From this ...
To this ...
February 14, 2014
July 13, 2013
June 12, 2012
What is "conspiracy theory"?
The term "conspiracy theory" is part of the lexical armoury deployed against legitimate enquiry and reasoned discourse. It is an epithet, a dysphemism, an obloquy hurled at any who dare challenge the official narrative.
What does the term "conspiracy theory" really mean? Here is the crux of the problem. The term is enigmatic, its meaning depends on the context in which it is used. It could mean "a theory about a conspiracy", but it rarely does. More often it means "questioning the official account", or simply "ridiculous nonsense".
The term "conspiracy theory" is commonly employed as an insult, a contemptuous rebuff, a conversation killer. Its use is an effective barrier to informed debate, denoting a reluctance to engage a subject with intellectual honesty and common sense.
What does the term "conspiracy theory" really mean? Here is the crux of the problem. The term is enigmatic, its meaning depends on the context in which it is used. It could mean "a theory about a conspiracy", but it rarely does. More often it means "questioning the official account", or simply "ridiculous nonsense".
The term "conspiracy theory" is commonly employed as an insult, a contemptuous rebuff, a conversation killer. Its use is an effective barrier to informed debate, denoting a reluctance to engage a subject with intellectual honesty and common sense.
January 11, 2011
The 9/11 Litmus Test
The issue of 9/11 is an excellent instrument for gauging an individuals grasp on reality ... it is a litmus test for ones knowledge of world affairs and the hidden forces that influence them.
Raise the issue of 9/11 to sort the wheat from the chaffe, to differentiate the informed from the clueless, to distinguish open minds capable of impartial reasoning from rigid minds that can't think clearly.
Enquire about 9/11 and the response will immediately illuminate the respondent's understanding of the way the world works ... if they are not interested in the subject, they know very little about the way the world works.
If they believe the official 9/11 conspiracy theory, they know very little about world affairs ... if they doubt the official story and are interested in the subject, they're probably well informed and know a bit about the way the world works.
If they attack you for raising the issue and accuse you of being a conspiracy theorist or a kook or a nutter, they are either brainwashed dupes or in cahoots with the criminal cabal that sponsored the events of 9/11.
Raise the issue of 9/11 to sort the wheat from the chaffe, to differentiate the informed from the clueless, to distinguish open minds capable of impartial reasoning from rigid minds that can't think clearly.
Enquire about 9/11 and the response will immediately illuminate the respondent's understanding of the way the world works ... if they are not interested in the subject, they know very little about the way the world works.
If they believe the official 9/11 conspiracy theory, they know very little about world affairs ... if they doubt the official story and are interested in the subject, they're probably well informed and know a bit about the way the world works.
If they attack you for raising the issue and accuse you of being a conspiracy theorist or a kook or a nutter, they are either brainwashed dupes or in cahoots with the criminal cabal that sponsored the events of 9/11.
The official 9/11 conspiracy theory
Jeffrey M. Bale, of Lobster fame, provides an illuminating analysis of conspiracy thinking in his article 'Conspiracy Theories' and Clandestine Politics.
To further elucidate the phenomenon Bale describes, I have taken the liberty of including a specific, well known example in the following quote:
In the first place, conspiracy theorists consider the alleged conspirators [of al Qa'ida] to be Evil incarnate. They are not simply people with differing values or run-of-the-mill political opponents, but inhuman, superhuman, and/or anti-human beings who regularly commit abominable acts and are implacably attempting to subvert and destroy everything that is decent and worth preserving in the existing world.
Secondly, conspiracy theorists perceive the conspiratorial group [al Qa'ida] as both monolithic and unerring in the pursuit of its goals. This group [al Qa'ida] is directed from a single conspiratorial centre [around bin Laden], acting as a sort of general staff, which plans and coordinates all of [al Qa'ida]'s activities down to the last detail.
Thirdly, conspiracy theorists believe that the conspiratorial group [al Qa'ida] is omnipresent, at least within its own sphere of operations. While some conspiracy theories postulate a relatively localized group of conspirators [eg. al Qa'ida in Iraq], most depict this group [al Qa'ida] as both international in its spatial dimensions and continuous in its temporal dimensions. 'The [al Qa'ida] conspirators planned and carried out evil in the past, they are successfully active in the present, and they will triumph in the future if they are not disturbed in their plans by those with information about their sinister designs.'
The conspiratorial group [al Qa'ida] is therefore capable of operating virtually everywhere. As a consequence of this ubiquitousness, anything that occurs which has a broadly negative impact or seems in anyway related to the purported aims of the [al Qa'ida] conspirators can thus be plausibly attributed to them.
Fourthly, the conspiratorial group [al Qa'ida] is viewed by conspiracy theorists as virtually omnipotent. In the past this group has successfully overthrown empires and nations, corrupted whole societies, and destroyed entire civilizations and cultures, and it is said to be in the process of accomplishing the same thing at this very moment. Its members are secretly working in every nook and cranny of society, and are making use of every subversive technique known to mankind to achieve their nefarious purposes. Nothing appears to be able to stand in their way--unless the warnings of the conspiracy theorists are heeded and acted upon at once. Even then there is no guarantee of ultimate victory against such powerful forces, but a failure to recognize the danger and take immediate countervailing action assures the success of those forces in the near future.
Finally, for conspiracy theorists, conspiracies [attributed to al Qa'ida] are not simply a regular feature of politics whose importance varies in different historical contexts, but rather the motive force of all historical change and development. The conspiratorial group [al Qa'ida] can and does continually alter the course of history, invariably in negative and destructive ways, through conscious planning and direct intervention. Its members are not buffeted about by structural forces beyond their control and understanding, like everyone else, but are themselves capable of controlling events more or less at will.
This supposed ability is usually attributed to some combination of demonic influence or sponsorship, the possession of arcane knowledge, the mastery of devilish techniques, and/or the creation of a preternaturally effective clandestine organization. As a result, unpleasant occurrences which are perceived by others to be the products of coincidence or chance are viewed by conspiracy theorists as further evidence of the secret workings of the conspiratorial group [al Qa'ida]. For them, nothing that happens occurs by accident. Everything is the result of secret plotting in accordance with some sinister design.
To further elucidate the phenomenon Bale describes, I have taken the liberty of including a specific, well known example in the following quote:
In the first place, conspiracy theorists consider the alleged conspirators [of al Qa'ida] to be Evil incarnate. They are not simply people with differing values or run-of-the-mill political opponents, but inhuman, superhuman, and/or anti-human beings who regularly commit abominable acts and are implacably attempting to subvert and destroy everything that is decent and worth preserving in the existing world.
Secondly, conspiracy theorists perceive the conspiratorial group [al Qa'ida] as both monolithic and unerring in the pursuit of its goals. This group [al Qa'ida] is directed from a single conspiratorial centre [around bin Laden], acting as a sort of general staff, which plans and coordinates all of [al Qa'ida]'s activities down to the last detail.
Thirdly, conspiracy theorists believe that the conspiratorial group [al Qa'ida] is omnipresent, at least within its own sphere of operations. While some conspiracy theories postulate a relatively localized group of conspirators [eg. al Qa'ida in Iraq], most depict this group [al Qa'ida] as both international in its spatial dimensions and continuous in its temporal dimensions. 'The [al Qa'ida] conspirators planned and carried out evil in the past, they are successfully active in the present, and they will triumph in the future if they are not disturbed in their plans by those with information about their sinister designs.'
The conspiratorial group [al Qa'ida] is therefore capable of operating virtually everywhere. As a consequence of this ubiquitousness, anything that occurs which has a broadly negative impact or seems in anyway related to the purported aims of the [al Qa'ida] conspirators can thus be plausibly attributed to them.
Fourthly, the conspiratorial group [al Qa'ida] is viewed by conspiracy theorists as virtually omnipotent. In the past this group has successfully overthrown empires and nations, corrupted whole societies, and destroyed entire civilizations and cultures, and it is said to be in the process of accomplishing the same thing at this very moment. Its members are secretly working in every nook and cranny of society, and are making use of every subversive technique known to mankind to achieve their nefarious purposes. Nothing appears to be able to stand in their way--unless the warnings of the conspiracy theorists are heeded and acted upon at once. Even then there is no guarantee of ultimate victory against such powerful forces, but a failure to recognize the danger and take immediate countervailing action assures the success of those forces in the near future.
Finally, for conspiracy theorists, conspiracies [attributed to al Qa'ida] are not simply a regular feature of politics whose importance varies in different historical contexts, but rather the motive force of all historical change and development. The conspiratorial group [al Qa'ida] can and does continually alter the course of history, invariably in negative and destructive ways, through conscious planning and direct intervention. Its members are not buffeted about by structural forces beyond their control and understanding, like everyone else, but are themselves capable of controlling events more or less at will.
This supposed ability is usually attributed to some combination of demonic influence or sponsorship, the possession of arcane knowledge, the mastery of devilish techniques, and/or the creation of a preternaturally effective clandestine organization. As a result, unpleasant occurrences which are perceived by others to be the products of coincidence or chance are viewed by conspiracy theorists as further evidence of the secret workings of the conspiratorial group [al Qa'ida]. For them, nothing that happens occurs by accident. Everything is the result of secret plotting in accordance with some sinister design.
November 10, 2010
Dare to talk about 9/11
"Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th - malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty" - George W. Bush
While addressing the UN General Assembly in New York last week, the President of Iran touched upon the subject of the September 11 attacks, noting there exists some doubt about the official 9/11 conspiracy theory.
As soon as he mentioned 9/11, the American diplomats hurried from the chamber, dutifully followed by their western vassals. This walkout by the West says we will not tolerate talk of 9/11.
