Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Sid Walker]

Little is known? I disagree.

Evan

Can you remind me who you are disagreeing with?

[Guest David Guyatt]

So, with that in mind, are you saying that the invasion, and destruction of Iraq was a done deal irrespective of the events of 11th September 2001.

I don't klnow about Sid, but I am saying it. If not 911 then another excuse would've been found. I'm sure you know the contemporary events as well as the next person. Bush and Blair didn't really want the alleged culprit.... the story of Bin Laden that was spun and spun and spun and endlessly spun and which began within hours of 911, in fact, was allowed to dribble away from the picture once his use had come to an end.

Wave goodbye at Bora Bora, Bin.

Note, for example, that within hours of the 911 attacks, Rumdfield was "telling his aides to start thinking about striking Iraq, even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks", within five hours after the AA jet hit the Pentagon (CBS reporter David Martin -- see: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0716-10.htm).

Since 2 + 2 usually equals 4, we can be fairly sure that the invasion, destruction (and not to forgot the also very profitable "re-construction" of Iraq was already on the agenda.

David

[Evan Burton]

Actually, I agree regarding Iraq. Regardless of 9/11, I think there would have been events to initiate the removal of Saddam - justified or not.

[Guest David Guyatt]

On FOIA, the below is what I was recently told by a intelligence historian:

Quote:

If you are an American citizen, there is something much more powerful tool-wise than the fraying FOIA request. It is called an “MDR”—a Mandatory Declassification Review. They are not permitted to goof off for years and years. 12 months, maximum. If they don’t behave and respond in 12 months, you can kick your request to the intelligence community’s declassification “Supreme Court”—the ISCAP committee.

Unquote

Hope this helps.

David

[Michael Hogan]

Does anyone want to discuss what Dick Lon Chaney did on 9/11, and PDS's talk about it?

Cheney Defiant on Classified Material

Executive Order Ignored Since 2003

By Peter Baker

Washington Post Staff Writer

Friday, June 22, 2007

Vice President Cheney's office has refused to comply with an executive order governing the handling of classified information for the past four years and recently tried to abolish the office that sought to enforce those rules, according to documents released by a congressional committee yesterday.

Since 2003, the vice president's staff has not cooperated with an office at the National Archives and Records Administration charged with making sure the executive branch protects classified information. Cheney aides have not filed reports on their possession of classified data and at one point blocked an inspection of their office. After the Archives office pressed the matter, the documents say, Cheney's staff this year proposed eliminating it......

Full story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7062102309.html

[Evan Burton]

Little is known? I disagree.

Evan

Can you remind me who you are disagreeing with?

Sid,

I'm disagreeing with Jack. I'm no expert in buildings but it doesn't seem that rapid to me. After all, the Empire State Building was build very quickly using far more "primitive" methods:

1930: Excavation of the site where the Empire State Building would stand begins on January 22nd.

1930: On March 17, construction of the Empire State Building began. Under the direction of architects Shreve, Lamb & Harmon Associates, and a peak labor force of 3,000 men, framework rose at a rate of 4 ½ stories per week.

1930: The masonry work for the building, which began in June of the same year, is completed on November 13.

1931: On May 1st, President Hoover presses a button in Washington, D.C. officially opening and turning on the Empire State Building's lights.

Source: http://www.esbnycleasing.com/history.phtml

[Evan Burton]

More info regarding the "lack of information":

http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=7world...kcity-ny-usa868

[Len Colby]

I didn't say I thought this story is HS, Len. I said it "sounded" like that. It was an attempt on my part to be agreeable. After all, the whole 9-11 story is outlandish. If anyone had told me the plot in 1999, I'd probably have said something like 'incredible!'

As we've already been asked to believe in miracles by the authorities, it behooves us to keep an open mind about 9-11. Let's wait to see the new story in entirety before dismissing it. Perhaps it is accurate? After all, WTC-7 has been a building of many surprises. Who'd have ever thought, for instance, that first the mass media would report its collapse in advance - then practically ignore the fact that it did collapse for the next few years?

Inicidentally, I gather WTC-7 had largely been rebuilt, ready to generate rental again for its lucky larrikin leaseholder.

Talk about hair splitting! Geez I’m sorry to have reported your opinion is such a horribly inaccurate way. You're right didn't say you THOUGH the story was BS you said it SOUNDED like it was BS. Sid there is no significant difference between the two.

