Peter McKenna

I'm afraid, Evan, that you've lured me out of retirement yet again. Your definition of "Truth Movement" is so flawed, so at variance with fact, and so cripplingly superficial as to provoke suspicions of disingenuousness. I dare you even to define "official" in any reasonable way within this context. Do you mean "governmental?" If so, are you referencing elected and/or appointed uber-government personnel, or would you direct our attention to those who operate at what Peter Dale Scott would term the "deep political" levels? By extension, would you describe those of us who recognize conspiracy in the death of JFK to be historical fact as "People Who Disagree with the Findings of the Warren Commission and Believe Official Collusion?" Do you really want to do this, Evan? "Truthers" -- the most condescending, manipulative, confrontational, designed-to-demean epithet to come down the pike since "conspiracy buff" -- are most accurately defined, in the context of 9/11, as "People Who, in Informed, Intelligent, Courageous Manners, Take Legitimate Issue with the Official Government Conspiracy Theory of the Attacks on 9/11/01." Period. Count me among their number. Would some of my comrades indict "Bush" and "Cheney" as 9/11 perps? Certainly. Do not count me among their number. Am I any less a "Truther?" One need not assign blame to recognize, analyze, and present proof of and detail criminal activity. One need not name the gunmen in Dealey Plaza to prove that there were multiple gunmen in Dealey Plaza. One need not name the 9/11 conspirators to prove that the acts were carried out in such manners as to demonstrate the non-viability of the official U.S. government conspiracy theory. Your unreasonable and all-too-common definition of "Truthers" promotes confusion and derision. I suspect that, in doing so, it is living up to the expectations of its designers. The term, “Truthers”, seems to have originated as an abbreviation for those seeking (insert Wildcard) truth in relation to the events of 9/11/2001. That the term has not only stuck, but used prodigiously by critics of the “truth” movement, is testament to the needs of these self-same critics for; mythologizing, obfuscation, and application of irony, to define these movements and parcel them away. Personally I am not a subscriber to any of the 9/11 “truth” movements. But the inertia these organizations have gained should signify, to even the most virulent critic, the deep seated unhappiness the citizenry has with the current establishment infrastructure and with their own government. A contemporary social scientist and Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota, American Mark Fenster has written books on the role of conspiracy theory in today’s society. In “Conspiracy Theory –Secrecy and power in American Culture”, ‘Fenster shows that conspiracy theories play an important role in U.S. democracy. Examining how and why they circulate through mass culture, he contends, helps us better understand society as a whole. Ranging from The Da Vinci Code to the intellectual history of Richard Hofstadter, he argues that dismissing conspiracy theories as pathological or marginal flattens contemporary politics and culture because they are—contrary to popular portrayal—an intense articulation of populism and, at their essence, are strident calls for a better, more transparent government’ (University of Minnesota Press). One review of sums it up: “Fenster makes a powerful argument for regarding conspiracism as an integral product of the political system, reflecting inadequacies the establishment itself is blind to and expressing strong desires for the realization of frustrated ideals. Conspiracy Theories is a fascinating look at an important, little-studied topic. Informative and thought-provoking.” —Philadelphia City Paper Of all the critics of the establishment’s portrayal of the events of 9/11, I find Dr. Judy Wood’s position to be the most tenuous. I have read her lawsuit and find the merits of her case ridiculous in the extreme. But as Marshall McCluhan said “The Medium is the Message”. The message is that we have a less than transparent government in (it’s bordering on the opaque) and we the US citizens have almost no idea what our government is doing anymore. From that point of view, IMO, the term “Truther” is as apt as any.

Good point. I have been meaning to post about this for some time. I disagree with Peter about this. I for one would support the use of an African/UN force invasion as long it was used just to arrest those of war crimes and to oversee elections. Mugabe is just a figure-head and therefore it is of no use waiting for him to die. The military leaders have to be removed from the political scene. The United Nations, specifically Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, has deferred from invading Myanmar under the UN “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine. The ‘Responsibility to Protect’ doctrine is a UN codified framework by which the UN could “legally” wrest control of such infrastructure as needed to save lives or solve severe oppression in a “sovereign” state. If they wouldn’t invade Myanmar I doubt if the UN security council would vote to invade Zimbabwe. For one thing, the fact that Russia and China sit as permanent member states on the security council likely precludes the UN from taking any action against oppressive regimes since China and Russia engage in what could easily be labeled as oppressive political practices. For another, and the more tangible reason, an invasion would likely result in more harm than good, regardless of intentions. Stated reasons notwithstanding, the invasion of Iraq, at face value, removed a despot from power and ended a very oppressive regime. Saddam Hussein engaged in the genocidal extermination of over 50,000 Kurds. He idolized Josef Stalin. Saddam oppressed a Shia majority in favor of the Sunni minority, of which he was a member. The police state tactics he engaged in (and his son) are reported to have been cruel in the extreme (’The War Crimes of Saddam Hussein’, ’Life Under Saddam Hussein’, reported by Human Rights Watch, et al). Note that the reasons for the invasion of Iraq are not at issue here, just that the invasion could have been easily justified under a Responsibility to Protect or other humanitarian argument. The US mission in Somalia ended in tragedy in Mogadishu. That mission had no dark political objective (IMO) and ended badly. To invade Zimbabwe, regardless of the motives at this time, and I agree that Mugabe is a despot and the political practices of his regime are abhorrent, would be an extremely dicey proposition for any country or organization such as the UN. It cannot be easily undertaken, nor could any invading country or group be easily extricated. Zimbabwe is not Iraq, but the lesson must be taken. To invade Zimbabwe there must be an overwhelming argument to support that action. IMO. With respect to the Anglo American investment there: I understand the contempt this investment has garnered, but; Regardless of the benefit to Mugabe, creating and enforcing a virtual embargo on Zimbabwe can, and likely would, result in greater suffering for the innocent population than the government would ever suffer. That is the nature of a despotic government. The objective of enforcing an embargo would be to force the populace to wrest control of the government from the despotic regime. This tactic has resulted in no tangible benefit for the populace in Myanmar, as far as I can tell. I understand the emotional issue with such an investment (as with the AA investment) and the benefit that a despot like Mugabe will likely realize, but the populace of Zimbabwe, who are in bad shape right now due to (among other things) economic collapse, hyperinflation, and mismanagement, would probably suffer if the AA investment is withdrawn, by way of the loss of employment opportunity and trickle down economics (note that this is just my opinion). When growing up, I lived for a few years in Liberia, Africa. The government of Liberia wasn’t despotic. But was certainly corrupt to some degree, and the general population was wretchedly poor. There was tremendous investment in that country in the 1960’s, much from the US. My father worked for a company named LAMCO (a joint venture, primarily Scandinavian) that invested in an iron ore mining enterprise in the Nimba Mountains. The enterprise included an expanded Seaport, the Port of Buchanan, the installation of a Railroad, to transport the ore, and the mines themselves. Firestone rubber had a huge investment in Liberia at the time also. Of course there was disparity and the people were likely under paid by third world standards, but the people did experience an average 11% per year improvement in their standard of living between 1960 and 1970 (after which President Tolbert was overthrown and civil war erupted). IMO, if Anglo American’s investment improves life for the people of Zimbabwe, even if President Mugabe, or his hierarchy benefits, it’s likely worth it, weighing the options. As for invasion, I disagree with it. South Africa foremost, as well as the African Union, has to step up and apply massive pressure for Mugabe to stop the oppressive politics and the violence, and then allow fair and free elections. This worked in Liberia when Charles Taylor stepped down.