Ahmadinejad went on to wonder why the Americans never properly investigated the attacks and whether it was rational to invade two countries and kill millions of people in response... quite reasonable questions, it seems to me, yet well beyond the bounds of permissible discourse.
This ban on talk about 9/11 extends to the media, where any who dare raise doubts about the official narrative are goaded and galled by attack poodles like Jon Feine of the ABC, who recently berated Kevin Bracken on air for stating a few unpopular facts about 9/11.
But it seems the strategy of scorn is not sufficient to stem the tide of questions. Obama's information czar, Cass Sunstein, now openly advocates "cognitive infiltration", in lieu of honest answers, to combat doubts about the official 9/11 conspiracy theory.
And we have our own outraged "right-thinking" MP, Josh Frydenberg, who recently demanded, in Parliament, that Prime Minister Gillard discipline Kevin Bracken, for stating facts that can't be stated, asking questions that aren't to be asked and thinking things that ought not be thought.
While addressing the UN General Assembly in New York last week, the President of Iran touched upon the subject of the September 11 attacks, noting there exists some doubt about the official 9/11 conspiracy theory.
As soon as he mentioned 9/11, the American diplomats hurried from the chamber, dutifully followed by their western vassals. This walkout by the West says we will not tolerate talk of 9/11.
Ahmadinejad went on to wonder why the Americans never properly investigated the attacks and whether it was rational to invade two countries and kill millions of people in response... quite reasonable questions, it seems to me, yet well beyond the bounds of permissible discourse.
This ban on talk about 9/11 extends to the media, where any who dare raise doubts about the official narrative are goaded and galled by attack poodles like Jon Feine of the ABC, who recently berated Kevin Bracken on air for stating a few unpopular facts about 9/11.
But it seems the strategy of scorn is not sufficient to stem the tide of questions. Obama's information czar, Cass Sunstein, now openly advocates "cognitive infiltration", in lieu of honest answers, to combat doubts about the official 9/11 conspiracy theory.
And we have our own outraged "right-thinking" MP, Josh Frydenberg, who recently demanded, in Parliament, that Prime Minister Gillard discipline Kevin Bracken, for stating facts that can't be stated, asking questions that aren't to be asked and thinking things that ought not be thought.
July 18, 2010
NIST lied to cover up the WTC demolition
NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, was tasked with investigating the destruction of three World Trade Center buildings on 9/11.
NIST immediately ruled out the possibility that explosives were involved.
That fact alone should arouse suspicion.
On the basis of this premature preclusion and disregarding regular investigative requirements, NIST refused to test for explosive residues at the WTC site. When asked why they didn't look for evidence of explosives, a NIST spokesman replied,
"It would be a waste of tax payers money to look for something that isn't there".
How did NIST know there were no explosives involved, if they didn't look?
NIST claimed there was no "incredibly large sound" that would indicate explosives were used to demolish Building 7. NIST used this false claim to justify their refusal to test for explosive residues at the WTC demolition site.
At the media briefing of the NIST Investigation into the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, August 21, 2008, lead investigator Dr Sham Sunder said ...
"We did not find any evidence that explosives were used in the collapse of Building 7. We ran down detailed computer simulations of blast scenarios - what you see in the slide are the expected air pressures from the smallest possible blast capable of crippling a critical column. This size blast would have produced an incredibly large sound that was not recorded on videos of the collapse nor reported by witnesses"
Video recorded near WTC7 provides evidence of an incredibly loud blast.
This video footage, shot near the pay phone at 66 Murray St, approximately 150m, or two city blocks north of Building 7, provides evidence of an incredibly large blast sound near WTC7 on the morning of 9/11, sometime after the destruction of the Twin Towers. One of the firemen is heard to say...
"We've gotta get back, 7's exploding!"
The composite image below depicts the location of the pay phone on Murray St, (A) as seen in the above video and from Google Maps Street View
Another video shot near St Paul's Chapel, approximately 250m east of WTC7, also provides evidence of an incredibly large blast sound near WTC7 on 9/11,
The composite image below depicts the location of St Paul's Chapel on Broadway and the view looking west toward the WTC site as seen in the above video and from Google Maps Street View.
These videos do not prove that explosives were used to bring down Building 7. Yet NIST claims the absence of this video evidence proves explosives were not used.
These videos refute the claim made by NIST, that "an incredibly large sound was not recorded on videos nor reported by witnesses", and they clearly discredit NIST's decision not to look for evidence of explosives used in the demolition of WTC7.
Consequently, these videos have been ignored, negated or denied by NIST.
Furthermore, credible and corroborating eyewitness accounts by Barry Jennings and Micheal Hess, who witnessed explosions inside Building 7 on the morning of 9/11, have been ignored by NIST investigators and ommited from their report.
Video shows foreknowledge of WTC7 demolition
At the media briefing on the NIST Investigation into the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, August 21, 2008, lead investigator Dr Sham Sunder said ...
"What we found was that uncontrolled building fires similar to those we have seen in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event. The collapse of World Trade Center 7 was primarily due to fires. This is the first time that we are aware of, that a building over 15 stories tall has collapsed primarily due to fire."
If this is true, if the "collapse" of WTC7 was unprecedented, an "extraordinary event", the first known example of total building collapse due to fires alone, how is it that video footage shows workers walking north along West Broadway, two blocks away from WTC7, saying ...
"keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming down
... the building is about to blow up, move it back"
And why did the BBC and CNN report the collpase of WTC7 before it actually happened? What was the basis for this apparent foreknowledge of a supposedly unprecedented event?
Clairvoyant construction workers, a prescient press ... or just a mistake?
And listen to what the building's owner, Larry Silverstein, had to say ...
"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department Commander, telling me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it, and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse"
Silverstein's statement seems to imply that a decision was made to deliberately take down the building, as in the manner of a controlled demolition.
The most incredible hypothesis
According to NIST's lead investigator, Dr Sham Sunder, "This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building".
In fact, no skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire ... it's never happened.
Dr Sunder told No Lies Radio that NIST had chosen the "most credible" hypothesis to explain the collapse of Building 7.
Listen here ...
WTC7 collapsed suddenly, symmetrically and completely, into it's own footprint, exhibiting gravitational acceleration (freefall) and generating an enormous dust cloud, at 5.20 pm on September 11, 2001.
A side-by-side comparison of the WTC Building 7 "collapse" and a known controlled demolition, clearly illustrates a remarkable similarity. To the casual observer, they appear indistinguishable.
Controlled demolition is a well established industry and the only known method for bringing down skyscrapers into their own footprint.
And yet, according to Dr Sunder, NIST did not consider controlled demolition a credible hypothesis to explain the collapse of WTC7 and hence did not look for evidence of it.
Instead, NIST decided the "most credible" hypothesis was one that described a new phenomenon ... a phenomenon that NIST admits is the "first known instance" of its kind and that FEMA concedes "has only a low probability of occurrence."
NIST's hypothesis describes a phenomenon whereby scattered fires somehow lead to the sudden, simultaneous failure of thousands of structural steel components.
NIST claims, "Our study found that the fires in WTC 7 caused an extraordinary event, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down."
And this NIST considers to be the "most credible" hypothesis to explain the collapse of WTC7... amazing, incredible, pick your word... I'd say unscientific.
WTC 2 core severed below 68th floor
This is probably the most important photograph taken on 9/11 - Gordon Ross
This photograph, taken by Aman Zafar from his apartment in Jersey, clearly shows that the core of the South Tower was severed well below the level of the aircraft impact and therefore could not have been severed by the aircraft.
The composite image below was created by overlaying two images taken from the same location, at the same resolution, by the same camera, just moments apart. It depicts the location of the remnant core structure relative to the building as it had stood moments before.
The lower 60 plus floors of the inner core survived the initial collapse front and came down moments later. It could not, therefore, have collapsed, as NIST claims, under the weight of the falling upper section of the tower, which had already disappeared.
Gordon Ross presents a credible and coherent explanation for the observed destruction of the Twin Towers.
NIST immediately ruled out the possibility that explosives were involved.
That fact alone should arouse suspicion.
On the basis of this premature preclusion and disregarding regular investigative requirements, NIST refused to test for explosive residues at the WTC site. When asked why they didn't look for evidence of explosives, a NIST spokesman replied,
"It would be a waste of tax payers money to look for something that isn't there".
How did NIST know there were no explosives involved, if they didn't look?
NIST claimed there was no "incredibly large sound" that would indicate explosives were used to demolish Building 7. NIST used this false claim to justify their refusal to test for explosive residues at the WTC demolition site.
At the media briefing of the NIST Investigation into the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, August 21, 2008, lead investigator Dr Sham Sunder said ...
"We did not find any evidence that explosives were used in the collapse of Building 7. We ran down detailed computer simulations of blast scenarios - what you see in the slide are the expected air pressures from the smallest possible blast capable of crippling a critical column. This size blast would have produced an incredibly large sound that was not recorded on videos of the collapse nor reported by witnesses"
Video recorded near WTC7 provides evidence of an incredibly loud blast.
This video footage, shot near the pay phone at 66 Murray St, approximately 150m, or two city blocks north of Building 7, provides evidence of an incredibly large blast sound near WTC7 on the morning of 9/11, sometime after the destruction of the Twin Towers. One of the firemen is heard to say...
"We've gotta get back, 7's exploding!"
The composite image below depicts the location of the pay phone on Murray St, (A) as seen in the above video and from Google Maps Street View
Another video shot near St Paul's Chapel, approximately 250m east of WTC7, also provides evidence of an incredibly large blast sound near WTC7 on 9/11,
The composite image below depicts the location of St Paul's Chapel on Broadway and the view looking west toward the WTC site as seen in the above video and from Google Maps Street View.
These videos do not prove that explosives were used to bring down Building 7. Yet NIST claims the absence of this video evidence proves explosives were not used.