As for Goodman I don’t blame anyone for not wanting to talk an ass like Jones or one of his zombies. I wonder if your hostility towards her has anything to do with her ethnicity? A reporter might have been seen a few blocks from her office witnessing one of the most important events of her lifetime along with many other people how suspicious! I think we need to call in Interpol.

As for the BBC report that has been explained to you repeatedly. You’ve never tried to contradict these explanations but rather keep bring the point up ad infineum.

Can you back your insinuation that the collapse of 7 was beneficial to Silverstien with any evidence?

Edited June 22, 2007 by Len Colby

[Anthony Thorne]

Peter Dale Scott has reportedly revamped his talk a little at the latest 9/11 conference in Vancouver this week, adding material on Watergate and blending that in to his 'JFK and 9/11' discussion. There's reportedly Google video of it at the following link but I'm at work and haven't had a chance to watch it yet. Like William Kelly above I feel there is more to discuss on this point but I'll put my two cents in shortly when I get a spare moment.

Latest PDS talk with others:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/9572

[Peter McKenna]

Little is known? I disagree.

Evan

Can you remind me who you are disagreeing with?

Sid,

Although we disagree on many topics and my sometimes lack of investment of time into some topics (as I have very little spare time), I do believe that you have a fine questioning attitude on areas of the 9/11 historical perspective.

I personally have found that some aspects of 9/11 have been contaminated with certain POVs that are not necessarily indicative of absolutely suspect presentation. For me this includes WTC 1 and 2, which I believe can be explained (and are, with some veracity) by the events as described in the mianstream. Even subsequent explosions can be explained by the effets of fuel air mixture, which can reach explosive detonation, once heated to flash point, and if at the appropriate fuel air mixtures (this is not to say that this is the absolute truth, just an explanation).

By contrast, events such as the collapse of WTC 7, events unfolding after the arrest of Zaccharius Moussoui, the behavior of high government officials, the secrecy surrounding release of what should be public information, certain aspects of the pentagon strike, behavior I have read about the hijackers, after entering the US, pre 9/11 intel, etc. do merit further discussion and explanation.

There is a huge disparity between the presntation/positions of many 9/11 'truthers' and who I believe are many, interested, parties (such as myself), and events have not been explained satisfactorily to a this majority of interseted parties.

barring WTC 1 and 2 (because I think the collapse of these two structures can be explained rationally, without attaching a hidden agenda), what facets of 9/11 (list them if you don't mind) do you think bear further scrutiny, since the facts as given today remain dubious, or have otherwise been spun.

I think there has been enitrely too many different theories, 'facts', POVs, accusations, and general noise handed out on both sides of the argument, tending to alienate people from the salient questions which should, but may not, remain.

Which facets do you think, merit greater scrutiny (and please limit this list to those most pressing facets due to being suspicious, obvious/semi-obvious manipulation applied, most negative implications if 'spin' is applied, and the most seemingly false legends given by government or media).

I think this forum would benefit from the examination of a list of the more controversial and/or abvious issues surrounding 9/11, instead of the all or nothing POV, a position that many 'truthers' have adopted. I think you would likely be able to provide a fairly objective and comprehensive list, of your suspicions and facets, and one which this site could help insghtfully edit to provide a decent base from which to debate, without getting sidetracked to more contentious facets. This will hopefully (maybe) help us avoid some of the more diametrically opposed arguments and begin a constructive bit of groundwork.

I would like to read your recommendations for such a list, and then make my comments, so that we could begin to reach some consensus on some of the facets most agree need some further attention. Does this interest you?

Thank you, Peter McKenna

[Jack White]

Little is known? I disagree.

Evan

Can you remind me who you are disagreeing with?

Sid,

Although we disagree on many topics and my sometimes lack of investment of time into some topics (as I have very little spare time), I do believe that you have a fine questioning attitude on areas of the 9/11 historical perspective.

I personally have found that some aspects of 9/11 have been contaminated with certain POVs that are not necessarily indicative of absolutely suspect presentation. For me this includes WTC 1 and 2, which I believe can be explained (and are, with some veracity) by the events as described in the mianstream. Even subsequent explosions can be explained by the effets of fuel air mixture, which can reach explosive detonation, once heated to flash point, and if at the appropriate fuel air mixtures (this is not to say that this is the absolute truth, just an explanation).

By contrast, events such as the collapse of WTC 7, events unfolding after the arrest of Zaccharius Moussoui, the behavior of high government officials, the secrecy surrounding release of what should be public information, certain aspects of the pentagon strike, behavior I have read about the hijackers, after entering the US, pre 9/11 intel, etc. do merit further discussion and explanation.