I imagine that Paul’s real beef with Monbiot is that he has been highly critical of the "'truth' movement". Thus he (Paul) concludes that the activist / Guardian columnist is merely a “licensed jester” like Amy Goodman*. Len *It’s Paul, not me, who so qualifies Goodman Always a pleasure to see the ghastly Goodman properly labelled! A quick example of how a veteran CIA "left gatekeeper" does the business. Here's old Gnome Chomsky playing the omission game in a recent edition of the corporate friendly New Statesman: http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20080508.htm Noam Chomsky on 1968 New Statesman, 8 May 2008, p.26 1968 - the year no assassinations happened! Really, has this old CIA favourite lost his edge? The question must be asked. PS You're not evading the question here, are you, Len? Were these fearless spook bureaucrats merely obeying orders? To blame the CIA/MI6 for the invasion of Iraq is akin to blaming the hammer for the crushed thumb. The CIA actually issued a very large report on the intelligence breakdowns which occurred and which were the pretext for the invasion of Iraq. But those who remember Colin Powell's speech to the UN on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and upon finding the basis of that conclusion, to be the intelligence from one asset, note ONE ASSET, i.e. the German intelligence source "Curveball", the intelligence 'Cherry Picking' can only be obviated. Whether or not Monbiot attempted a Citizen's arrest of Bolton; whether or not he didn't attempt a citizen's arrest of, ... (who exactly, from the intelligence community, did you have in mind?), is about as meaningless as the intelligence used for the decision to invade Iraq in the first place; How in the world can you criticize Monbiot for an act of protest (as that is all it could have been; unless you are so naive as to believe a citizen's arrest could stick) against spurious reasoning by the political establishment for invading Iraq? You would rather blame Monbiot for not blaming the Spooks and leave the establishment alone? Is not your criticism a little lost in this? I guess I missed your point, if there was one. Oh, by the way, RFK was assassinated in 1968.

05 May 2008 in Current Affairs, Habakkuk Paul, Would you mind explaining your logic in concluding that George Monbiot was exercsing a PR stunt in his citizens's arrest of John Bolton? The March, 2003 invasion of Iraq was the result of the debriefing of a German intelligence asset, codenamed “Curveball”. “Curveball” claimed that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of Mass Destruction, including atomic, chemical, and biological weapons. The intelligence was so good, thought the defense establishment, that Secretary of State, Colin Powell, gave a lecture to the United Nations on February 3, 2003, which was broadcasted to the world. Showcasing Germany’s asset’s intelligence on Iraq had a tangible effect upon the UN general assembly as well as those US citizens watching the lecture on television: “A USA Today/Gallup Poll indicated that 75% of Americans felt the U.S. did not make a mistake in sending troops to Iraq in March 2003. " -Der Spiegel magazine THE Central Intelligence Agency warned US President George W. Bush before the Iraq war that it had reliable information the government of Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, a retired CIA operative has disclosed. "But the operative, Tyler Drumheller, said top White House officials simply brushed off the warning, saying they were "no longer interested" in intelligence and that the policy toward Iraq had been already set. The disclosure, made in an interview with CBS's 60 Minutes program due to be broadcast late tomorrow, adds to earlier accusations that the Bush administration used intelligence selectively as it built its case for the March 2003 invasion of Iraq and the toppling of Saddam's regime The information about the absence of the suspected weapons in Iraq, according to excerpts of Mr Drumheller's remarks, was clandestinely provided to the United States by former Iraqi foreign minister Naji Sabri, who doubled as a covert intelligence agent for Western services. Then-CIA director George Tenet immediately delivered this report to Mr Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other high-ranking administration officials, but the information was dismissed, Mr Drumheller said. "The group that was dealing with preparation for the Iraq war came back and said they were no longer interested," the former CIA official recalled. "And we said 'Well, what about the intel?' And they said 'Well, this isn't about intel anymore. This is about regime change."' - http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18895301-23109,00.html "A memo from John Scarlett, chairman of Britain's Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC), to Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair's director of communications and strategy, explains that the discussion of aluminum tubes must be toned down in public documents because "there is no definitive intelligence that [they are] destined for a nuclear programme." - Url [http://www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline/archives/2002/09/september_19_20_2.html"]http://www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeli...er_19_20_2.html[/url] The story, when fully fleshed out, reveals that the german asset Curveball had provided cooked intelligence to the US and Britsh intelligence services along the lines of Iraqi possession of biologic, chemical, and nuclear WMD. The claim that Iraq had mobile laboratories was especially useful as satellite intelligence could be used to display water trucks to be labelled mobile labs for PR purposes. In conclusion, it seems apparent that politicians at the wheel of then current foreign policy 'Cherry picked' intelligence news as ammo to justify the invasion of Iraq. I've read instances of the intelligence community providing warnings to the US administration that the intel provided had been too thin and was questionable (see above). The veracity of the information didn't seem to matter, since it supported the policy that had been set in motion, i.e., to invade Iraq. Was Monbiot's citizen's arrest a PR stunt? I guess you could call it that. Monbiot called the invasion of Iraq a violation of international treaties and a crime under the Nuremburg principles. Bolton was named a "Primary Architect of the Iraq War" in Monbiot's charge. Did Monbiot have any chance of suceeding in the arrest? No. That would make the act only a symbolic gesture, and therefore a public relations stunt, in the broadest possible sense.

I agree with you that anyone can boycott anything for any reason. After all, this is a free country, and people should be allowed to do business, to purchase goods and services, or not, with whomever they wish. What caught my attention was the characterization by the blacklist site that debunking the 9/11 conspiracy theories was analagous to a denial of free speech, calling it "anti-American Propaganda" , and ".... rather than engage in open, honest, and transparent dialogue regarding 9-11, [Network Name] has repeatedly aired programming that is derogatory and insulting to the millions of Americans who now question what really happened on that day." and "As a proud and patriotic American, I find this kind of rhetoric blatantly un-American and herby challenge all advertisers of the [Program Name] to pull their advertising dollars from this network and program". Now if they had a specific company or person in mind and had made a case for blacklisting, I might consider the merits of their claims. But their claim is presented in a Form Letter! Their premise is that those who disagree with the (fill in the blank) conspiracy theory has, in so doing, denied them of the civil right to free speech. I guess they have a right to exercise this type of blackballing, but I wouldn't want them to aim their propaganda at me. But I do find their lack of subtlety almost funny.

My understanding is that Alex Jones had made the statements about the FDNY. See the following. http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/alexjonesv...ndlarrysilverst Please note that Alex Jones' statements about the FDNY are documented here and in other quarters, Len didn't invent them. Also 'Loose Change' has been debunked in some fairly respectable venues and is considered to be one of the more flawed and easily debunked of the conspiracy theory presentations. This isn't just opinion. Have you seen Screw Loose Change and the myriad of sites which have challenged Loose Change? Any fair and objective dialogue should include both sides of an issue. Id like to know how Len's presentation of this information is obnoxious and rude?