These videos refute the claim made by NIST, that "an incredibly large sound was not recorded on videos nor reported by witnesses", and they clearly discredit NIST's decision not to look for evidence of explosives used in the demolition of WTC7.
Consequently, these videos have been ignored, negated or denied by NIST.
Furthermore, credible and corroborating eyewitness accounts by Barry Jennings and Micheal Hess, who witnessed explosions inside Building 7 on the morning of 9/11, have been ignored by NIST investigators and ommited from their report.
Video shows foreknowledge of WTC7 demolition
At the media briefing on the NIST Investigation into the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, August 21, 2008, lead investigator Dr Sham Sunder said ...
"What we found was that uncontrolled building fires similar to those we have seen in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event. The collapse of World Trade Center 7 was primarily due to fires. This is the first time that we are aware of, that a building over 15 stories tall has collapsed primarily due to fire."
If this is true, if the "collapse" of WTC7 was unprecedented, an "extraordinary event", the first known example of total building collapse due to fires alone, how is it that video footage shows workers walking north along West Broadway, two blocks away from WTC7, saying ...
"keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming down
... the building is about to blow up, move it back"
And why did the BBC and CNN report the collpase of WTC7 before it actually happened? What was the basis for this apparent foreknowledge of a supposedly unprecedented event?
Clairvoyant construction workers, a prescient press ... or just a mistake?
And listen to what the building's owner, Larry Silverstein, had to say ...
"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department Commander, telling me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it, and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse"
Silverstein's statement seems to imply that a decision was made to deliberately take down the building, as in the manner of a controlled demolition.
The most incredible hypothesis
According to NIST's lead investigator, Dr Sham Sunder, "This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building".
In fact, no skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire ... it's never happened.
Dr Sunder told No Lies Radio that NIST had chosen the "most credible" hypothesis to explain the collapse of Building 7.
Listen here ...
WTC7 collapsed suddenly, symmetrically and completely, into it's own footprint, exhibiting gravitational acceleration (freefall) and generating an enormous dust cloud, at 5.20 pm on September 11, 2001.
A side-by-side comparison of the WTC Building 7 "collapse" and a known controlled demolition, clearly illustrates a remarkable similarity. To the casual observer, they appear indistinguishable.
Controlled demolition is a well established industry and the only known method for bringing down skyscrapers into their own footprint.
And yet, according to Dr Sunder, NIST did not consider controlled demolition a credible hypothesis to explain the collapse of WTC7 and hence did not look for evidence of it.
Instead, NIST decided the "most credible" hypothesis was one that described a new phenomenon ... a phenomenon that NIST admits is the "first known instance" of its kind and that FEMA concedes "has only a low probability of occurrence."
NIST's hypothesis describes a phenomenon whereby scattered fires somehow lead to the sudden, simultaneous failure of thousands of structural steel components.
NIST claims, "Our study found that the fires in WTC 7 caused an extraordinary event, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down."
And this NIST considers to be the "most credible" hypothesis to explain the collapse of WTC7... amazing, incredible, pick your word... I'd say unscientific.
WTC 2 core severed below 68th floor
This photograph, taken by Aman Zafar from his apartment in Jersey, clearly shows that the core of the South Tower was severed well below the level of the aircraft impact and therefore could not have been severed by the aircraft.
The composite image below was created by overlaying two images taken from the same location, at the same resolution, by the same camera, just moments apart. It depicts the location of the remnant core structure relative to the building as it had stood moments before.
The lower 60 plus floors of the inner core survived the initial collapse front and came down moments later. It could not, therefore, have collapsed, as NIST claims, under the weight of the falling upper section of the tower, which had already disappeared.
Gordon Ross presents a credible and coherent explanation for the observed destruction of the Twin Towers.
July 15, 2010
Citizens don't trust their government
Few trust the government, poll finds - LA Times
Growing numbers of people want government's power curtailed, Pew reports.
Majority of Americans distrust government - Washington Post
Nearly 80% of Americans say they don't trust the government to do what is right.
Pew Study Finds 'Perfect Storm' of Discontent - Business Week
Only 22 percent of survey respondents said they trust the government in Washington and 30 percent said the federal government is a major threat to their freedom.
Distrust, Discontent, Anger and Partisan Rancor - Pew Research
By almost every conceivable measure, Americans are less positive and more critical of government these days. A new Pew Research Center survey finds a perfect storm of conditions associated with distrust of government.
And there's a reason why ...
Government funds false flag terrorism at home
Defense says NY bomb plot was feds' idea - Washington Post
Four men accused of trying to bomb synagogues and shoot down planes in New York last spring did little more than go along with a fake plot proposed, directed and funded by the federal government.
A federal informant chose the targets, offered payment, provided maps and bought the only real weapon involved, a handgun, the attorneys said in a dismissal motion filed this week in federal court.
"The government well knew that their case had been a government-inspired creation from day one and that the defendants had not been independently seeking weapons or targets," the motion said.
The dismissal motion identified the government's agent as Shaheed Hussain, a "professional informant" for the FBI. The defense claimed he was directed to visit suburban mosques, find members with anti-American leanings and recruit them to join a fake terror plot supposedly funded by a Pakistan-based group.
"The alleged crimes were almost entirely the product of Hussain's labors and the enterprise would have immediately collapsed if Hussain's guiding hand had been removed," the defense motion said.
Man who spied on mosques sues FBI - Washington Post
Craig Monteilh is seeking $10 million from the FBI in a lawsuit filed Friday in federal court in Los Angeles.
Monteilh said he infiltrated mosques for the FBI and gave the agency information about Ahmadullah Niazi, the brother-in-law of Osama bin Laden's bodyguard ...
Monteilh said he began posing as a new Muslim convert to infiltrate Southern California mosques between July 2006 and October 2007. He claimed that FBI agents authorized him to record Muslims using electronic surveillance at mosques, homes and gyms ...
Monteilh said the federal agency vowed to pay him $100,000 and relocate him after his anti-terrorism work.
FBI planting spies in mosques, Muslim groups say - CNN
The groups claim the FBI has sent undercover agents posing as worshippers into mosques, pressured Muslims to become informants, labeled civil rights advocates as criminals and spread misinformation.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations said it would seek an investigation into the February 21, 2009, arrest of Ahmadullah Niazi, an Afghanistan native.
Mr. Niazi previously reported to CAIR's Los Angeles office and other community members that, during a raid of a friend's house, an FBI agent urged Mr. Niazi to work with the agency, saying that if he refused to cooperate his life would be made a "living hell".
CIA Domestic Black-Op Team Arrested - Veterans Today
The burglary at Senator Mary Landrieu’s office in the New Orleans Federal Building was more than it seemed, much more. All of the 4 arrested had been trained by the CIA and, possibly, Israel.
One arrested, Stan Dai, is listed as an Operations Officer of the Department of Defense Irregular Warfare Program and a known expert and lecturer on, not only surveillance but explosives training, assassinations and “false flag operations.”
If you wanted a plane to crash, an enemy to get sick and die or a building to blow up, Dai would be the man to know how to make it happen. Problem is, his skills were being used as part of a criminal conspiracy inside the United States against members of our own government.
Also, it is not known how many “black ops” crews are being run by the CIA inside the United States in violation of their charter or if their operations are being limited to spying on Democratic lawmakers or if operations of a more threatening nature have been performed but remain undiscovered.
Additionally, as this was a covert operation against US government investigations of, not only terrorism and terrorism funding but major financial crimes against the United States, it is unclear who the recipient of the “product,” an intelligence industry term for “output” or information put up for “distribution” might be. read more >>
And they've been doing this sort of thing for years ...
Watch this 1993 News report about the FBI's role in the first WTC bombing.
Why the FBI got away with the first WTC bombing - Online Journal
In a call to an FBI agent shortly after the bombing, Salem complained, "We was start already building the bomb, which went off in the World Trade Center. It was built, under supervision from the Bureau [FBI] and the DA [district attorney] and we was all informed about it. And we know that the bomb start to be built. By who? By your confidential informant. What a wonderful great case."
Informer's Tapes Give Rare Glimpse of FBI dealings - NY Times
It is shortly after a bomb has blown a hole five stories deep at the World Trade Center and an FBI agent is talking to Emad A. Salem, the former Egyptian army officer who is the bureau's secret source of information, its most valuable undercover operative.
The transcripts are replete with new allegations about what the authorities have called the most damaging terrorist attack in American history and the larger conspiracy related to it.
In undated transcripts of conversations after the World Trade Center bombing, an FBI agent, Nancy Floyd, tells an informer, Emad A. Salem, that she believes the bureau mishandled the investigation of suspected terrorists before the blast.
FBI Blunders and the First World Trade Center Bombing - fff.org
The FBI placed an informant named Emad Salem, a 43-year-old former Egyptian military officer, in the midst of the Muslim protesters. Salem insinuated himself and became the bodyguard for Sheik Abdul Rahman, a radical Muslim cleric. The sheik had been heavily subsidized by the US government while in Pakistan in the late 1980s helping to inspire Muslims to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan.
Who Bombed The World Trade Center? - LectLaw
Two cassette tape recordings of telephone conversations between FBI informant Emad Salem and his Bureau contacts reveal secret US Government complicity in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City in which six people were killed and more than a thousand were injured.
Growing numbers of people want government's power curtailed, Pew reports.
Majority of Americans distrust government - Washington Post
Nearly 80% of Americans say they don't trust the government to do what is right.
Pew Study Finds 'Perfect Storm' of Discontent - Business Week
Only 22 percent of survey respondents said they trust the government in Washington and 30 percent said the federal government is a major threat to their freedom.
