Evan Burton

A dark moment in UN history...

THE UN security council failed to agree on declaring Zimbabwe's run-off election illegitimate today in the face of South African opposition. Instead, it merely issued an oral statement of regret over the one-candidate presidential vote.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23936674-401,00.html

The "Truth Movement" (AKA People Who Disagree With The Findings Of The 9/11 Commission And Believe Official Collusion) are not having a good run when it comes to actually producing evidence. There was William Rodriguez's failed lawsuit, Ellen Mariani's failed lawsuit, and Field McConnell's failed lawsuit, in addition to the failed lawsuits of Kevin Ryan, Judy Wood, Morgan Reynolds and Edward Haas. There may be more, but that makes it at least seven failures so far.

Legal action by Judy Woods and Morgan Reynolds asserting that NIST et al covered up / failed to do their jobs / produced false evidence / whatever... DISMISSED.

The aim of the Information Quality Act is to assure that the information publicly released by a federal agency is of the highest quality. It requires the dissemination of true and accurate information, and a mechanism for individuals, affected by that information, to seek and obtain a correction of false or inaccurate information. None of plaintiffs’ asserted legal claims can withstand defendants’ motions to dismiss.

Plaintiffs’ attempted analysis of that information constitutes pure speculation that the NIST participants were involved in a cover-up to conceal the true cause for the towers’ collapse. They merely disagree with NIST’s investigative findings, and specifically wish to reject the basic factual premise that terrorist destroyed the Twin Towers using passenger-filled airplanes as missile-like weapons. Plaintiffs, understandably, offer nothing more than conjecture and

supposition to support their claim that the towers were struck by high powered energy beams.

Plaintiffs’ theories about the cause of the 9/11 disaster completely fail to state a cognizable claim for relief.

Plaintiffs vaguely allege that, for a number of years, all defendants wrongfully sought payment for services performed in bad faith. They do not cite to a single identifiable record or billing submission that they claim to be false, or give a single example of when a purportedly false claim was presented for payment by a particular defendant at a specific time. Additionally, plaintiffs’ general attribution, to the defendants, of the purported false statements published in the NCSTAR 1 report is untenable to support a particularized pleading of fraud.

Plaintiffs merely allege the existence of a nefarious conspiracy of epic proportion. They name all defendants as co-conspirators.

All three complaints are dismissed with prejudice.

http://reynoldslitigation.googlepages.com/...thprejudice.pdf

Of course, they'll claim the legal system was in on it or controlled by the NWO or (insert your conspiracy theory here).

Blah blah blah blah

Not a real quote, but the content (or lack of it) is the same nonetheless.

I will say one thing however, Peter: you claim I have tried to get rid of you. Once again, you are misinformed. When possible action against you was discussed, I voted AGAINST suspending you.

Well said Len!

Peter cries....

That is truly one of the most immature and undignified posts I have seen from a moderator on any site. Ever.

Then you don't get out enough.

Well said Len!

Peter cries....

Now that I'm back home with our slow internet, i don't do YouTube.

Could you summarise the claims and who they are made by?

So what is the answer? I don't think sanctions will work - at least not for a very long time.

What about UN police action? If so, exactly what are the objectives?

I'd see something like supervision of elections, protection of people / villages, etc. I'd also think that a suspension of Mugabe's powers could be considered. There is a fine balance, of course, between preventing him from unfairly influencing elections and preventing him carrying out fair campaigning. The supervision of elections must be sure, so that if the country DOES want Mugabe, they are left to their own fate. If he is deposed, he must be protected from retribution... unless that retribution comes in the form of justified charges brought by the world court.

We have to have a clear path to follow if we are to act.

What about Fiji? No comments about that so far.

All I ever see are claims against the US government, claims of secret societies or New World Orders, calls for people to throw off chains of supposed oppression by the US (and on far lesser occasions, the UK).

Does no-one care about Zimbabwe? Why aren't Forum members voicing concerns that the western world is not doing anything (or much) to stop a dictator, whether that action be political, economic, or military?

A lessor situation occurs in Fiji, where a military junta rules. Is this fair to the Indian population? Are they being treated justly?

Why aren't Forum members (specifically those who spend the majority of their time here making posts) making people aware of these situations, instead of concentrating on anti-US comments? Do they not care? Are they biased?

Now, if the Zimbabwians only had some oil.

I think that is a key point; they don't have anything that the Western world wants.

All I ever see are claims against the US government, claims of secret societies or New World Orders, calls for people to throw off chains of supposed oppression by the US (and on far lesser occasions, the UK).

Does no-one care about Zimbabwe? Why aren't Forum members voicing concerns that the western world is not doing anything (or much) to stop a dictator, whether that action be political, economic, or military?

A lessor situation occurs in Fiji, where a military junta rules. Is this fair to the Indian population? Are they being treated justly?

Why aren't Forum members (specifically those who spend the majority of their time here making posts) making people aware of these situations, instead of concentrating on anti-US comments? Do they not care? Are they biased?