Here’s an interesting site, http://911blacklist.org/ This site advocates the boycotting and blacklisting of Ryobi Tools because they had a ¼ page add in the issue of Popular Mechanics, the magazine which debunked the loose change video. This site also blacklists Popular Mechanics, Marriott Hotels, Mr. Goodwrench, and a long list of others who don’t buy into 9/11 conspiracy theories, or are somehow affiliated with same. Here is a sample blacklist letter provided on the site for use by anyone wishing to stage a campaign against those who support the “official” story, such as the NIST report: "To Whom It May Concern: I am writing to inform you and your company that [Company Name] is now a target of a worldwide boycott campaign directed at advertisers who support programming on [Network Name, ie CNN, ABC, NBC, etc.] and in particular, [Program Name, ie Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, etc.]. Your support of the anti-American propaganda aired on this network by people like [Program Name] is unacceptable and will not go unchallenged by freedom loving Americans. Television personalities on [Network Name], for years now have attacked and ridiculed anyone who would question the official account of what happened before, during, and after the September 11th attacks. Rather than engage in open, honest, and transparent dialogue regarding 9-11, [Network Name] has repeatedly aired programming that is derogatory and insulting to the millions of Americans who now question what really happened on that day. As a proud and patriotic American, I find this kind of rhetoric blatantly un-American and herby challenge all advertisers of the [Program Name] to pull their advertising dollars from this network and program. As an added incentive for change, [Company Name] has been Blacklisted for boycott at the site http://www.911blacklist.org and will remain there until your advertising dollars are pulled and support for this type of propaganda is halted. After halting your support for [Network Name] and [Program Name], you may request removal from the Blacklist by emailing us. Include in your letter your intent to direct your advertising dollars outside of [Network Name] and [Program Name], the date of these changes, and a request to be removed from the 911blacklist.org Blacklist. 911blacklist.org will then post your letter at the website, and move your company from the Blacklist of boycotted advertisers, to the Whitelist of Recommended Business’s." Nice… somehow this organization has reversed the idea that endorsing the NIST report or by debunking 9/11 CT is an expression of freedom of speech, instead indicating that the debunking itself is a denial of freedom of speech. If that method of expressing an opinion isn’t fascist I don’t know what is. Boycott anyone who disagrees with you? Where does it stop? I’d read about 9/11 ‘truthers’ harassing people on the streets who disagree with them, but this seems over the top Why blacklist Popular Mechanics? " Popular Mechanics has re-entered the media circus in an attempt to continue its 9/11 debunking campaign that began in March of last year. A new book claims to expose the myths of the 9/11 truth movement, yet it is Popular Mechanics who have been exposed as promulgating falsehoods while engaging in nepotism, shoddy research and agenda-driven politics. It comes as no surprise that Popular Mechanics is owned by Hearst Corporation. As fictionalized in Orson Welles’ acclaimed film Citizen Kane, William Randolph Hearst wrote the book on cronyism and yellow journalism and Popular Mechanics hasn’t bucked that tradition. The magazine is a cheerleader for the sophistication of advanced weaponry and new technology used by police in areas such as crowd control and ‘anti-terror’ operation. A hefty chunk of its advertising revenue relies on the military and defense contractors. Since the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq and in the future Iran all cite 9/11 as a pretext, what motivation does the magazine have to conduct a balanced investigation and risk upsetting its most coveted clientele? Popular Mechanics’ March 2005 front cover story was entitled ‘Debunking 9/11 Lies’ and has since become the bellwether reference point for all proponents of the official 9/11 fairytale. Following the publication of the article and its exaltation by the mainstream media as the final nail in the coffin for 9/11 conspiracy theories, it was revealed that senior researcher on the piece Benjamin Chertoff is the cousin of Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security ."

And what irks me about the position of such as you and Len is the unrelenting selectivity and hypocrisy of your outrage. I repeat - and nowhere have you or Len sought to offer the hard figures - the petty sums made by 9/11 dissidents is dwarfed by the USTE. The cynicism of the governmental/military/intelligence beneficiaries of 9/11 is off the scale. I have a finite amount of outrage and save it for the people and institutions who really merit it. Then your knowledge of the callousness with which successive hegemonic elements of the US elite has long regarded its own people is pitiful. Now, by all means challenge and expose bogus or ill-thought out claims. The wheat does need sifting from the chaff. But don't pretend a) that all that proclaims dissidence is the real thing and keep a sense of proportion. Complete mistrust of US establishment motives and explanatory narratives should be the starting point for any honest observer, for history - precedent - demands no less. They've provably lied too often. Paul Paul, to quote three parapgraphs of yours, “"And what irks me about the position of such as you and Len is the unrelenting selectivity and hypocrisy of your outrage. I repeat - and nowhere have you or Len sought to offer the hard figures - the petty sums made by 9/11 dissidents is dwarfed by the USTE. The cynicism of the governmental/military/intelligence beneficiaries of 9/11 is off the scale." "Then your knowledge of the callousness with which successive hegemonic elements of the US elite has long regarded its own people is pitiful."” "Now, by all means challenge and expose bogus or ill-thought out claims. The wheat does need sifting from the chaff. But don't pretend a) that all that proclaims dissidence is the real thing and keep a sense of proportion. Complete mistrust of US establishment motives and explanatory narratives should be the starting point for any honest observer, for history - precedent - demands no less."” How could you be so pretentious as to conclude that I selectively criticize anyone or that I must apply a sense of ‘proportion’ to any criticism? You obviously stand in utter contempt for the government of the United States, but to offer some sense of proportion to your reproaches, how do you rate the governments of Russia, Myanmar, or Zimbabwe? You call Len and I hypocrites, which literally means that we (Len and I) engage in the very act we criticize. You demand that any honest observation of the events of 9/11 begin with a complete mistrust of the US establishment. I find you to be utterly pretentious. If you must know, to satisfy your narrow minded concept of justice, I find many of the agents and events of post 9/11 Iraq to be quite foul, such as Blackwater, construction contractors in Iraq, etc., but to establish a sense of proportion there are many, many, other topics which are far more repellent; the governments of Myanmar, Zimbabwe, Russia, to start. I just don't feel the need to list all those who draw my ire before I make a criticism. Your logic is paralytic. You mention the ‘successive hegemonic elements of the US elite’. Who exactly are those? By my reckoning (and as per the dictionary), hegemony simply means the leadership by one state over others, implying that the US elite wishes to govern the world (?). I wouldn’t confine that wish to the US elite or any single state’s elite. That would be naïve in the extreme. Basically it seems that anyone who maintains any level of respect for the United States government, that person is guilty of hypocrisy, possesses a pitiful knowledge of the state of the world, and is intellectually dishonest. These are your words not mine. For all the problems of the United States (which are many), I still find it to be an open government (note that some recent events have begun to somewhat reverse this, which must be rectified, as our civil rights are the life blood of this country), however the US remains one of, if not the most, open government in the world. So I notice that your pretentious criticism seems to be leveled at the US. For the sake of proportion, how can you remain silent on the state of affairs in Myanmar, where the government actually has hoarded aid meant for their people, stooping to selling the aid given them, back to their own populace? How does this stack up in your sense of proportion? Why haven’t you mentioned this in your diatribes? Or Robert Mugabe, who murders dissidents, and has ordered his opposition assassinated? How about Charles Taylor, ex-President of Liberia? He murdered his opponents, pressed child soldiers into military service by drugging them, brainwashing them, and murdering their families. Taylor exported his brand of war to Sierra Leone, to capitalize on their natural resources. Where do we find Charles Taylor in your pecking order of ‘proportion’? I grew up in Liberia, and maintain some emotional attachment to the people, and likely knew victims of the horrors there. Having seen the horrors unleashed upon this world over the last thirty years, I thank God I was born into the United States, and I don’t feel the need to justify any criticism to satisfy your obviously cropped sense of proportion. I took issue with this site: http://lc911.com/lc911/catalog I find it reprehensible. It’s too bad that you must first reconcile your hatred of the US establishment before you can make a moral judgment of something like this. You know I believe that it is this mindset which fuels the fringe theories of the 9/11 ‘truther’ groups. It’s the ‘If you’re not for us you’re against us mentality. This was the mentality of the supra-fascist organizations of the 1920’s and 1930’s. One great benefit of living in the US; I’m entitled to my opinion, regardless of the sense of proportion to anyone else’s pet issues.

Not quite my point, Len. Peter sought to establish moral equivalence between the molehills of money made by even the most successful 9/11 dissident and the Everest cubed raked in by the US State Terrorism Establishment (USTE, henceforth). The comparison was, and remains, grotesque and about as intellectually dishonest as its possible to get on the subject. I note with interest your failure to condemn him for it. Just to be clear on the issue, is it seriously your position that the income derived by, let us say, David Ray Griffin is in the same league as, let us say, Blackwater? Your defensiveness on the subject speaks volumes. Quite right, too. Silverstein blew the gaff - literally - and his meaning was unmistakable within context: "Pull" meant controlled demolition. I'm not quite sure who you thought you convinced, but rest assured, it wasn't me. Paul First, please do not extrapolate my post into my tacit approval of the military industrial complex, corporate facilitation of Mideast aggression, or corporate profiteering in the aftermath of the invasion, as that is intellectually dishonest. I was identifying my contempt for those who are using conspiracy theory as a pretext to profit. I had not identified those who I felt were ignoble in this, and many I’m sure are altruistic in their endeavors. Some however are not, IMO. The loose change crew for one: http://lc911.com/lc911/catalog/Loose-Chang...D-p-44.html9/11 Also if you weren’t aware, there has arisen quite a cottage industry in Europe in the sales of conspiracy theory books and anti US paraphernalia related to 9/11. In Europe, I have read, CT books have made the bestseller list. As I do not subscribe to just about every CT theory I have come across, and have found these theories to have been put forward without much rigor or scientific method (loose change being one of the more disingenuous ), I am somewhat incensed at those who are making a living off of 9/11, at least those who seem to be more interested in marketing their pet creations than altruistically searching for truth (which I’m sure some are). If the idea of scavenging off the death and suffering victims of 9/11 doesn’t bother you than, sorry, but I just can’t bring myself to browse in the 9/11 products section of the loose change website. I also can’t subscribe to publishing any conspiracy theories that only agree that the United States government has murdered several thousand of its citizens with little or no factual evidence, regardless of the scale of crimes engaged in elsewhere. But that is just my opinion.