Distrust, Discontent, Anger and Partisan Rancor - Pew Research
By almost every conceivable measure, Americans are less positive and more critical of government these days. A new Pew Research Center survey finds a perfect storm of conditions associated with distrust of government.
And there's a reason why ...
Government funds false flag terrorism at home
Defense says NY bomb plot was feds' idea - Washington Post
Four men accused of trying to bomb synagogues and shoot down planes in New York last spring did little more than go along with a fake plot proposed, directed and funded by the federal government.
A federal informant chose the targets, offered payment, provided maps and bought the only real weapon involved, a handgun, the attorneys said in a dismissal motion filed this week in federal court.
"The government well knew that their case had been a government-inspired creation from day one and that the defendants had not been independently seeking weapons or targets," the motion said.
The dismissal motion identified the government's agent as Shaheed Hussain, a "professional informant" for the FBI. The defense claimed he was directed to visit suburban mosques, find members with anti-American leanings and recruit them to join a fake terror plot supposedly funded by a Pakistan-based group.
"The alleged crimes were almost entirely the product of Hussain's labors and the enterprise would have immediately collapsed if Hussain's guiding hand had been removed," the defense motion said.
Man who spied on mosques sues FBI - Washington Post
Craig Monteilh is seeking $10 million from the FBI in a lawsuit filed Friday in federal court in Los Angeles.
Monteilh said he infiltrated mosques for the FBI and gave the agency information about Ahmadullah Niazi, the brother-in-law of Osama bin Laden's bodyguard ...
Monteilh said he began posing as a new Muslim convert to infiltrate Southern California mosques between July 2006 and October 2007. He claimed that FBI agents authorized him to record Muslims using electronic surveillance at mosques, homes and gyms ...
Monteilh said the federal agency vowed to pay him $100,000 and relocate him after his anti-terrorism work.
FBI planting spies in mosques, Muslim groups say - CNN
The groups claim the FBI has sent undercover agents posing as worshippers into mosques, pressured Muslims to become informants, labeled civil rights advocates as criminals and spread misinformation.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations said it would seek an investigation into the February 21, 2009, arrest of Ahmadullah Niazi, an Afghanistan native.
Mr. Niazi previously reported to CAIR's Los Angeles office and other community members that, during a raid of a friend's house, an FBI agent urged Mr. Niazi to work with the agency, saying that if he refused to cooperate his life would be made a "living hell".
CIA Domestic Black-Op Team Arrested - Veterans Today
The burglary at Senator Mary Landrieu’s office in the New Orleans Federal Building was more than it seemed, much more. All of the 4 arrested had been trained by the CIA and, possibly, Israel.
One arrested, Stan Dai, is listed as an Operations Officer of the Department of Defense Irregular Warfare Program and a known expert and lecturer on, not only surveillance but explosives training, assassinations and “false flag operations.”
If you wanted a plane to crash, an enemy to get sick and die or a building to blow up, Dai would be the man to know how to make it happen. Problem is, his skills were being used as part of a criminal conspiracy inside the United States against members of our own government.
Also, it is not known how many “black ops” crews are being run by the CIA inside the United States in violation of their charter or if their operations are being limited to spying on Democratic lawmakers or if operations of a more threatening nature have been performed but remain undiscovered.
Additionally, as this was a covert operation against US government investigations of, not only terrorism and terrorism funding but major financial crimes against the United States, it is unclear who the recipient of the “product,” an intelligence industry term for “output” or information put up for “distribution” might be. read more >>
And they've been doing this sort of thing for years ...
Watch this 1993 News report about the FBI's role in the first WTC bombing.
Why the FBI got away with the first WTC bombing - Online Journal
In a call to an FBI agent shortly after the bombing, Salem complained, "We was start already building the bomb, which went off in the World Trade Center. It was built, under supervision from the Bureau [FBI] and the DA [district attorney] and we was all informed about it. And we know that the bomb start to be built. By who? By your confidential informant. What a wonderful great case."
Informer's Tapes Give Rare Glimpse of FBI dealings - NY Times
It is shortly after a bomb has blown a hole five stories deep at the World Trade Center and an FBI agent is talking to Emad A. Salem, the former Egyptian army officer who is the bureau's secret source of information, its most valuable undercover operative.
The transcripts are replete with new allegations about what the authorities have called the most damaging terrorist attack in American history and the larger conspiracy related to it.
In undated transcripts of conversations after the World Trade Center bombing, an FBI agent, Nancy Floyd, tells an informer, Emad A. Salem, that she believes the bureau mishandled the investigation of suspected terrorists before the blast.
FBI Blunders and the First World Trade Center Bombing - fff.org
The FBI placed an informant named Emad Salem, a 43-year-old former Egyptian military officer, in the midst of the Muslim protesters. Salem insinuated himself and became the bodyguard for Sheik Abdul Rahman, a radical Muslim cleric. The sheik had been heavily subsidized by the US government while in Pakistan in the late 1980s helping to inspire Muslims to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan.
Who Bombed The World Trade Center? - LectLaw
Two cassette tape recordings of telephone conversations between FBI informant Emad Salem and his Bureau contacts reveal secret US Government complicity in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City in which six people were killed and more than a thousand were injured.
Strategies for raising debate about 9/11
Academic research in the behavioral sciences provides clues to effective campaigning for 9/11 truth.
A paper published in the February issue of American Behavioral Scientist, entitled In Denial of Democracy: Social Psychological Implications for Public Discourse on State Crimes Against Democracy Post-9/11, contains information relevant to anyone involved in raising awareness about the crime of 9/11.
The paper identifies some of the barriers encountered by 9/11 truth activists and explains some of the psychological mechanisms that prevent people from looking at the evidence objectively. By gaining insight into the reasons why some people find it difficult to confront the issue of 9/11, truth activists can learn to raise the issue in ways that reach people in a more effective manner.
There are three underlying premises to this paper: firstly, state crimes against democracy are real and do cause real harm to society; secondly, there are social psychological barriers that mitigate challenges to state criminality; and thirdly, it is imperative that civil society recognize and address the threat posed by state criminality.
The first premise is clearly evidenced by the post-9/11 litany of Presidential findings that strip away civil liberties and defy longstanding principles of justice and the rule of law. The scope of state criminality extends to include unlawful surveillance, detention without trial, torture, assassination, terrorism, wars of aggression and gross human rights abuses.
The second premise is one we're all familiar with, the difficulty many people have even thinking about 9/11, let alone discussing it rationally. For most people, the issue is charged with strong emotion, and raising the issue can sometimes provoke hostile, even violent responses.
The third premise is quite clear, the situation is dire, and if not addressed urgently and vigorously, the consequences for democracy are sure to be grave. For this reason it is important that truth activist hone their methods and strategies for optimal effect.
The paper provides some useful advice in this regard.
In order to breach the social psychological barriers that prevent the assimilation of information, we need to understand the nature of those barriers. We all have our own set of beliefs or world view with which we feel confident and comfortable. When that world view is threatened by evidence that does not affirm our beliefs, we tend to get defensive and resist the new information. This is quite normal response, but it can be overcome if approached in a subtle or sensitive manner.
The key to breaking down social psychological barriers is to be open and friendly, not rigid or dogmatic, find common ground on which to introduce new ideas gradually. Avoid laboured, hyperbolic and excessively emotive language. Research shows that "controlling language can arouse psychological resistance to the message, whereas civic participation is increased when people are drawn into discussions of social responsibility, and message repetition increases familiarity which can translate into message tolerance or acceptance."
"The events of 9/11 have produced enduring fear and aversion associated with those events, the phrase 9/11 has become implicitly associated with traumatic death, destruction and terrorism. The effect for many people is a corresponding increase in defensive and aggressive behavior when exposed to reminders of 9/11."
"Clearly, then, prompting people with reminders of 9/11 may arouse strong emotions that can be used by both government officials and mainstream media to manipulate citizens’ behaviors. For example, arousing people’s anger evokes reactions such as focusing on blame and justice, whereas arousing sadness leads to more sympathetic responses, such as focusing on how to improve matters."
This would suggest that an empathetic approach that appeals to an audiences sense of compassion and concern for their own heroes, like the first responders who are suffering terrible health consequences as a result of working at ground zero, is more likely to penetrate the conscious mind of the audience and expose them to evidence they might otherwise reject out of hand.
There are many “social psychological mechanisms by which people defend and justify the existing social, economic, and political arrangements, often to their own detriment”. Justification of the system also maintains “consistency, coherence, certainty, and existential needs to manage various forms of threat and distress and to find meaning in life”.
"Research has shown that people can be strongly motivated to resist or avoid information in order to maintain a definitive answer to a question as opposed to experiencing uncertainty, confusion, or ambiguity. The persistence of faulty beliefs at both individual and societal levels, may perform an important psychological function, for example, by promoting feelings of safety rather than admitting potential vulnerability and exploitation."
"Even when faced with incontrovertible evidence of the system’s failings, people tend to support it as the best available option. The citizens’ need to defend and justify the system against threat have contributed greatly to the important psychological and social aftereffects of the 9/11 attacks"
This would suggest that an effective approach to introducing the idea of state criminality to a resistant audience might require an explicit differentiation between corrupt officials and the government system as a whole. In other words, make clear that criminal activity by government officials does not mean the government is all bad ... rather, government is being misused by a few to the detriment of many.
The concept of a few corrupt officials is easier to digest than the notion that the entire government is criminal or corrupt. If people can see that their government has been undermined by the criminal actions of a few, they are more likely to support efforts to protect the integrity of their government by facing up to and dealing with the criminal elements that infect it.
"When changes to the collective worldview become inexorable, people’s defense of the status quo begins to weaken in response to a growing support for the emergent worldview. The implication for social change is that it will either come not at all or all at once, the way that catastrophic change occurs in dynamic systems and in tipping point phenomena. A growing number of Americans do not believe that their federal government has been completely forthcoming on the issue of the 9/11 terrorist attacks."