Although we are yet to view the debate, I do find it (apparently) interesting that Richard Gage did not use the opportunity to highlight the "errors" that we 'official government version believers' suffer from; instead he did not try to show the "errors" of Mark Roberts. Perhaps it was because he did not wish to highlight those areas because he avoid talking about them?

From Mark Roberts:

I don't expect the shows to be on the web for a couple of weeks. Gage had them videotaped on his end. He'll send the tape to the Hardfire producer, who will combine it with the tape shot in the NY studio...a good idea which I assume was Gage's. He was connected by telephone to us. There were a few audio glitches.

The host was John Clifton, an amiable guy. I had thought he was merely sympathetic to truther claims, but he's actually a a hardcore truther. He doesn't seem to be aware of much of the evidence on the...er...evidence-based side. I kept inviting him to check out my website. He didn't seem to go out of his way to show bias against me, though. I talked with him quite a bit before and after the taping but don't think I made a dent. He's a believer in many conspiracy theories, with the overriding belief that the government controls so much information that it's impossible to know what's true. Well, the government doesn't control the physical laws of the universe, which are what falsify Richard Gage's claims.

It was originally to be one show, about the three WTC skyscraper collapses, with Gage choosing the topics. Most of my preparation was about the Twin Towers, since that's what Gage spends most of his time on and makes his most extreme claims about.

To give the show some structure and to insure equal time, last week I proposed this format:

1) Mr. Gage would choose his five best pieces of evidence in favor of controlled demolition. I would not know the topics in advance.

2) Each topic would receive a two-minute summary of evidence by the first presenter, then a two-minute rebuttal, then a 15-second response by the first presenter.

3) We would alternate being the first to present on a topic, to avoid the same person doing a rebuttal each time (assuming that I'd learn the topics when the show started). Considering overruns and topic introductions by John, that format should have taken about 24 minutes, leaving about 3 minutes for guest introductions and other topics.

That proposal was rejected.

Before we took our seats, I was informed by John Cifton that the subject was going to be restricted to WTC 7. I was not pleased by this, since I had prepared to discuss all WTC topics and had done a Hardfire show with Ron and Arthur Scheuerman about WTC 7 in February...for which we could find no prominent truther opponent. I would rather have covered new ground. However, since my policy is that I'll debate any prominent non-insane truther on their own turf, I went along with this change of plans.

As it turned out, producer Gary Popkin made time for two shows, and we did cover some Twin Towers ground in the second, although not in the detail necessary. By that time the debate had gotten pretty heated, and Gage was jumping around from claim to claim a bit. In retrospect, one show would have been almost comically insufficient, so I thank Gary for squeezing two in. Three would have been far better, but then I'd be wanting four.... As I explained to someone yesterday, I could easily do a 10-hour solo presentation on all Gage gets wrong, with no preparation. Condensing everything to a few minutes is difficult.

It was amusing hearing Gage being coached about WTC 7 specifics before the show. He didn't know we could hear him and at that point he couldn't hear us. Let's just say that he was...confused about important points with only two minutes to go.

Gage requested just before the show started that we adhere to my suggested 2-minute presentation format after all...too bad I hadn't prepared for that format. But Gage didn't want to alternate being the first to present on a topic as I had suggested. This put me at a bit of a disadvantage since I had to always respond to what he said on the show, as opposed to being able to raise the many other – and nuttier – things he says about each topic in his other presentations. There was no time to argue this point since the show was starting.

John began the show with a statement that consisted of two quotes by Ron Paul, one of which was misleading and irrelevant (the 9/11 Commission didn't discuss the collapse of WTC 7), and the other of which was wrong and irrelevant (Bin Ladens were flown out of the US after 9/11 before airspace was open to others). We were not asked to comment on those quotes. Because I didn't want to immediately embarrass a host who was already biased against me, I held my tongue. That was not easy to do.

I don't think we adhered closely to the 2-minute debate/rebuttal format, but I could be wrong about that. These shows go by so fast that they're mostly a blur. The second show was more free-form.

Gage used part of his time to play vldeos that we in New York couldn't see and for the most part couldn't hear. Although I know the context of the videos, I would rather have dealt with Gage directly.

Unlike the other Hardfire shows I've done, each of these shows was interrupted midway by a promotion for the New York Libertarian Party...more time lost.

I never got to use my two most devastating responses because Gage didn't raise the topics. I was very surprised, since he'd raised them in every presentation I'd seen him give. Perhaps he understands his vulnerability there.

The sheer volume of Gage's wrongness can be mind-numbing: in his online Powerpoint presentation I cataloged 311 false statements, 114 misleading statements, and 137 logical fallacies. There were lots of important points I missed during the shows, but that's always the case and I don't kick myself too much about it. People will be directed to my website, where I'll have a page dedicated to these shows and links for investigating each claim. I wanted to have a graphic added for bolo's ae911truth.info site, but the producer wouldn't allow it since I hadn't mentioned it during the shows.

People shouldn't get too excited about seeing the shows. Although the debate got heated at times, I was bored stiff throughout since Gage was being more cautious than usual and no new ground was covered. With a few exceptions, they're the same old claims that had been debunked long before AE911truth existed.