I'll concede that it does not show what else is happening; that much is true. I'm not sure if I would call it 'cropped' though, because the camera was zoomed towards that area at the time. Nothing has been removed from the original image / footage - it simply does not show everything that is going on. What it does show at least is that the area in question buckled inwards, causing a collapse at that corner. I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that the collapse continued in the same fashion that it started - especially when we see footage from other angles and see nothing that would lead us to believe the collapse would not have continued. The claim of "free fall" is by no means supported - in fact, it is widely disputed: http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm [19] http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/b.../Papers/405.pdf [20] http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/b.../Papers/466.pdf Main article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_t...ld_Trade_Center http://www.burtonsys.com/staticvdyn/ Evan, The collapse of WTC 1 and 2 have been thoroughly examined and evaluated by the NIST. The NIST has modeled WTC 1 and 2 and the behavior of the collapse has been verified as consistent with the effects from the impacts of fueled airliners and subsequent exposure to fire. These results have been peer reviewed within the engineering community (American Society of Civil Engineers) and validated. Within the engineering community that I come into contact with, of those familiar with it, I have heard no tangible dispute with the NIST report (among the large number of engineers who I work with, as well as others I have been on contact with, esp. civil and structural engineers, both licensed and not. Also it’s difficult to avoid sounding silly questioning the veracity of the NIST report). So far, all of the disputes with the NIST report, and the CTs proposing other than Tower collapse caused by jetliner impact and subsequent fire, have been soundly debunked in several venues. I don’t understand the momentum that these CTs have gained, which allows them to remain alive. Anyone investing the time, the effort, and who are interested in being objective, should already have reached the conclusion the WTC 1 and 2 collapsed due to the jetliner impacts and subsequent damage. Those who refuse to review the facts objectively and opine along the tenuous avenues paved by the so-called “engineers, scientists, etc., or whatever, for truth” (or whatever they call themselves), will, I believe, never be dissuaded that WTC 1 and 2 collapsed due to a nefarious plot from within, and with that aim intended. Also, from what I have read there has been no serious study utilizing anything like a scientific method to further the theory that anything like controlled demolition, space weapons, etc., led to the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. The CTs with that at the heart of it are purely spurious. There, IMO, are issues associated with 9/11 that might bear closer scrutiny. What bothers me, however, are those who benefit financially from the propagation of these ill founded theories (like the collapse of WTC 1 and 2). I can’t help but feel that those pandering to these theories, and who are paid to do so, are feeding off the suffering of others.

Apparently the case was ordered as dismissed, without merit, and the dismissal is being appealed. The motion is worded such that (bolding added) “the NIST report is “fraud” …. “The defendants herein provided millions of dollars of fraudulent expert consulting services to NIST by participating in an investigation that ‘did not investigate the actual collapses’, irrespective of the above quoted title. Not only that, the nature of the scheme consisted primarily in obfuscation through a process of excessive detail, preparation of minutiae so as to deceive the public and the government into thinking NCSTAR 1 was both valid and thorough, when it was not. NCSTAR 1 is so text intense that the defendant Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (SOM) required six (6) separate filings simply to download the basic 298 page NCSTAR 1 report into the record in this case. And, that basic report is but the ‘tip of the iceberg’ of subterfuge………. material which, as will be confirmed hereunder, was intentionally fraudulent and was prepared so as to be fraudulent, deceptive and misleading in the extreme by reliance upon excessive detail of useless information.” “There are several elements to the defendants’ intentional misuse of the issue of particularity. The complaint herein consists in both the complaint itself, together with its Exhibits A – E. Those exhibits include the detailed Requests for Correction (RFC) that are also Exhibits A – C of plaintiff’s affidavit. The RFCs themselves include other data, such as witness statements in order to provide a valid factual basis for all assertions made in the RFCs and in the complaint (as well as herein). The said exhibits contain the particulars that comprise the nature of the fraud and how it was committed.” In effect Dr. Judy Wood has declared the NIST report fraudulent by over-use of detail, minutiae, and ‘particularity’ (whatever that is). While her documentation is described as… “In addition, in what can only be described as a masterpiece of informative but nonetheless concise detail, this court is respectfully referred to the annexed Affidavit of Dr. Judy Wood (plaintiff’s affidavit). In it, she confirms why and how the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center were destroyed and she proves that the use of directed energy weapons was a causal factor and that the after effects of the use of such weapons has resulted in a non-self-quenching process meaning the destructive process continues to the present.” “Plaintiff’s RFC states why NCSTAR 1 is fraudulent and plaintiff’s RFC details why and how the claim that the Twin Towers were destroyed by directed energy weaponry is substantiated by the evidence that plaintiff has presented. That evidence resulted in a subsequent, specific, rather than general, admission that NIST did not investigate, let alone analyze or make findings with respect to that part of the event, the destructive episode that NIST and the contractors who are defendants herein, were supposed to have reported on.” “Right at page 6 of plaintiff’s RFC (Exhibit A) she plainly states:” “1. The Towers did not collapse.” “2. Tipping top of the south tower falsifies the NIST “inevitable collapse” scenario.” “3. Particularized destructive effects that NIST ignored, thus rendering NCSTAR 1’s conclusions incomplete, inadequate, misleading and/or fraudulent: A. Empty Holes indicative of Unusual Energy Impacts. B. Almost complete lack of rubble that is likewise indicative of Unusual Energy Impacts C. Evidence of Vehicular burn effects, damages effects and literal Toasting of Cars that are indicative of Unusual and Unexplained by NIST Energy Impacts. D. Degree of destruction of material that resulted in “Dustification” of the massive Twin Tower and WTC complex structures (other than WTC 7) that are, yet again, indicative of Unusual Energy Impacts that are Unexplained by NIST.” “And that is merely page 6 of plaintiff’s RFC. Throughout the remainder of her RFC, plaintiff uses data and evidence to demonstrate that those unusual energy impacts are, in fact, consistent with directed energy weaponry.” Equally important, plaintiff names the defendants herein as having committed fraud by virtue of the following clearly stated declaration in her RFC:” “…I assert that NIST contractors, as listed in NCSTAR 1, including by way of non-exhaustive example, those listed below, either knew or should have known of the falsity of NCSTAR 1 as it relates to the use of directed energy weapons.” So,…The defendants are guilty of non-exhaustive example, excessive detail, falsity with respect to deliberate ignorance of directed energy weaponry, obfuscation through extreme reliance on excessive detail of useless information, and preparation of minutiae, so as to deceive…” While Ms. Woods documentation is, “A masterpiece”. This case will be dismissed as being without merit, … again. Where is Ellen Lloyd when you need her? If nothing else, at least its entertaining.