"Indeed, citizen trust in the current political system is moving toward a tipping point phenomenon that threatens to change the status quo: Questions about the motives of the administration post-9/11 are translating into questions about the complicity of U.S. officials in the events of 9/11, which could have future repercussions on democracy in America."
"Immediate strategies to increase public awareness of state crimes against democracy should focus on framing information in neutral, nonthreatening language that gradually introduces people to the most serious of charges. Alternative accounts should be repeatedly presented within the public sphere with specific requests for citizens to themselves research the information presented to them and pass their findings along to others."
A paper published in the February issue of American Behavioral Scientist, entitled In Denial of Democracy: Social Psychological Implications for Public Discourse on State Crimes Against Democracy Post-9/11, contains information relevant to anyone involved in raising awareness about the crime of 9/11.
The paper identifies some of the barriers encountered by 9/11 truth activists and explains some of the psychological mechanisms that prevent people from looking at the evidence objectively. By gaining insight into the reasons why some people find it difficult to confront the issue of 9/11, truth activists can learn to raise the issue in ways that reach people in a more effective manner.
There are three underlying premises to this paper: firstly, state crimes against democracy are real and do cause real harm to society; secondly, there are social psychological barriers that mitigate challenges to state criminality; and thirdly, it is imperative that civil society recognize and address the threat posed by state criminality.
The first premise is clearly evidenced by the post-9/11 litany of Presidential findings that strip away civil liberties and defy longstanding principles of justice and the rule of law. The scope of state criminality extends to include unlawful surveillance, detention without trial, torture, assassination, terrorism, wars of aggression and gross human rights abuses.
The second premise is one we're all familiar with, the difficulty many people have even thinking about 9/11, let alone discussing it rationally. For most people, the issue is charged with strong emotion, and raising the issue can sometimes provoke hostile, even violent responses.
The third premise is quite clear, the situation is dire, and if not addressed urgently and vigorously, the consequences for democracy are sure to be grave. For this reason it is important that truth activist hone their methods and strategies for optimal effect.
The paper provides some useful advice in this regard.
In order to breach the social psychological barriers that prevent the assimilation of information, we need to understand the nature of those barriers. We all have our own set of beliefs or world view with which we feel confident and comfortable. When that world view is threatened by evidence that does not affirm our beliefs, we tend to get defensive and resist the new information. This is quite normal response, but it can be overcome if approached in a subtle or sensitive manner.
The key to breaking down social psychological barriers is to be open and friendly, not rigid or dogmatic, find common ground on which to introduce new ideas gradually. Avoid laboured, hyperbolic and excessively emotive language. Research shows that "controlling language can arouse psychological resistance to the message, whereas civic participation is increased when people are drawn into discussions of social responsibility, and message repetition increases familiarity which can translate into message tolerance or acceptance."
"The events of 9/11 have produced enduring fear and aversion associated with those events, the phrase 9/11 has become implicitly associated with traumatic death, destruction and terrorism. The effect for many people is a corresponding increase in defensive and aggressive behavior when exposed to reminders of 9/11."
"Clearly, then, prompting people with reminders of 9/11 may arouse strong emotions that can be used by both government officials and mainstream media to manipulate citizens’ behaviors. For example, arousing people’s anger evokes reactions such as focusing on blame and justice, whereas arousing sadness leads to more sympathetic responses, such as focusing on how to improve matters."
This would suggest that an empathetic approach that appeals to an audiences sense of compassion and concern for their own heroes, like the first responders who are suffering terrible health consequences as a result of working at ground zero, is more likely to penetrate the conscious mind of the audience and expose them to evidence they might otherwise reject out of hand.
There are many “social psychological mechanisms by which people defend and justify the existing social, economic, and political arrangements, often to their own detriment”. Justification of the system also maintains “consistency, coherence, certainty, and existential needs to manage various forms of threat and distress and to find meaning in life”.
"Research has shown that people can be strongly motivated to resist or avoid information in order to maintain a definitive answer to a question as opposed to experiencing uncertainty, confusion, or ambiguity. The persistence of faulty beliefs at both individual and societal levels, may perform an important psychological function, for example, by promoting feelings of safety rather than admitting potential vulnerability and exploitation."
"Even when faced with incontrovertible evidence of the system’s failings, people tend to support it as the best available option. The citizens’ need to defend and justify the system against threat have contributed greatly to the important psychological and social aftereffects of the 9/11 attacks"
This would suggest that an effective approach to introducing the idea of state criminality to a resistant audience might require an explicit differentiation between corrupt officials and the government system as a whole. In other words, make clear that criminal activity by government officials does not mean the government is all bad ... rather, government is being misused by a few to the detriment of many.
The concept of a few corrupt officials is easier to digest than the notion that the entire government is criminal or corrupt. If people can see that their government has been undermined by the criminal actions of a few, they are more likely to support efforts to protect the integrity of their government by facing up to and dealing with the criminal elements that infect it.
"When changes to the collective worldview become inexorable, people’s defense of the status quo begins to weaken in response to a growing support for the emergent worldview. The implication for social change is that it will either come not at all or all at once, the way that catastrophic change occurs in dynamic systems and in tipping point phenomena. A growing number of Americans do not believe that their federal government has been completely forthcoming on the issue of the 9/11 terrorist attacks."
"Indeed, citizen trust in the current political system is moving toward a tipping point phenomenon that threatens to change the status quo: Questions about the motives of the administration post-9/11 are translating into questions about the complicity of U.S. officials in the events of 9/11, which could have future repercussions on democracy in America."
"Immediate strategies to increase public awareness of state crimes against democracy should focus on framing information in neutral, nonthreatening language that gradually introduces people to the most serious of charges. Alternative accounts should be repeatedly presented within the public sphere with specific requests for citizens to themselves research the information presented to them and pass their findings along to others."
May 7, 2010
Apathy, bias and cant at the ABC
Clueless and incurious, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation has not aired a single fair, balanced, impartial or objective interview with anyone who has written critically of the official explanation for the events of 9/11. The ABC has not reported on any of the numerous independent scientific studies that have been published, challenging the official theory of the destruction of three World Trade Center buildings.
The ABC has been content to merely reiterate, ad nauseam, the official narrative, while actively resisting public pressure to provide even a moment of airtime to the alternative accounts, without the sneering derision and glib disregard that typifies the treatment of any who question the official story. On the issue of 9/11, the ABC is acting more like an organ of state propaganda than an independent, informative broadcasting service.
If the ABC has any regard at all for its reputation and credibility, it should consider investigating the science and the evidence that is well known by many, but apparently none at the ABC. They could start by reading some of the books that have been published by David Ray Griffin, Peter Dale Scott, Nafeez Ahmed, Mike Rupert, Webster Tarpley and others, who have collectively amassed a mountain of evidence that is not even addressed by the official version of events.
Then perhaps the ABC could spare an hour or so to view the presentation by Richard Gage, founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
There are many questions that deserve consideration; for example, why did NIST refuse to look for residues of accelerants or explosives at the WTC site? It is normally standard practice in fire investigations to test for accelerants and explosives, especially in the event of a building collapse.
Why was the steel from WTC shipped off and recycled before any investigation could examine it? The steel was evidence from the crime scene and should have been preserved for investigators to examine.
Why were no fighter jets scrambled to intercept the hijacked aircraft on the morning of 9/11? Interception has long been routine, standard operating procedure in the event of aircraft going off course and not responding to air traffic control, but not on 9/11. Hijacked planes flew around the North East air sector for 90 minutes before any fighter jets appeared in the skies over Washington, shortly after the Pentagon was struck.
And this was just five weeks after the President's Daily Brief of August 6, entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US", warned that FBI information "indicates patterns of suspicious activity consistent with preparations for hijackings". So why was the air defense so tardy on 9/11?
Why was the official explanation of 9/11, which has remained unchanged to this day, presented within hours of the supposedly surprise attack, replete with 19 Arab hijackers, box cutters, flight manuals, scorched passports, a copy of the Koran and buildings exploding into dust, "mostly due to structural failure because the fires were just too intense" ... all known with certainty, long before any investigation of the events?
Why did the Bush administration oppose any investigation into 9/11? Why, after 15 months of intense public pressure, did the administration setup an inquiry that was poorly funded, unduly limited in time and scope, and directed by an administration insider, Phillip Zelikow?
Why did senior administration officials initially refuse to testify before the 9/11 Commission? Why did Bush and Cheney insist on appearing together, in private, before a select few of the 9/11 Commissioners? Why did they refuse to testify under oath?
Why did senior military officials deliberately mislead the 9/11 Commission? Why did the Pentagon change its version of events not once, not twice, but three times, before the 9/11 Commission?
Don't these circumstances warrant some degree of consideration? Why is the ABC so obstinately incurious about these matters?
None of these questions have been acknowledged, let alone addressed by anyone at the ABC. I challenge the ABC to prove otherwise. If the ABC is not censoring this issue, why is there no fair, unbiased coverage of the worldwide campaign and demand for a new investigation of the events of 9/11?
Why does the ABC steadfastly refuse to interview credible, published experts; architects, engineers, physicists, pilots, former intelligence professionals like Ray MacGovern and Robert Baer, former FBI officers like Colleen Rowley and Sibel Edmonds, scientists and academics like Steven Jones and Frank Legge who have conducted studies and authored reports of high quality.
Can the ABC offer any reasonable explanation for diligently ignoring all the work that has been done over the last nine years by intelligent, conscientious citizens who have every reason to question the honesty and integrity of our governments, especially in light of the 2003 invasion of Iraq on the basis of fabricated fears and phoney intelligence.