There is a huge disparity between the presntation/positions of many 9/11 'truthers' and who I believe are many, interested, parties (such as myself), and events have not been explained satisfactorily to a this majority of interseted parties.

barring WTC 1 and 2 (because I think the collapse of these two structures can be explained rationally, without attaching a hidden agenda), what facets of 9/11 (list them if you don't mind) do you think bear further scrutiny, since the facts as given today remain dubious, or have otherwise been spun.

I think there has been enitrely too many different theories, 'facts', POVs, accusations, and general noise handed out on both sides of the argument, tending to alienate people from the salient questions which should, but may not, remain.

Which facets do you think, merit greater scrutiny (and please limit this list to those most pressing facets due to being suspicious, obvious/semi-obvious manipulation applied, most negative implications if 'spin' is applied, and the most seemingly false legends given by government or media).

I think this forum would benefit from the examination of a list of the more controversial and/or abvious issues surrounding 9/11, instead of the all or nothing POV, a position that many 'truthers' have adopted. I think you would likely be able to provide a fairly objective and comprehensive list, of your suspicions and facets, and one which this site could help insghtfully edit to provide a decent base from which to debate, without getting sidetracked to more contentious facets. This will hopefully (maybe) help us avoid some of the more diametrically opposed arguments and begin a constructive bit of groundwork.

I would like to read your recommendations for such a list, and then make my comments, so that we could begin to reach some consensus on some of the facets most agree need some further attention. Does this interest you?

Thank you, Peter McKenna

Peter...you simply are not up to speed regarding the IMPOSSIBLE COLLAPSES

OF WTC 1 and 2.

Go to

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html

and read the studies of Dr. Judy Wood, professor of engineering, regarding

the SIMPLE ELEMENTARY PHYSICS of an object in FREE FALL which can be

calculated by any physics student. She calculates the time it would take

a billiard ball to fall from the tops of the buildings vs the time it took the

buildings themselves to fall. BOTH THE TOWERS as well as BUILDING 7

FELL WITHOUT RESISTANCE, WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE. Steel and concrete

below the areas of impact and fire PROHIBIT the entire buildings from

falling at free fall speed.

Jack

[Peter McKenna]

Little is known? I disagree.

Evan

Can you remind me who you are disagreeing with?

Sid,

Although we disagree on many topics and my sometimes lack of investment of time into some topics (as I have very little spare time), I do believe that you have a fine questioning attitude on areas of the 9/11 historical perspective.

I personally have found that some aspects of 9/11 have been contaminated with certain POVs that are not necessarily indicative of absolutely suspect presentation. For me this includes WTC 1 and 2, which I believe can be explained (and are, with some veracity) by the events as described in the mianstream. Even subsequent explosions can be explained by the effets of fuel air mixture, which can reach explosive detonation, once heated to flash point, and if at the appropriate fuel air mixtures (this is not to say that this is the absolute truth, just an explanation).

By contrast, events such as the collapse of WTC 7, events unfolding after the arrest of Zaccharius Moussoui, the behavior of high government officials, the secrecy surrounding release of what should be public information, certain aspects of the pentagon strike, behavior I have read about the hijackers, after entering the US, pre 9/11 intel, etc. do merit further discussion and explanation.

There is a huge disparity between the presntation/positions of many 9/11 'truthers' and who I believe are many, interested, parties (such as myself), and events have not been explained satisfactorily to a this majority of interseted parties.

barring WTC 1 and 2 (because I think the collapse of these two structures can be explained rationally, without attaching a hidden agenda), what facets of 9/11 (list them if you don't mind) do you think bear further scrutiny, since the facts as given today remain dubious, or have otherwise been spun.

I think there has been enitrely too many different theories, 'facts', POVs, accusations, and general noise handed out on both sides of the argument, tending to alienate people from the salient questions which should, but may not, remain.

Which facets do you think, merit greater scrutiny (and please limit this list to those most pressing facets due to being suspicious, obvious/semi-obvious manipulation applied, most negative implications if 'spin' is applied, and the most seemingly false legends given by government or media).

I think this forum would benefit from the examination of a list of the more controversial and/or abvious issues surrounding 9/11, instead of the all or nothing POV, a position that many 'truthers' have adopted. I think you would likely be able to provide a fairly objective and comprehensive list, of your suspicions and facets, and one which this site could help insghtfully edit to provide a decent base from which to debate, without getting sidetracked to more contentious facets. This will hopefully (maybe) help us avoid some of the more diametrically opposed arguments and begin a constructive bit of groundwork.