It is true that the Bernoulli Effect on air flow through turbines, even propellers, can and do, drop the air pressure sufficiently, and at various altitudes, to result in the condensation of water vapor to a visible “super-saturated” state. Visible condensation will form around an attractive particle, such as carbon compounds, and can last for a few seconds or an entire day (becoming clouds). The state of the “contrail” would be entirely dependent upon certain factors, and the conditions of these factors, relative to the initial conditions; the air pressure, temperature, and relative humidity at the respective altitude, as well as the presence of particulates. Contrails have become commonplace over the past few decades. But that being said, there have been relevant events in the history the United States, and the world, which would indicate that the experimentation, even use, of chemical releases into the atmosphere, to affect the weather, were, and are inevitable. April 1976, Herbert Scoville Jr. writes for ‘Foreign Affairs’ about satellite intelligence: “…. High resolution systems can provide detailed information on targets of specific interest. The greatest drawback is cloud cover, which can impose considerable delay in many areas of the world.” From the Free Republic, Sunday, 10/14/62, Major Richard Heyser completes a U-2 photo reconnaissance flight over Cuba, the first without cloud cover in nearly two weeks. From ‘The Axis History Forum’ on the 9180 Siviet invasion of Poland (totally missed by the US due to inclement weather) : “Not only were the various reports of military activity near Poland's borders exaggerated in the heat of the moment (satellite imagery was unavailable in that crucial period because of dense cloud cover), but their significance - as a blunt instrument to pressure Kania and Jaruzelski to declare martial law, rather than as a harbinger of invasion - was misunderstood. Ironically, in this instance Soviet psychological warfare worked more effectively on the Americans than on their intended target, the Poles”. The United States became increasingly dependent upon communications and satellite intelligence, while human intelligence languished, through the 1960s and afterward. This became common knowledge, and was taken advantage of (e.g. I have read of Mideast rebels (Afghanistan) taking advantage of the weather in executing offensive activities). I do not doubt that experiments in cloud formation and weather control have been performed in the US, and may be continuing. I do doubt that it is pervasive though. That just makes absolutely no sense. The above were just a few articles cobbed together in a few minutes. I'm sure if you checked you could find many, many articles where weather has been exploited in highly sensitive activities.

They shut it all down except for some cabin lights, the radio, and a fan to circulate the air. After the initial accident, they had to set up the LM / CSM combination in the Passive Thermal Control roll (BBQ mode). This was considered very important - so important that the Flight Director and Deke Slayton were arguing over what should happen first: sleep or the PTC. Eventually it was decided that even though the crew were near exhaustion, the PTC had to be done. It took two or three attempts, but they got it established. Thanks Evan, I'm no expert, but wouldn't the Apollo 13 flight demonstrate that solar radiation wasn't a concern with respect to either the astronauts or the camera on the moon? While trans-lunar, Apollo 13 would have had no shielding from solar radiation, and other than turning over (rotisserie style?), the craft cabin should have reached an equilibrium with the solar energy aborption of the module. It seems to me that the issue of solar radiation on the lunar surface isn't one.

FYU Your post is dated and timed: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:53:53 -0600 [02/14/2008 04:53:53 PM CST] Len's Post is dated "Yesterday" (2/14/08) and timed at 8:51, which is UK time and 6 hours ahead of CST, making the time 2:51 PM CST (or 14:51 CST), about two hours prior to your post, above (if the date stamp is correct for the time of the post),

Well, my gut instinct tells me that Alan Bean never walked on the Moon. Then you agree with me that Alan Bean knows nothing about the true conditions of being on the lunar surface ? No I don't agree. Alan Bean is/was as qualified as anyone on the subject, since he's one of just 12 men who've actually been there. However, Alan Bean is an old man. I know nothing of his medical history, but it's not inconceivable that his memory isn't what it used to be. It's possible he may be confused over some details. I've heard the argument that all astronauts should remember every single detail about all aspects of the lunar trips, and any discrepancies in their memories are held up as evidence that they were lying or brainwashed. Does that apply to all walks of life, where old men who worked together 40 years ago fail to agree on details, or even say contradictory things? There's also the distinct possibility that my gut instinct is wrong, and that the LM on the surface is at danger from overheating if the cooling system failed. The thermal protection may have mitigated the effect of solar radiation, but not provided 100% insulation. The LM on the surface wasn't doing a BBQ roll, and didn't have most of it's electrical systems switched off, unlike the LM in Apollo 13. Dave, During the flight of Apollo 13, did they modulate their environmental controls to save on power? I'm not familiar with the specific of Apollo 13, but that flight might provide insight into the effects solar radiation and of the effects on the astronauts' environment. While trans-lunar didn't they have their air conditioning system secured for periods of time?

I'm sure you have evidence to back this claim! While these are problems I doubt they are insurmountable polls show him beating McCain. Also it would help it you get your facts straight though he went to Muslim schools while living in Indonesia he is Christian. Check Google. Jack I don't think there has been a single US president in the past 50 years who hasn't been endorsed by the council on foreign relations. Its kind of like Caesar obtaining a blessing from Gaia, the Earth mother, before any political accession. You don't get it, do you? Jack Actually Jack, you don't get it. Despite your clinically paranoid projections of future politics following the template of JFK, it seems that Barak Obama is more to the mainstream than Hilary Clinton. Personally I think Obama will be our next President, and his tenure will be very moderate and unexciting. Likely the US will be enduring a very rough economic period over the next six to eight years and any President will have his hands full. I would guess that monied interests have already sidled up to Obama in full knowledge of a need for a very close relationship. It will not be about the reigns of power within the defense establishment (not in the next six years, not with an ending economic downturn upon us). That is my opinion. Obama's tenure will be about who he brings into his cabinet, not about him or his second. As with any intelligent leader, his policies will be formed by those around him, and he will he perceived only as intelligent as those who advise him. I completely disupte any analogy to a past of dichotomy and assassination, and believe that to be paranoia.

I'm sure you have evidence to back this claim! While these are problems I doubt they are insurmountable polls show him beating McCain. Also it would help it you get your facts straight though he went to Muslim schools while living in Indonesia he is Christian. Check Google. Jack I don't think there has been a single US president in the past 50 years who hasn't been endorsed by the council on foreign relations. Its kind of like Caesar obtaining a blessing from Gaia, the Earth mother, before any political accession.

So does this mean that the vacuum of space on the lunar surface is neither hot or cold ?... And if the radiated heat is not significant , then why did NASA design a cooling system to run though the spacesuits to keep the astronauts cool ? .. and why did astromaut Alan Bean say that if the cooling system or the power source batteries in the LM failed to work properly, the LM would have become so hot that their blood would have boiled at those extreme temperatures on the Moon ? Some interesting information from the Textbook “Heat Transfer” by J.P. Holman (note this is pretty much a standard College textbook for Heat Transfer, several Engineers I know have it and used it in school): From the Section Titled “Solar Radiation”; “The maximum solar energy reaches the surface of the earth when the rays are directly incident on the surface since 1) a larger view area is presented to the incoming solar flux, and 2) the solar rays travel less distance through the atmosphere so there is less absorption than there would be for an incident angle tilted from the normal.” “To determine an equivalent blackbody temperature for the solar radiation, we might employ the wavelength at which the maximum in the spectrum occurs. (about 0.5 micro-meters according to figure 8-63) …” Figure 8-63 provides a spectral distribution of Solar radiation at various wavelengths. The heat is measured in BTU/hour-square feet - micrometers. The comparison of solar radiation between a spot outside of the earth’s atmosphere and a spot at sea level with an incident angle of zero degrees at 0.6 micro meters is 570 BTU/hour- square foot compared to 450 BTU/hour – square foot. At 1 micrometer the comparison is about 230/220 BTU/hour – square foot. Of course the proper way to compare the two effects, however, would be to integrate the total area under the curve for each location, assuming that the total heat energy reached a spot at both locations. But the difference in energy isn’t that big, maybe 70% of the heat energy in space ends up at the earth’s surface at sea level per this figure. At least that is what this book says. If you want I’ll take a snapshot of the graph and post it. Trying to understand how the surface of the moon can get to 250 degrees F, I guess it may be due to the lack of cooling provided by the atmosphere on earth. Then the temperature at the moon would be entirely dependent upon the absorption coefficient of the material struck by the solar radiation.