The ABC does no service to society or humanity by failing to scrutinize official dogma. The woeful performance of an overly credulous, timid and co-opted media is in no small part to blame for the unlawful invasion of Iraq.
Likewise, the continuing cover up of the 9/11 crime is made possible by the media's cowardice and incompetence in the face of state criminality.
May 1, 2010
NIST versus Newton
NIST and fellow agents of the military industrial empire would like to conceal the physical principles involved in the collapse of Building 7 and the Twin Towers ... as if the buildings were somehow unique in that they lacked quantifiable characteristics of material strength, or that their material strength magically dissipated in an instant on that fateful day.
The matter is one of classical mechanics, the laws that describe the relationship between the forces acting on a body and the motion of that body. These laws were discovered by Sir Isaac Newton and first published in his work Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, in 1687. [Wikipedia]
A free falling body does no work, and it can do no work unless or until it meets resistance. If a falling body meets resistance, the force applied by the falling body to that which is providing resistance is equal and opposite to the force applied by the resisting substance to the falling body (Newtons 3rd Law of Motion). Furthermore, the magnitude of the force is directly proportional to the rate of change in velocity of the falling body (Newton's 2nd Law of Motion).
In other words, a falling mass cannot exert any force without first impacting against something, and when it does impact, the fall will be impeded or slowed, and the more force it exerts, the greater it will be slowed. NIST claims the top floors of the Twin Towers fell onto the lower floors, causing the towers to collapse, however, the falling block would have been slowed in its fall by the impact, with the amount of slowing proportional to the force it applied to the lower block. Bear in mind, the lower part of the building was not damaged, not on fire and also much larger and stronger than the damaged, burning top block.
So if the burning, damaged, top section of the tower fell onto the lower, cold, undamaged, much larger and stronger part of the building, and if the falling block impacted the lower block with sufficient force to shatter and pulverize the top floors of the lower block, the equal and opposite force applied by the lower block to the upper falling block would be sufficient to not just slow, but also pulverize and destroy the weakened falling block, hence leaving nothing to continue the crush down. What do the videos of the event show?
We see the upper falling block was indeed destroyed as it fell, even before it reached the undamaged, lower portion of the building, but there was no observable slowing of the fall, no deceleration at all. Hence there was no impact and therefore the falling block could not have applied any force to the lower portion of the building.
So we know, the buildings could not fall at nearly freefall acceleration AND be doing the work of pulverizing concrete and breaking massive steel columns at the same time, under the force of gravity alone. If the falling mass were to do any work at all as it fell, there would be an observable slowing or halting of the collapse in the process.
In fact, nearly ALL the gravitational energy was being used to accelerate the building downward. The top of the building could not possibly accelerate down through hundreds of thousands of tons of cold, hard reinforced concrete and massive steel columns, due to the force of gravity alone. Some other force, some extra source of energy was required to pulverize those buildings.
The strength of those buildings, like any building, was a known quantity. The architects and engineers who built them understood the properties of the materials they used - they had precise, time honoured methods and calculations to ensure the buildings were strong enough to hold themselves up... they didn't have to guess how much steel and concrete was required, because they knew the strength and other properties of the materials, and they didn't scimp, those buildings were in fact designed to carry several times their own weight.
That is why over a thousand qualified, professional architects and engineers have put their signatures and their names to a petition demanding a new investigation, because they understand, those buildings did not fall due to gravity, plane impacts and/or fire alone. I just want you to know, there really is more to this story.
April 4, 2010
Government and media obscure the evidence
The government and corporate media have done all in their power to censure, censor and suppress debate about 9/11, they have worked hard to confuse and obscure the evidence.
There exists an abundance of evidence that has been neither addressed nor explained by the official account of 9/11. This evidence, albeit ignored, discounted or denied, refutes the official story and permits the postulation of an alternative account.
Let us consider a sample of this evidence.
Indirect (circumstantial) evidence:
1) A preconceived grand narrative, a ready-made explanation, no investigation required; "Al Qaida terrorists hijacked four planes, crashed two of them into the WTC Twin Towers, causing three high rise buildings to collapse, crashed another into the Pentagon and the fourth into a field in Pennsylvania - because they hate our freedoms - an act of war demanding military response"
2) US air defenses failed to launch aircraft to intercept the hijacked airliners in a timely fashion, despite the military Command Post Exercises that were coincidentally conducted that morning and which, according to General Myers, actually enhanced the response. [GENERAL MYERS]
3) US air defenses failed to launch aircraft to intercept the hijacked airliners in a timely fashion, even though NORAD had conducted exercises simulating hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets prior to 9/11, exercises that included scramble and interception; hijack procedures; internal and external agency coordination. [USATODAY]
4) Much of the material evidence was quickly removed from the crime scene and destroyed, in violation of standard investigatory procedures. No investigation was undertaken, a violation of standard practice in response to a major crime. "The Administration opposed at every turn the creation of an independent commission to investigate the tragedy of 9/11." [SENATE COMMITTEE]
5) When the demand for an investigation became overwhelming, the Administration setup a commission of inquiry that lacked independence, was excessively limited in scope and poorly funded. [SENATE COMMITTEE]
6) The official inquiry into 9/11, which began 15 months after the event, sought evidence to confirm a preconceived conclusion and ignored evidence that did not support that conclusion. The official account of 9/11 is consequently riddled with incongruities, omissions and contradictions. The official version of events does not satisfactorily explain much of the evidence relating to the events of 9/11.
7) The Pentagon deliberately mislead the official inquiry. [WASHINGTON POST]
8) US intelligence had the names and photos of all 19 hijackers within hours of the hijackings, yet the Administration claimed it had no prior knowledge or forewarning of the attacks. Some of the alleged hijackers had received training at U.S. military installations. Others have since turned up alive and well. [NEWSWEEK] [BBC]
9) Bush received a PDB (President's Daily Brief) from CIA on August 6, titled "Bin Laden determined to strike inside the US", which warned specifically of terrorists training for possible hijacking attempts. [TRANSCRIPT]
10) Also in August, senior FBI officials blocked investigations into a suspected terrorist hijacker, Zacharia Musawi, whose suspicious behaviour in seeking flight lessons led to his arrest on August 20. [TIME] [LATIMES] [JUDICIAL WATCH]
11) The alleged hijackers' behaviour prior to 9/11 did not exemplify a high degree of skill, competence or sophistication.
12) According to DCI Tenet, the CIA had been infiltrating Al Qaida and recruiting terrorist operatives for several years prior to 9/11. [TENET]
What can we deduce from this sample of circumstantial evidence?
a) The Administration had a predetermined response to the attacks - the global war on terror, the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, abductions, assassinations, detention without charge and torture in secret prisons, beyond the reach of law.
b) The Administration had forewarning of possible hijacking attempts, but apparently gave no warning to FAA, NORAD or any other agency, did nothing to prepare for such eventualities and then denied that they had any forewarning.
c) The Administration attempted to first prevent, then obstruct the course of the investigation into 9/11. Government and military officials have deliberately lied and misled the public in order to cover up ... something.
d) Senior FBI officials systematically and deliberately obstructed investigations into suspected terrorist activities prior to 9/11.
e) Government officials assisted and protected known terrorist operatives for supposedly "intelligence" purposes.
Direct evidence:
1) The WTC towers disintegrated at near free fall acceleration, physically impossible due to gravity alone. [PDF] [PDF]
2) All the concrete in the towers was pulverized, physically impossible due to gravity alone.
3) Molten metal remained in the rubble pile for weeks after the collapse, not possible due to fire and gravity alone. [PDF]
4) Iron-rich microspheres found in the dust, evidence of vapourised molten metal, not possible due to fire alone.
5) Bone fragments found on the roof tops of neighbouring buildings, not possible due to gravity collapse alone.
6) Unexploded energetic thermitic material found in the WTC dust, not officially admitted or explained. [PDF]
What can we deduce from this sample of direct evidence?
a) The towers could not have fallen the way the government claims - a gravity driven collapse caused by structural damage and fire alone, is not a plausible explanation for the observed event.
b) The WTC buildings 1, 2 & 7 were necessarily brought down by planned explosive demolition.
c) The demolition was necessarily conducted by a highly skilled, professional demolition team, in conjunction with the aircraft strikes, so as to give the impression that the buildings collapsed due to a terrorist attack.
d) The operation must have been planned over many months or years, involving highly skilled demolition experts and senior government, military and intelligence officials.
Note: the evidence cited above does not establish the actual sponsors of the operation, but supports the proposition that senior government and military officials must have been involved, at some level, in the planning, facilitation and/or execution of the operation.
March 9, 2010
Evidence versus conspiracy theory
The destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11 has been explained by officialdom in terms of a conspiracy theory ... terrorists conspired to hijack and crash airliners into the twin towers, causing them to collapse.
This conspiracy theory does not attempt to explain the actual destruction of the WTC via examination of the evidence. Instead, it begins with the premise that the hijackers were Arab terrorists who planned the attack in order to bring down the Twin Towers.
The 9/11 Commission Report opens with a chapter entitled "We Have Some Planes", which essentially adopts, as the starting point of the investigation, the conclusion formerly presented by the Administration, namely that 19 Arab terrorists were solely responsible for the conspiracy to hijack planes and use them to attack the US. By selectively citing evidence to support this theory, officialdom arrives at a conclusion that does not accommodate much of the evidence pertaining to the events.
The official explanation for the destruction of the WTC fails to explain how or why the buildings spontaneously disintegrated with explosive force. It does not explain the apparent failure of air defense systems, despite forewarnings of possible hijackings. It does not explain the rapid removal and illegal destruction of evidence from the crime scene. It does not explain the complete lack of proper investigation of the crime. The official account simply ignores an abundance of evidence that fails to affirm the preordained narrative.