There's quite a bit of editing to be done after Gary gets Gage's tape, so I don't imagine the shows will be up soon. Although it took getting him a sympathetic host, Gage gets credit for showing. It's been over a year since anyone's agreed to debate me. A couple of times, after he said certain evidence didn't exist and I explained that it did, he seemed open to reviewing that. A glimmer of light in the dark, perhaps.

Thanks Dave G. The matter has been reported, and there is evidence to suggest it was an ex-Forum member.

Could everyone please take note of what has happened, and take the following steps:

- Keep your password secure; and

- Change it regularly.

Just a reminder: Richard Gage will be on Hardfire in a few days, on 18 Jun.

On a related note, Hardfire also did a special on the claims surrounding WTC7. It featured Ron Wieck, Mark Roberts, and Arthur Scheuerman - FDNY Battalion Chief (Retired). It was no surprise that no "people who substantially disagree with the official 9/11 Report findings" wanted to be involved in the debate.

"Just a comparison to see how things are done in a real democracy"

????

A good website that explains it all in more detail:

The Titan II ICBM Web Page.

Thanks for that Evan,

Where was the missile site? The computers look truly archaic, but most likely unbuggable because they were so 'primitive'. Do you know when the site was deactivated? I had no idea that missile sites were open to the public, usually things of no significance that relate to the cold war are not released at all.

John

The site is in Green Valley, Arizona, about 20 miles south of Tucson. It was deactivated in 1982, and there are public tours of the silo, the only one of the Titan II sites left.

The computers had to be rugged, but they didn't have to do a lot. One to confirm the oxidiser butterfly valve activation code, and the others to monitor the missile and silo systems.

The missile was pre-programmed (by special servicing personnel, not the regular crew) at regular intervals with three possible targets. On the launch panel, there were three buttons: Target 1 Target 2, and Target 3. The launch order simply said 1, 2, or 3. The crew didn't know where it was going.

Well worth seeing.

This is the connecting tunnel between the Command complex and the Missile Silo itself.

It was designed to move, shift, etc, with a nuke attack. Every couple of feet there are huge shock absorbers. All the cables have slack built into them, all the lights are on springs, all equipment mounted on shock absorbers, etc.

The springs on the left of the tunnel picture are heavier than those on the right. The left carried cables of copper for comms, power, etc, whilst the right carried water and air.

Finally, a servicing platform around the missile.

The platforms were on various levels, and could be retracted. The dummies are shown wearing the protective suits that had to be worn in the silo to protect them from the fuel and gases (UDMH & Hydrazine straight).

Here is the Launch Control room. The lady is sitting at the Commander's position. The Deputy Commander's position is in the background. The Commanders station controlled most things, but each station had a key to turn to verify a launch commit. The keys were separated so that no one person could turn both the keys at the same time (required for launch).

This is the Deputy's station:

This is the business end, the launch control and firing panel.

Surprisingly simple. Just some lights to tell you what is happening, and the launch keys.

Some may be wondering what is to stop two nutters launching the missile; good question.

The oxidiser valves on the missiles were coded. A correct code sequence had to be entered in order for the missile to launch, and the crew did not have this; it was ONLY given during a valid launch order.

The panel were it was to be entered can be seen behind the old fella.

Visited the Titan Missile Complex today. This was an active Titan II missile silo complex from 1962 until 1982. This Titan II carried a single 8 Mt warhead (that is BIG). There were 54 complexes, and this is the only one not filled in with concrete.

This is the entrance to the missile complex.

Despite what you may think, the complexes were NOT hidden. They were considered to be a 'retaliatory' system, and they wanted the Soviets to know that they were there. They were designed to withstand a direct nuclear hit and still fire the missile. The crews consisted of four people on a 24 hour shift. All site systems had to be inspected every 12 hours. The sites had doppler radar intruder detections systems set up all over the place.

To gain access to the silo / control complex, the Commander had to go through four different checkpoint, two which involved specially coded responses.

Once the commander and team had been approved through the capture area, they had the final check. If this was good, the first blast door was opened. The damn thing is huge, designed to survive a direct hit and overpressure of 300 PSI.

There was a second blast door before moving into the complex proper.

Just inside was the Missile Control Complex and Launch Control Room. There were beds and a kitchen on different levels. All areas of the complex were "No Lone Zones", meaning that no-one was to be there by themselves - if you were, you were considered compromised until you could prove otherwise.

The only place where you could be alone was in the galley.

Hmmmmm...

Gentlemen - can we drop this, and return to the thread topic? Please?

Thank you.

Why don't you just delete their posts with no notification and no warning? That'll show 'em.

Good idea - except it is just making them invisible, so that if it is decided that the action was inappropriate, then it can be reversed.

Thanks Michael!

Gentlemen - can we drop this, and return to the thread topic? Please?

Thank you.

Randy,

Could you please confirm that you are receiving my private messages? I have no indication that you have.

If not, you need to contact myself or John Simkin immediately.

Randy,

I think I know to which you refer, but I don't think it was as you describe. If you disagree with my opinion, I'd advise you to use the REPORT function and let other moderators know your feelings. If they agree with you, they will take the necessary action.