

- NBC reporter Pat Dawson claimed that FDNY Chief of Safety Albert Turi had only described explosions, not bombs, going off, contradicting Dawson’s own report at the time which stated , “Reports of a secondary device, that is another ‘bomb’ going off.”

According to another blogger, the whole tone of the program was crafted to be antagonistic towards those questioning the official version.

Conspiracy theorists were derided throughout the program as being ignorant, mean and kooky with no personal lives. On the other hand, the Popular Mechanics editors were given the last word on each and every subject along with the undeserving title of “expert”. To the best of my knowledge, not one of the pencil pushing staff members have any credentials that are relevant to any aspect of 9/11 truth. Of course it was the conspiracy theorists that were accused of not having any of the valid expertise necessary for stating their assertions logically. They do this by completely ignoring the very existence and works of groups like Architects &amp Engineers for 9/11 Truth and Pilots for 9/11 Truth. Also just as expected, the History Channel failed to disclose the Chertoff connection and other major conflicts of interests that have clearly drastically compromised the research and conclusions of their so-called “experts”. It was disingenuous and deceptive from the very start. It only got worse.

As we reported previously , the makers of the hit piece first advertised the show as a response to “outrageous” theories about 9/11, but then immediately back-pedaled and altered the program description on their website after we highlighted the blatant biased agenda of the piece and its multiple corporate conflicts of interest.

Hearst Publishing’s Popular Mechanics, the premiere name in yellow journalism , were featured on the show as the most prominent debunkers, shilling for their corporate bosses in a brazen display of cronyism.

The History Channel is part of the A&ampE Television Network which is jointly owned by The Walt Disney Company (37.5%), The Hearst Corporation (37.5%), and NBC Universal (25%).

The owners of Popular Mechanics are also the joint owners of the History Channel!

Once again it is not a good starting point for a neutral investigation when the people you choose to represent one side of a factual debate are actually on the payroll.

It makes Fox News appear fair and balanced in comparison!

Furthermore, the other joint owner of The History Channel, NBC Universal , is run by General Electric , the world’s second largest corporation and one of the major players within the military industrial complex .

GE is a major supplier of arms and the “war on terrorism” has seen GE’s government and military contracts rise substantially to over $2.2 billion.

In short, GE really has very little to gain and a great deal to lose from probing into questions concerning the possibility of 9/11 being a military intelligence operation to seed the “war on terror” and to justify a huge increase in military activity around the globe.

Despite the fact that this charade was seemingly another crude smear job, we should thank the History Channel for attacking us because it only ensures that more people will check out the evidence for themselves and discover what was deliberately buried by the debunkers.

As we head towards the sixth anniversary of 9/11, our numbers are larger than ever and our credibility is growing, while lying corporate media whores like the History Channel lose respectability at a rate rivaled only by their hemoraging of viewers.

&nbsp

Related Posts

• Pain Of Torture Can Make Innocent Seem Guilty
• Assassinator Robot Wasp No Longer Drug-Induced Hallucination
• Deported Gang Members Learned Gun Skills in U.S.
• Eager to Tap Iraq’s Oil, Industry Execs Suggested Military Intervention
• Ron Paul Air Corps Makes Its Debut
• Southern California Anarchist Conference Shut Down by Cops
• 132: The Number of Times Obama Refers to Himself in One Speech
• Not funny: Barack Obama laughs at Wanda Sykes “joke” about wanting Rush Limbaugh dead
• China Urges US to Control Deficit to Stabilize Dollar
• Obama: ‘I’d Rather Be a Really Good One-Term President…’

Pilar Albarado spent five months after September 11, 2001, cleaning pulverized building material from apartment buildings and offices near the site of the World Trade Center. A chronic cough came two years later, and she is also battling asthma, memory loss and acid reflux.

Only now, almost six years after the attacks, is the extent of the medical toll on firefighters, police and others who worked on the cleanup coming to light, along with questions about how much the government knew of the danger.

Albarado, 44, cannot work because of her medical problems. Her acid reflux is so bad she cannot eat most foods.

She is being treated at the recently opened World Trade Center health clinic at Bellevue Hospital, but she said the medicines they give her do little to help.

“Our problems will be with us for life,” she said during a protest outside congressional offices in June. “I will never be the same.”

SICKENING DUST

Democrats in Congress say Albarado is one of thousands of people endangered when the Bush Administration knowingly played down the risks posed by the dust, which contained asbestos, lead and other contaminants.

Inhalation of dust-laden air has been implicated in at least two deaths — from lung inflammation and scarring — and connected to the respiratory illnesses and even cancers of thousands working and living within miles of Ground Zero, according to medical studies.

Mount Sinai Medical Center researchers found 69 percent of the nearly 10,000 first responders they examined had new or worsened lung problems after September 11, while doctors at New York University School of Medicine documented these problems in lower Manhattan residents.

The Bellevue program is currently treating more than 1,300 such patients, and others are on a waiting list.

Researchers are still working to understand the long-term effects of these exposures and how psychological distress from the event might contribute to physical problems.

“We’re finding that there are respiratory problems that are persisting well beyond what we anticipated — considering people were exposed six years ago,” said Alison Geyh at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. “The question is why.”

The World Trade Center Health Registry, which includes more than 71,000 directly exposed New York City residents and workers, will track their physical and mental health for up to 20 years and may provide some answers, Geyh said in a telephone interview.

CLEARING THE AIR

Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democratic who headed a House of Representatives hearing on the issue in June, said the Environmental Protection Agency issued falsely reassuring statements about air safety and asbestos levels.

This led first responders to work with inadequate protective equipment and New Yorkers to return to “homes, schools and workplaces that had not been properly tested.”

Congressional Democrats also faulted the EPA for failing to meet its clean-up responsibilities.

Then Environment Secretary Christie Whitman told the congressional hearings she did not regret her comments, nor her role in reopening Manhattan workplaces on September 17.

She added that she acted on the scientific information she had been given at the time. “I will believe the scientists when they tell me what is safe to breathe,” Whitman said.

But according to Geyh, who was at Ground Zero collecting environmental hazard data immediately after the attacks, the complicated circumstances did not warrant such early assurances.

An August 2003 report by the EPA’s inspector general found that some of these statements were made without scientific evidence, and also implicated the White House in mitigating health warnings.

Earlier this year, a federal judge ruled that Whitman knowingly lied to New York residents about their health risks. The case is now under appeal.

Related Posts

• Obama softens ban on hiring lobbyists
• Umbrella-cops foil Tiananmen reportage
• The Miracle of Modern China: Torture Camps for “Undesirables”
• Police force calls time on stop and search – after using power 3,400 times but failing to make single terror arrest
• Bush’s Secret Army of Snoops and Snitches
• CIA used Blackwater-linked mercenaries as journalists
• Baghdad bombings an inside job?
• Stocks Tumble as Bailout Plan Is Unveiled
• Why We Were Falsely Arrested
• Losing Their Religion: 2009 officially declared year the media lost their faith in man-made global warming fears