So does this mean that the vacuum of space on the lunar surface is neither hot or cold ?... And if the radiated heat is not significant , then why did NASA design a cooling system to run though the spacesuits to keep the astronauts cool ? .. and why did astromaut Alan Bean say that if the cooling system or the power source batteries in the LM failed to work properly, the LM would have become so hot that their blood would have boiled at those extreme temperatures on the Moon ? Duane, Heat transfer by thermal radiation would result in the camera body reflecting 85% of the energy that strikes it. The camera body would heat up to a temperature where the emission rate (the radiation of the camera body emitting heat) would equal the absorption rate, causing temperature equilibrium. The same effect would occur at a lower temperature within the camera for the film cartridge. My experience with polished metal surfaces would indicate that the temperature at the film would not be extravagant. It can be calculated. Dave is correct. The astronaut’s body temperatures are 98.6 degrees F. Their spacesuits have a much larger surface area than a camera (surface area plays a large factor) and a shape adjustment would also have to be assumed (a calculation for the astronauts in their suits would be very complicated). If no heat is added, the inside of their suits would reach a very uncomfortable (very humid) 98.6 degrees F. I would guess even though the suits were white that without air conditioning the internal temperature could exceed 110 degrees F in direct sunlight on the lunar surface, but this is intuitive for me (a guess). If the temperature inside the suits were >110 degrees F and relative humidity were > 75% (which is likely a low assumed humidity), I would think the environment would be considered dangerous. I would think that low temperatures were of a much greater concern. Again the surface area plays a very large role in the heat transfer.

The temperature of the Moon is irrelevant ? ... Now looks who's being ludricrous.... Of course it's relevant ...Regular Kodack film melts at temperatures well below that of those on the lunar surface . But NASA video and film prove the astronauts to be on the moon's surface when the sun was at high noon; the temperature was +250 F. degrees. Painting the camera casing white might help to some extent , but not much, considering how high the heat and radiation levels are on the Moon . I am not disputing all film based orbital photography.... Only the Apollo photography allegedly taken on the Moon . "Yes, the truth "is" in the photographs, and there is enough photographic evidence of "anomalies" and "inconsistencies" to legitimize the argument that NASA is guilty of doctoring or re-creating Apollo photographs. While, individually, these "anomalies" may appear coincidental, as a whole they may point to something larger." Unfortunately, photographic technology was not at its height and the original photos were disappointing at best. In order to accomplish their patriotic goal and ensure their continued survival, these lunar pictures needed resuscitation - with the only source of life being that of an Earth-based studio. " I couldn’t help but put in my two cents. Duane, Per “Heat Transfer” By J. P. Holman, the absorptivity of substances for Solar Radiation is as follows (coefficients, or percent of the energy absorbed): polished aluminum is 0.15, white substances (white paint various pigments) – 0.12 to 0.16, flat black lacquer – 0.96 (or 96% of the radiated heat is absorbed). So, in very simple terms, if the camera is polished aluminum, only 15% of the radiated energy is absorbed by the camera, much less for items within the camera, such as film. Without doing a calculation (which would be too time consuming), it would be safe to say the film would never get close to its maximum temperature limit. Also the camera vendor would have built it for the specifications of the lunar environment, and ensured the body would effectively protect the film, that would be standard operating procedure. Dave is correct in saying the surface of the moon is irrelevant, as the radiated heat will not be significant. Conduction (heat transfer through contact) and convection (heat transfer by forced contact, such as by a fan moving air, or other cooling medium, hot air rising, a pump, etc.) can be neglected on the moon as it is in a nominal vacuum. The only heat transfer will be via radiation. Heat transfer on Earth is facilitated mainly through conduction and/or convection, which are usually much more efficient than radiative heat transfer. Any decent Heat Transfer or thermodynamics textbook will have the information you seek.