As an explanation for the events of 9/11, the official conspiracy theory is neither comprehensive nor complete.
March 2, 2010
Investigte 9/11
The justification for perpetual war on terror, as we all know, is the crime of 9/11. The government would have you believe that terrorists attacked us that day, and we must deny the terrorists safe haven so they won't attack us again.
There are, however, some important facts that have been omitted from the official narrative and ignored by the corporate media.
Here are just a few examples:
Fact: The twin towers were designed and constructed to withstand fire and structural damage resulting from the impact of a Boeing 707 jet airliner.
Fact: On 9/11, the 110 story buildings fell at near free fall acceleration, unheard of in fire ravaged buildings but typical of controlled demolition.
According to the official theory, fire weakened the impact damaged section which then failed, allowing the upper floors to fall through the remaining steel and concrete structure, crushing the building to smithereens in about the same amount of time it would take to fall through thin air... approximately 10 seconds.
But it should be obvious that gravitational force alone could not account for the sudden explosive disintegration of a building like that - some extra force was required to pulverize each 500,000 ton structure, from top to bottom, in about 10 seconds. That this is not widely recognised is testament to the efficacy of propaganda.
Fact: Heavy steel columns were ejected horizontally at high speeds, puncturing nearby buildings and landing hundreds of feet from the base of the towers.
Fact: A pyroclastic surge of pulverized concrete, gypsum and asbestos dust engulfed lower Manhattan, moving at speeds in excess of 60 kph.
Fact: The dust plume contained significant quantities of vapourised iron, which condensed into tiny iron microspheres, only visible under microscope.
Fact: Pools of molten iron were found at the base of the rubble piles and remained molten for many weeks after the towers came down.
Many of these facts are contained in official documents such as the reports from FEMA, the 9/11 Commission and the NIST Investigation. Most of them can also be observed in readily available video footage and photographs of the event and crime scene.
Furthermore, researchers from the Department of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark, last month presented a paper in the peer reviewed Open Chemical Physics Journal, entitled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 WTC Catastrophe.
The paper details evidence of unreacted nano-thermite in the dust from "ground zero". This unusual high energy material is an advanced exothermic compound, chemically similar to thermite and more powerful than dynamite, that can be used for cutting or melting steel, or as an explosive.
You won't hear it from the mainstream media, but skepticism about the official version of 9/11 is widespread and broadly based. There are many organisations, such as Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth, Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Lawyers for 9/11 Truth and Fire Fighters for 9/11 Truth, all calling for a proper investigation of the 9/11 catastrophe.
They want to know how and why the WTC towers spontaneously disintegrated into fine powder and modular lengths of steel after burning for less than two hours, given the buildings were in fact designed to withstand the collision of a Boeing 707.
They contend that much of the real world evidence and fundamental laws of physics refute the official collapse theory and support the controlled demolition theory.
Standard investigative procedures and fire protection codes actually require the sort of analyses that scientists, architects and engineers are calling for, so it's not an unreasonable or controversial demand.
So far, official investigations have failed to look for evidence of controlled demolition, presumably because "we have no reason to suspect it, so why look for evidence of it". They have also declined to investigate the actual "collapse" of the towers, instead limiting their study of evidence from time of impact up to the point at which the towers were "poised to collapse", implying that rapid and complete "collapse", once it began, was natural and inevitable.
The government and corporate media will tell you it's crazy and wrong to question the official conspiracy theory, but remember, real science cannot be fudged... challenging the official dogma is not a sign of madness, it's an act of civic responsibility.
November 17, 2009
Logic and the Perception of Conspiracy
A popular argument advanced by supporters of the official conspiracy theory against any suggestion of government connivance or complicity in the events of 9/11 and the subsequent cover-up, can be summarized fairly simply, as follows ...
It would require too many people to be involved in a conspiracy of that magnitude ... with so many people involved, someone would have spoken by now, and anyway, the government is just too incompetent to pull off something that sophisticated.
Now this really is a nonsensical argument. For starters, the logic involved in the first statement, that a conspiracy of this nature would require very many people, is contradicted by the official claim that 19 Arab hijackers were the only conspirators involved in 9/11. The only logical explanation for this apparent contradiction is that terrorists are way more competent than government. This proposition is oviously absurd.
But the "incompetence theory" has gained enormous support and credence from within the ranks of government itself. Richard Clarke, former White House Counterterrorism Adviser, is a prominent exponent of the "incompetence theory".
An interesting aspect of the "incompetence theory" is the fact that no government official has ever been fired, reprimanded, investigated or even directly accused of anything aproaching incompetence, let alone dereliction of duty, as a result of their inaction or incompetence before, on and after 9/11.
So it seems that the "incompetence theory" applies solely to the institutional structures of government, and not to the individuals who populate those structures.
However, this logic then allows for the possibility that certain competent individuals (say at least as competent as terrorists) within the institutional structures of government, could feasibly exploit these institutional incompetencies for their own ends.
In other words, corrupt government officials could take advantage of secretive government agencies, bureaucratic barriers, executive orders and the constraints of hierarchical command structures to further criminal self interest.
Without proper, independent judicial review of all the evidence, with full and frank deposition under oath of all the officials involved, we cannot reasonably rule out the possibility.
November 5, 2009
Characteristics of Controlled Demolition
Controlled demolition is a technique used to bring down skyscrapers.
There are several distinguishing characteristics of controlled demolition.
Here are five ...
1. Sudden onset
2. Symmetrical descent
3. Freefall acceleration
4. Complete collapse
5. Dust cloud or plume
All of these characteristics were observed during the collapse of WTC Building 7.
None of these characteristics, however, are associated with fire ravaged buildings.
In fact, no skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire ... it's never happened.
According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, "This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building."
Dr Sunder, lead investigator for NIST's investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings, told No Lies Radio on August 21, 2008, that NIST had chosen the "most credible" hypothesis to explain the collapse of WTC Building 7.
WTC7 collapsed suddenly, symmetrically and completely, with freefall acceleration, generating an enormous dust cloud, at 5.28 pm on September 11, 2001.
To the casual observer, the collapse looks similar to a controlled demolition.
And yet, according to Dr Sunder, NIST did not consider controlled demolition a credible hypothesis to explain the collapse of WTC7 and hence did not look for evidence of it.
Instead, NIST decided the most credible hypothesis was one that described a new phenomenon ... a phenomenon that NIST admits is the "first known instance" of its kind and that FEMA concedes "has only a low probability of occurrence."
NIST's hypothesis describes a phenomenon whereby scattered fires somehow lead to the sudden, simultaneous failure of thousands of structural steel components.
NIST claims, "Our study found that the fires in WTC 7 caused an extraordinary event, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down."
And this NIST considers to be the "most credible" hypothesis to explain the collapse of WTC7... amazing, incredible, pick your word... I'd say unscientific.
September 12, 2009
Mainstream media helps stifle inquiry into 9/11
The mainstream media deems search for the truth about 9/11 to be crazed, vile, heinous, outrageous, ludicrous, dangerous, tantamount to sedition.
Corporate media attempts to discredit and discourage discussion about 9/11 by smearing any who raise concerns or voice doubt about the official conspiracy theory.
The most common method used to chill any discussion of 9/11 is to invoke the phrase "conspiracy theories" and to associate discussion of 9/11 with crazy thinking.
This is convenient, since the official explanation for the events of 9/11 is a conspiracy theory and hence anyone discussing it can be dismissed as a conspiracy theorist.
Of course, the term "conspiracy theorist" is only applied to those who dare question the official conspiracy theory. Those who accept and believe without question, the official conspiracy theory... well they're just normal rational people.
But beyond the fantasy bubble inhabited by establishment lackeys, people are well aware of the lies and deception that masquerade as official dogma. In the wake of Van Jones resignation, Salon asked other signatories of the controversial petition demanding a proper investigation of 9/11, whether they still support the petition.
Here are some of the responses to Salon's question ...
Gray Brechin, historical geographer and visiting scholar at the University of California at Berkeley's Department of Geography, replied ...
"Until recently, I thought that I (like Van Jones) lived in a country with a First Amendment that permits freedom of speech, thought and petition without fear of reprisal."
Richard Falk, professor emeritus of international law and practice at Princeton University; distinguished visiting professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara, replied ...
"I would re-sign the 9/11 statement calling for investigation and clarification with respect to the series of questions that have never been satisfactorily answered. To call for an investigation along these lines does not make one a 9/11 'truther' or an endorser of a conspiracy theory. The deliberate blurring of the boundary between questioning the persuasiveness of the official version of 9/11 and the endorsement of an alternative theory of the events that implicates high officials in the Bush presidency seems designed to prevent further inquiry. Citizens in a democratic society deserve to know the truth, and to seek the truth in matters of such fundamental national importance should be treated as an expression of patriotic duty rather than the reverse."
Mark Crispin Miller, professor of media studies at New York University, replied ...
"Yes, if I had it to do over again, I would sign that statement readily, since the questions that it raises are not just legitimate but terribly important -- and they have not been answered credibly. The fact that such a statement should be controversial at all has less to do with what it says than with the great taboo that still inhibits rational discussion of the evidence. First of all, the statement asks for a new inquiry into 9/11. That is hardly an insane demand, considering the many obstacles and limitations that prevented the 9/11 Commission from doing a proper job."
Douglas Sturm, professor emeritus of religion and political science, Bucknell University, replied ...
"In direct response to your query, I in no way repudiate my action signing the 9/11 statement. It stands as an appeal to investigate closely and carefully a series of questions about that tragic event that have yet to receive fully satisfactory answers."
Burns H. Weston, professor emeritus, University of Iowa law school, replied ...