Read this: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/602/1

I didn't think you had read Rene's book ... From your post it was pretty obvious that all you've read is the typical character assassination posted on the pro Apollo web sites such as clavius ... I posted what I did to James so hopefully he would read BOTH sides of this issue and not just the list of books that Evan provided ... but you're right .. I probably shouldn't promote a book I haven't read yet , just as you shoudn't dismiss it for the same reason. I'm not interested in Rene's claims except for those about Apollo. My personal opinion is that Rene' has been ripped to shreds and his claims "debunked" by a load of pro Apollo disinformation, just like the rest of the CT's who have dared to expose NASA's many lies about the alleged Apollo Moon landings . I don't agree with him that stars should show up in the photos taken in space ... but I do agree with him that the stars would be seen and also mentioned by anyone who traveled to the Moon ... Unlike the Apollo astronots who avoided the subject of the stars almost completely. This artcle pretty much sums up what I do agree with. NASA REALLY MOONED US! [Without Proper Protection, Radiation Will Kill You!!!] by byron lebeau © 2005 PREAMBLE [AS A Citizen of the untied States of America, I am NOT PROUD to have to present the suggested data in the below VITAL REVIEW, but I perceive it as NECESSARY ~~ just like I thought it was necessary to expose the income tax scam & its misdirected cousin, The Federal Reserve Act of 1913, (both of which were reflected many months ago on my websites.) NOW, as President Bush is announcing a "return" to the Moon, I feel it is ABSOLUTELY VITAL to see why we DID NOT GO TO THE MOON IN THE FIRST PLACE! PLEASE! I beg your indulgence in this matter since I spent many hours researching the below book, as well as ancillary information. THANK YOU!] There are three things that really stand out in my mind when I think about the MOON LANDING DECEPTIONS: the humble but devastating insights of former ROCKETDYNE employee, Bill Kaysing, and how he single-handedly ripped the mask off of NASA'S attempt to buffalo the American people (and indeed the world) about this most outrageous hoax; the inept non-specific blabber of NASA spokesperson and debunker of Kaysing, one, Brian Welsh, who was set in juxtaposition to Kaysing on the same broadcast and came across as nothing less than a buffoon; the complete and overwhelming data provided by Ralph Rene regarding the flimsy spacesuits vs. the utterly deadly VAN ALLEN BELTS & SOLAR FLARE activity that went on between 1960 and 1974, as presented in his self-published book, NASA MOONED AMERICA, but not fully appreciated on the above program since this data was not presented in any SPECIFIC way. It is my intention to bring this deadly specific information to the forefront of the conscious mind of America, indeed the world because of its very importance! DO NOT BELIEVE MY WORDS...BUT BELIEVE THE EVIDENCE OF THOSE WHO INTUITIVELY KNEW WHAT CAME DOWN OVER THIRTY YEARS AGO-AND STILL IS GOING ON TODAY! If you were not convinced by the FOX presentation a few years ago, perhaps, when you see the information that Mr. Rene has painstakingly presented in his book, you may be inclined to rethink your possibly misdirected attitude and read his book...since it makes the case for the MOON HOAX ever so clear and unambiguous. [The data is not "sexy" but the devil is in the details...and believe me, there is quite a DEVILISH DETAIL here!] A PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS...BUT... Ralph Rene cites a quote by Hitler in the beginning of his book that is often used by nefarious control-freak types to fool large groups of people, namely, "The great masses of the people will fall victim to a big lie than a small one." The linchpin, in my opinion, of the whole Moon deception, can be focused on the overwhelming data Ralph Rene presents in ONLY chapter fifteen of his excellently researched book, NASA MOONED AMERICA, and the chapter is simply called 'SUNSTROKE'...but firstly, who is Ralph Rene? Rene, (according to the 'AUTHOR NOTES') is an ex-member of Mensa with an IQ in the top one half percent of the population. He is an inventor with two basic patents (without corporate help.) The author is also a self-taught engineer who has successfully designed beams, trusses, a mobile crane, boats, homes, factories, etc.... [cf. below website of Rene for additional biographical information.] CHAPTER 15: SUNSTROKE [i chose this chapter to review because ~ if this information is 100% true, then all the other lies and misdemeanors of NASA - fall neatly into place.] Rene's premise is that NASA could not have gone to the Moon - PERIOD! This chapter (one of 18, plus 8 revealing addendum,) along with the Radiation Addendum, expose the truth of the NASA LIES, lies that incorporate the details about the Van Allen Belt & solar flares, and their deadly radiation. This data reflects the reason why Rene calls any astronaut who ventured into the Van Allen Belt and beyond ~ an 'astro-not!' [The author, though seemingly being flippant, is deadly realistic as the following data will soon reveal.] To prove his thesis, Rene tries to get certain solar data from NATIONAL OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, (NOAA) using clever techniques to disguise his true intentions, [i.e. to get true data on solar flares.] NOAA, unfortunately, proved to be as cagey as Rene in dodging the giving out of any really good DETAILS on this matter, [you know, where the devil resides.] Rene, seeing games being played, deduced that there must be two sets of data, one which is sent to scientists on the preferred list, and one sent to the likes of Rene as casual strangers. (p.125) On page 126 of his manuscript, he actually secured 'MONTHLY COUNTS OF GROUPED SOLAR FLARES' (1967-1991) for reference. He notes that during 1968-1969, Apollo mission 8,9,10,11 & 12 "allegedly left the protection provided by the Van Allen Belt (shield) and entered lunar space.(p.126) On the same page, the author emphasizes that extremely powerful flares can randomly occur at any portion of the cycle.... FOR INSTANCE, from 1969 to 1972 there were 27,019 flares or 19 storms a day. Doing some calculations (p.127) ~ Rene concluded that Apollo 15 would have been bathed in 268 flares (an average of over 22 per day,( from July 26 through August 7 of 1971. SO WHAT'S IN A FLARE? The author finally received some information about solar flares, but coming through a book called, NOAA TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ERL-22, by J.A. McKinnon, an NOAA expert on solar flares. One can refer to Rene's book for details, but the bottom line: "the sun can act as a formidable source of radiation." (p.128) which is just what the Russians told NASA in 1963. [cf. below remarks by Russian Cosmonaut at the end of this essay/review.] As this chapter aptly reveals, solar flare activity was as predictable as ancient weather reports or...[Carry your umbrella at all times!] MEANWHILE, HOW WERE THE ASTRO-NOTS PROTECTED? 1) Well, for starters, the outer skin of the LEM [Lunar Entry Module,] had "the thickness of heavy-duty aluminum foil..." as per John Wilford, Super Weight Improvement Program.(p.129) 2) Cosmic particles are dangerous, come from all sides, and require at least 2 meters of solid shielding around all living organisms, as per John H. Mauldin, who has a Masters in physics and a Ph.D. in science education. Furthermore, Mauldin states that the solar flares can give doses of hundreds of thousands of REM over a few hours at the distance from Earth. Such doses are fatal and millions of times greater than the permitted dose. DEATH IS LIKELY AFTER 500 REMS IN ANY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. HELLO? 3) Surely the space suits were sufficiently protected? THINK AGAIN! says Rene. The TMG (thermal-meteoroid garment) was made of a dozen layers of ultra fine spun glass cloth, doped with silicon rubber, some aluminum threads & a coating of Teflon. [if this can stop particles up to 2 gigavolt (2 billion EV) than the author sarcastically adds how "easy" it would be to protect them in an atomic reactor where the particle energies are below 18 megavolts (18 million EV.) If they could [bUT THEY CAN'T!] they would be able to romp around in Three Mile Island's meltdown, still hot, reactor all day long in such a splendid garment. [sadly, NASA's little lie is a tip-off for the BIG LIE A. Hitler uttered and cited at the beginning of this essay/review.] 4) HOW DANGEROUS ARE REMS? Well, Ralph Rene cites an interesting anecdote on page 130: the SST, (Super Sonic Transport) must lower course if the - get this - "millirems" (1/1000 of a rem) approaches 10! [it seems the elite who took this transport do not wish to take ANY CHANCES with even a few rays of radiation.] Of course, maybe they know something since 500 REM (according to McKinnon) cause 50% deaths within one month.(p.130) [cf. the various scale of this is also offered in Rene's manuscript on the same page.] 5) MORE REM DANGER: Rene read that even 170 REMS is dangerous & almost guarantees a cancerous future, but when he checked the source, he found that it was 170 milli'rads' which is the equivalent of 170 REMS...[The source is indicated as footnote #15, which comes from 'POISON POWER,' "Gofman" & Tamplin, 1971, Rodale, p.126.] Rene muses, "No wonder the SST aborts its flight plan at 100 millirems." (p.132) 6) WHO GOT ZAPPED? 6a) During the Gemini 10 mission, Mike Collins allegedly received ".78 rads"(78 millirems) over 24 hours while under the Van Allen Belt umbrella, which is almost EIGHT TIMES what it takes for the SST to "streak for cover." (p.132) [if one were to peruse the opening part of NASA MOONED AMERICA, there seems to be a problem with the 'Mike Collins' pictures (faked, according to Rene,) going back to as early as July, 1966. Why? Maybe Collins was made of the "right stuff" - so much so - that he was immune to radiological poisoning?!? Obviously, Rene's astro-nots' RIGHT STUFF is nothing but balogna sliced really thin...perhaps!] 6b) A big flare during Apollo 16, (April 17,1972) where "Astro-nots Young, Mattingly & Duke, should have been fried, but, of course, they weren't."(p.133) They also allegedly spent nearly 20 hours outside the LEM in the searing sunlight [judged to be about 250 degrees F.-really HOT!!!] and radiation from residual flares. 6c) Drawing on the frequency of sun flares over a 25 year period [that encompassed the time frame of the Apollo missions,] there were, on average, 5391 flares per year or 14.76 per day. The Apollo astro-nots were in space for 85 days, subjecting themselves to about 1254 (actually 1485) flares. According to McKinnon (cited previously) ~ even a 1% probability would mean at least 12 SUPER DEADLY FLARES OF X RATED CAPACITY or OVER ONE PER MISSION!(p.135) TIME OUT! WHAT DOES THIS MEAN??? [iT MEANS THAT NASA CANNOT BE TELLING US THE WHOLE TRUTH - PURE & SIMPLE!] If solar flares can potentially give doses up to hundreds to thousands of REM over a few hours at the distance of Earth - and as mentioned previously - DEATH IS LIKELY AFTER 500 REMS in any short time...[then you do not have to be a Sherlock Holmes to perceive the BIG LIE!] According to Rene, all 27 of the astro-nots who went to the Moon should be dead from radiation. [shouldn't they?] If you are, however, the SUPER-skeptical type, I invite you read The Radiation Addendums. It's another eye-opener! #1 (by James Miller,) one can begin to ascertain the truth about atomic chain reactions and exactly how radioactivity is produced, contradicting other lies of NASA. #2 (James A. Van Allen) also proves that the three hours it takes coming & going through this belt (which, of course, was named after him,) that each of the solar storms per day [14.77 cited previously] produces a minimum of 369 REMS, and unless one has at least two meters (6 foot) of solid shielding [unlike what the astro-nots had,] one would be committing suicide. (John Mauldin, ex-NASA astrophysicist) OF COURSE, NASA's spin doctors claim that men can live after 500 REMS and that space has very little radiation. (p.170) WHOM DO YOU BELIEVE? IN Addendum #3, an expert on the Van Allen Belt, Dr. Frank Greening, proves (as deduced by Rene,) that even traveling within the Van Allen Belt, one could expect to receive enough radiation (coming & going) - that - "you would be dying upon reentry whether outer space contains radiation or is as radiation free as NASA claims it is. [The CASE SHOULD CLOSE RIGHT HERE...but Bush wants to go to Mars, so let me add one other tidbit...like...the Apollo 17 mission, at 12 days long was the longest flight made. With at least a million seconds in 12 days, at .32 rads/sec., the total exposure for each astro-not would be 320,000 rads. [WOULD YOU SIGN UP FOR BUSH's PLANNED MARS' TRIP?] ONCE ONE SEES CLEARLY that flimsy space suits will kill you in deadly space (as the Russians found out,) then all the other pieces start coming together ~ like in a secret place called Mercury, Nevada,(p.17) as part of the secured site, the site of the double-cross, the site where the REAL action was taking place long before AREA 51 became a bone of contention for Ufologists! BY THE WAY: the Russian Cosmonaut who knew better about the deadly radiation problem was mentioned by Bill Kaysing on the TV broadcast, and supported the Rene information of chapter 15 above: His name was Boris Valentinovich Volinov, and he feared that the radiation could come through the craft. [sMART GUY, just like Ralph Rene, former Mensa man!] Incidentally, on a second TV interview of Bill Kaysing (technical writer for ROCKETDYNE from 1957-1963)~ done by a Ross Marshall (the 1995 production of WE NEVER WENT TO THE MOON, which is also the name of Kaysing's book,) Bill discloses an interesting fact: He said that NORTON AIR FORCE BASE contained all the professional technological equipment necessary to pull off the STUNT AND DECEPTION OF LAST CENTURY. They are closed now, but back then, they were located in San Bernadino, Cal., which had the largest movie studio in the area. AND lebeau IS NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO SKEPTICALLY READ THE BOOK AND CAME AWAY A BELIEVER IN THE ANALYSIS OF RALPH RENE...Below you will find a review by WAYNE GREEN, who, in effect, could find no fault with the 30 or so "gotcha's" that Rene pinned on NASA (Never a Straight Answer,) so I guess I am challenging every thinking tax-paying American to put aside his/her built-in prejudice in this matter and CRACK THE BOOK! It is the least you can do to convince yourself that 'crackpots' like lebeau & Green, Kaysing & especially Ralph Rene are OFF THEIR ROCKERS-OR- MAYBE THEY'RE NOT!?! http://www.maar.us/nasa_mooned_us.html Duane I don't know where you get your information but I suggest you read a couple of books on the subject of radiation and cosmic energy. Without wasting a lot of time on the subject quite a bit of this information is just plain wrong. For example: “….During the Gemini 10 mission, Mike Collins allegedly received ".78 rads"(78 millirems) over 24 hours while under the Van Allen Belt umbrella, which is almost EIGHT TIMES what it takes for the SST to "streak for cover." (p.132) .78 RADs is not directly equivalent to 78 Millirem, REM means Roentgen Equivalent Man, and is a measure of the biological effects of radiation. An understanding of this subject is needed to compare. 0.78 RADs of Alpha radiation is not anywhere near the biological equivalent of Gamma radiation. Also 0.78 Roentgens = 780 milliroentgens, which over a 24 hour period is likely not at all dangerous (it is NOT an acute dose). The following paragraph: “Cosmic particles are dangerous, come from all sides, and require at least 2 meters of solid shielding around all living organisms, as per John H. Mauldin, who has a Masters in physics and a Ph.D. in science education. Furthermore, Mauldin states that the solar flares can give doses of hundreds of thousands of REM over a few hours at the distance from Earth. Such doses are fatal and millions of times greater than the permitted dose. DEATH IS LIKELY AFTER 500 REMS IN ANY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME.” First, Cosmic particles and Solar Flares are two separate phenomenon. The statement that Solar Flares can give a dose of hundreds of thousands of REM at a distance from Earth (whatever that means, ‘at a distance from earth’) is ridiculous. If that were the case, the Earth’s surface would be hit with a major portion of that dose, also every satellite in the path of such radiation would be irreparably damaged. If even one tenth of one percent of that radiation level were encountered (you were talking REMs, now, not Roentgens or RADs), any data stream in that field, such as communications, would be utterly corrupted. Particle radiation is mostly alpha particles, which are proton pairs, and which are shielded by a thin sheet of paper, plastic, etc., even skin. When the term REM is used, the form of radiation can not really be Alpha particles, not when talking several hundred thousand REMs. The author of this statement does not seem remotely credible. In a previous post, you stated that Cosmic Rays originated from the sun. This is also incorrect. The origin of Cosmic Rays is unknown and a mystery to physicists. The energy level of Cosmic Ray Particles is too high to have originated from any known source, the sun, even black holes. The energy levels suggest that Cosmic rays may have originated at the “Big Bang”, which adds to the mystery. If you wish I can link you to sites describing this, but it is freely and easily made available in the public domain. You have repeatedly stated that the Moon is entirely radioactive. Where does this idea originate? You do know that radiation levels were measured at the surface of the moon (I guess that is assumed to be disinformation)? In the 1970s and 1980s, there was quite a bit of information evaluated concerning the biological effects of radiation, particularly latent effects (long term effects), and statistical probabilities for late term diseases, such as cancer, increased with lower radiation doses than were previously considered threshold values. A radical change in the understanding of latent radiation effects took place in the 1980s and more care was given to much lower radiation doses. As Evan had said, consideration is given to the dose accumulated over the time the dose is received. What were considered to be safe radiation levels in the 1960s and early 70s were subsequently dramatically reduced. Of course this is all documented. Today, consideration is given to much lower threshold levels of radiation. Also the OCCASIONAL Cosmic Ray bombardment which can occur (note that these are not frequent but occasional), which can be dangerous, but which don’t necessarily require shielding such as lead, which is used for Gamma rays, or X rays (High energy protons may be effectively shielded by low Z elements) must be considered. I have already spent more time than intended, but the upshot is this information you provide on radiation in space is very misleading.

Thank you Wade, I've sifted through some of the information out there on the internet (and there’s a lot of it). The stuff I’ve seen concentrates mainly on the empirical aspects of magnetic motors, at least with respect to FE. There isn’t much in the way of structured theory. The closest seems to be Floyd Sweet’s articles, which tie the zero point charge/EMF to virtual particle environment in a vacuum, very much like advanced quantum theory of quark interaction, that is, quarks can leap into existence when needed from a virtual reality. This helps explain photon – photon interactions and the presence and transmission of “light” (at least in my limited understanding). I looked at as much linked info as I could find from your linked sites. Again, the salient hits were to documented observations of COP > 1, in a seeming open system (Bearden documents Electromagnetic Generator energy return as high as COP > 5) http://www.thelivingmoon.com/42stargate/03...Zero_Point.html If this is true, of course it is incredible. I guess I don’t need to point out that there are a fair share of skeptics out there (from perusing the discussion forums). The New Energy Congress, which, apparently, has been a small group of alternative energy geeks seeking to expand any and all FE possibilities says that it is in the process of funding an ad hoc organizational structure for the group. They link quite a bit of magnetic motor technology sites with the caveat, ‘If this proves to work’, etc. What is most impressive (to me, anyway), is that in the first five or six pages of Google hits, there were few or no skeptic or debunking hits. The message boards have some skeptics, but they are few and ill-informed. This technology seems to have attained quite a bit of inertia. It seems that there is a real base of proponents who advocate the study of this field. Some of the questions I have concern temperature effects on the field strength (particularly in superconducting environments and very low absolute temperature), data acquisition documentation during experiments (I haven’t seen much and I’ll keep looking, but there must be more than what I’ve found). Without a firm tie to fully fleshed out theory, experimental data is key, and there should be a healthy amount of data reduction from these experiments. Do you know any sites where this info may be available? Thanks for your help so far, and I’ll keep looking (there is much to go through).

Wade, Hello. I have been reading some of the linked info (eg Tom Beardon) on non-associated Electro-magnetic wave propagation in a vacuum using a virtual or theoretical source-origin charge. This material suggests an infinite (in time) EM field generation. Are you familiar with this material? I have a couple of questions that relate to this theory. It is interesting to me, though some basic tenets seem to fly in the face of more classical science which I have read. Thanks

I heard on NPR (National Public Radio), that the Kennedy family (Caroline, Edward, "Teddy", and Patrick Kennedy) announced their unconditional support for Obama. Obama stated his vision for the future to be the same as JFK's and RFK's in a fairly powerful speech. Given Obama's lead in the Iowa and New Hampshire caucuses, I think this is an important development. Any comments? Don't know if Political Conspiracies is the right place for this, but depending on the thread development it may be (I don't want to imply anything negative).