"Yes, I would do it all over again. It is my position that too many critical questions have not yet been officially answered, if even investigated, and that, therefore, the jury is still out on the complete truth of 9/11."
Explosive evidence of controlled demolition
After burning for less than two hours, the 110 story twin towers suddenly exploded into a cloud of dust that blanketed Lower Manhattan and spread across the Hudson River.
In each tower, 110 acres of 4" thick reinforced concrete was pulverized to fine powder in less than ten seconds, even as the towers were descending at near free fall acceleration.
Basic Newtonian physics refutes the propostition that gravitational force alone was sufficient to pulverize concrete and cut steel columns while simultaneously accelerating the mass of the building groundwards.
Some extra source of energy was required to pulverize the towers to dust.
Scientific analyses of the dust has revealed that extra source of energy.
The most recent scientific findings are presented in a paper entitled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 WTC Catastrophe, published April 2009, in the peer-reviewed Open Chemical Physics Journal and available online at the Journals Home Page.
September 11, 2009
What happened at the BoNY on 9/11?
Alan Greenspan, then Chairman of the Federal Reserve, told the American Bankers Association’s Annual Convention on October 23, 2001, that the destruction of the World Trade Center had caused "difficulties in rolling over maturing commercial paper".
On November 27, 2001, Governor Laurence H. Meyer gave a speech before the National Association of Business Economics, St. Louis, Missouri , in which he said ...
At the Conference on Bank Structure and Competition, Chicago, Illinois May 9, 2002, Vice Chairman Roger W. Ferguson, Jr. spoke about the Implications of 9/11 for the Financial Services Sector
And on February 5, 2003, Vice Chairman Roger W. Ferguson, Jr. spoke at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, about September 11, the Federal Reserve, and the Financial System
The Federal Reserve, without providing the detail required to substantiate it’s claims, would have the public believe that there were widespread liquidity issues, when in fact the issues were concentrated primarily in the Bank of New York, which has been the subject of a major money-laundering investigation for many years. These account balance issues resulted in the defacto expansion of the monetary supply, details of which are no longer reported by the Federal Reserve.
The reported cause of this market malfunction is seemingly suspect. By comparison, the Deutschebank which sat inside the World Trade Center reported no such account balance increase, and JP Morgan, the other of two clearing banks which uses the same traders and communications hub reported no such increase in account balance. Additionally, while problems were being documented between the BoNY and GCSS, no other institution had those problems.
There is every reason to believe activities in the Bank of New York in the aftermath of September 11th are worthy of suspicion.
For more info, see Collateral Damage: US Covert Operations and the Terror Attacks of 9/11
The resulting shortfalls in the coverage of billions of dollars of maturing paper were managed by rolling fails into the next day's settlement or by drawing on bank lines, causing bank assets to balloon for a few days.
Disruptions of communication lines and the shift to backup sites caused delays in payments and settlements, with billions in funds building up at a small number of participants. Fed and bank balance sheets ballooned with the maldistribution of reserves ...
Alan Greenspan, October 23, 2001
On November 27, 2001, Governor Laurence H. Meyer gave a speech before the National Association of Business Economics, St. Louis, Missouri , in which he said ...
The events of that day could have disrupted those markets and the activity that they financed for a considerable time. Instead, we learned once again that the financial sector is enormously resilient.
[R]esumption of business by financial firms depended on careful planning in advance, on backup data, on software, and so forth. To be sure, securities markets and transactions, particularly the clearing and settlement in the government securities markets, were disrupted for a period
We wore many hats on that day and the days immediately following. First, we acted as the provider of liquidity. We used every existing vehicle for injecting liquidity and even invented a new one - the use of large swap lines with foreign central banks to inject dollar liquidity.
Discount window loans soared instantly from around $200 million to a peak of about $45 billion on September 12 and Federal Reserve repurchase agreements soared from $25 billion to nearly $100 billion.
Governor Laurence H. Meyer, November 27, 2001
At the Conference on Bank Structure and Competition, Chicago, Illinois May 9, 2002, Vice Chairman Roger W. Ferguson, Jr. spoke about the Implications of 9/11 for the Financial Services Sector
The U.S. financial system largely remained open throughout the day and thereafter. Key wholesale and retail payments system remained operational. Even firms in the World Trade Center were able to resume business from other offices or from contingency sites within hours of the attack.
The response of the financial industry and the speed with which it resumed business was extraordinary and can be attributed only to its extensive preparations for ensuring continuity of operations in the wake of physical and cyber disruptions.
Roger W. Ferguson, May 9, 2002
And on February 5, 2003, Vice Chairman Roger W. Ferguson, Jr. spoke at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, about September 11, the Federal Reserve, and the Financial System
The Federal Reserve System organized a response that emphasized three objectives. First, as central bank we needed to provide sufficient liquidity through as many means as possible to maintain stability. Second, we had to ensure that our systems were operational. Third, we worked to keep markets open or to return them quickly to normal operations.
The damage to property and communications systems made it difficult for many banks to execute payments to one another. Once a number of banks began to be short of incoming payments, some became reluctant to send out payments. In effect, banks were growing short of liquidity.
Before September 11, banks held approximately $13 billion in their Fed accounts. In the days after September 11, these balances ballooned to more than $120 billion because some banks could not move funds out of their accounts. The large buildup of Federal Reserve account balances was limited to only a few banks, but it meant that a number of other banks were running huge negative positions in their Federal Reserve accounts and needed to find other sources of liquidity before the close of business.
One tool used to provide liquidity was the discount window. On September 12, lending to banks through the discount window totaled about $46 billion, more than two hundred times the daily average for the previous month.
Open market operations were a second tool at our disposal for pumping additional liquidity into the system. In these operations, our trading desk at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York enters the market daily to buy or sell Treasury securities. Our trading desk in New York met all propositions at the intended funds rate from September 12 through September 17, and the System engaged in a record level of open market operations through overnight repurchase agreements.
Also, the Fed's securities lending program expanded its provision of securities to the marketplace, and those securities in turn could be used as the collateral for private-sector liquidity arrangements. The staff of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, having evacuated its main site and gone to its backup facility, performed heroically in running the open market operations.
Despite the increased liquidity resulting from discount window lending and open market operations, some institutions still had difficulty exchanging payments. As a result, many depository institutions incurred larger-than-usual daylight overdrafts on their accounts at the Federal Reserve. On September 14, daylight overdrafts peaked at $150 billion, more than 60 percent higher than usual, despite Federal Reserve opening account balances of slightly more than $120 billion.
The Federal Reserve also worked with other regulators through the President's Working Group on Financial Markets to monitor developments in financial markets. As you know, the government securities market postponed settlements for a few days, the commercial paper market experienced significant problems, and the New York Stock Exchange remained closed until September 17.
We supported fully restoring financial markets to normal operations as soon as practical. However, we had to balance the benefit of a prompt return to business against the risk that the supporting infrastructure would be unable to handle a record volume of trades.
The incidents of September 11 taught us many lessons relating to central banking and financial stability. First, the importance of the Federal Reserve's role as lender of last resort. Second, the multiple roles the Federal Reserve plays - central bank, supervisor and regulator, and payment systems operator - gave us many opportunities during a crisis. A third lesson is that having diversified forms of risk intermediation makes the financial system more robust.
While I have been a member of the Board, I have from time to time heard some [dare] question the wisdom of our central bank being involved in supervision and regulation, while continuing to provide payment services, particularly retail payment services.
To my mind the events of September 11 should put such question to rest. From our experience, we should recognize the benefits of a central bank that can influence the economy and enhance financial [fraud] stability through several mutually reinforcing tools.
Vice Chairman Roger W. Ferguson, Jr. February 5, 2003
The Federal Reserve, without providing the detail required to substantiate it’s claims, would have the public believe that there were widespread liquidity issues, when in fact the issues were concentrated primarily in the Bank of New York, which has been the subject of a major money-laundering investigation for many years. These account balance issues resulted in the defacto expansion of the monetary supply, details of which are no longer reported by the Federal Reserve.
The reported cause of this market malfunction is seemingly suspect. By comparison, the Deutschebank which sat inside the World Trade Center reported no such account balance increase, and JP Morgan, the other of two clearing banks which uses the same traders and communications hub reported no such increase in account balance. Additionally, while problems were being documented between the BoNY and GCSS, no other institution had those problems.
There is every reason to believe activities in the Bank of New York in the aftermath of September 11th are worthy of suspicion.
For more info, see Collateral Damage: US Covert Operations and the Terror Attacks of 9/11
The official conspiracy theory is bunkum
On Sept. 11, 2001, suicide hijackers crashed two airliners into the World Trade Center in New York, causing the 110-story twin towers to collapse. Another hijacked airliner hit the Pentagon and a fourth crashed in a field in Pennsylvania.
That's the official conspiracy theory ... 19 Arab hijackers conspired to attack us.
But it would have required hundreds of people to pull off an operation like that.
Only people with security clearance could plant the necessary explosives in the towers.
Only people in charge of air defence could prevent timely interception of the hijacked airliners.
Only people in charge of the investigation could order the immediate removal and destruction of all the evidence from ground zero.
Only people with official authority could forestall an official inquiry.
Only people with controlling influence over the media could ensure that the official conspiracy theory would be the only version of events allowed for public consumption.
In effect, only people within the establishment had the ability to successfully conduct the 9/11 operation.
IMPORTANT: this does not imply that all of government was involved.
Only a handful of people needed to be fully aware of all operational details, and even they would have been ignorent about certain aspects of the operation ... with information shared on a need-to-know basis only, essential for plausible deniability of the actual sponsors.
But of this much we can be sure... senior military, intelligence, law enforcement and administration officials were clearly involved in facilitating the operation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)