I would like to read your recommendations for such a list, and then make my comments, so that we could begin to reach some consensus on some of the facets most agree need some further attention. Does this interest you?

Thank you, Peter McKenna

Peter...you simply are not up to speed regarding the IMPOSSIBLE COLLAPSES

OF WTC 1 and 2.

Go to

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html

and read the studies of Dr. Judy Wood, professor of engineering, regarding

the SIMPLE ELEMENTARY PHYSICS of an object in FREE FALL which can be

calculated by any physics student. She calculates the time it would take

a billiard ball to fall from the tops of the buildings vs the time it took the

buildings themselves to fall. BOTH THE TOWERS as well as BUILDING 7

FELL WITHOUT RESISTANCE, WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE. Steel and concrete

below the areas of impact and fire PROHIBIT the entire buildings from

falling at free fall speed.

Jack

Jack,

I do not wish to rehash the WTC 1 and 2 collapse. I have read the reports from various academic and engineering organizations, which explain the WTC 1 and 2 collapse to my satisfaction (at this time anyway).

I have other suspicions which I would like to see explored, and which others may agree also appear suspicious. Whether or not the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 is either suspicious to you or you have convinced yourself that the 'official' (i.e. the explanation provided by bona fide engineering associations) portraying these events have been fictionalized is irrelevant to my request.

I am simply trying to come up with some aspects of 9/11 that are suspicious to many to establish some common ground from which I and others may begin some of our own research and evaluation. Bldg. 7 I believe is one such aspect. There are others.

I felt Sid could step back from the all or nothing POV and help come up with a set of aspects of 9/11 that more mainstream skeptics might agree with are worth further insight. Whether or not you feel some other aspects have been spun or fictionalized (that are not suspect to the majority on this site) will only detract.

If you feel strongly that WTC 1 and 2 should be re-examined, perhaps it would benefit this task to first establish some common ground for others who do not feel this way. A case should be built from the bottom up, and from more obvious suspicions to those less obvious. If one establishes reasonable confidence in the fact that WTC 7 was 'Pulled' in a controlled demolition, then one might find material for a case in point concerning WTC 1 and 2. Either way it doesn't do much good to insist on focusing on WTC 1 and 2, at this time.

[Peter McKenna]

Duplicate post. Edited to remove repeated content.

Edited June 25, 2007 by Peter McKenna

[Jack White]

Little is known? I disagree.

Evan

Can you remind me who you are disagreeing with?

Sid,

Although we disagree on many topics and my sometimes lack of investment of time into some topics (as I have very little spare time), I do believe that you have a fine questioning attitude on areas of the 9/11 historical perspective.

I personally have found that some aspects of 9/11 have been contaminated with certain POVs that are not necessarily indicative of absolutely suspect presentation. For me this includes WTC 1 and 2, which I believe can be explained (and are, with some veracity) by the events as described in the mianstream. Even subsequent explosions can be explained by the effets of fuel air mixture, which can reach explosive detonation, once heated to flash point, and if at the appropriate fuel air mixtures (this is not to say that this is the absolute truth, just an explanation).

By contrast, events such as the collapse of WTC 7, events unfolding after the arrest of Zaccharius Moussoui, the behavior of high government officials, the secrecy surrounding release of what should be public information, certain aspects of the pentagon strike, behavior I have read about the hijackers, after entering the US, pre 9/11 intel, etc. do merit further discussion and explanation.

There is a huge disparity between the presntation/positions of many 9/11 'truthers' and who I believe are many, interested, parties (such as myself), and events have not been explained satisfactorily to a this majority of interseted parties.

barring WTC 1 and 2 (because I think the collapse of these two structures can be explained rationally, without attaching a hidden agenda), what facets of 9/11 (list them if you don't mind) do you think bear further scrutiny, since the facts as given today remain dubious, or have otherwise been spun.

I think there has been enitrely too many different theories, 'facts', POVs, accusations, and general noise handed out on both sides of the argument, tending to alienate people from the salient questions which should, but may not, remain.

Which facets do you think, merit greater scrutiny (and please limit this list to those most pressing facets due to being suspicious, obvious/semi-obvious manipulation applied, most negative implications if 'spin' is applied, and the most seemingly false legends given by government or media).

I think this forum would benefit from the examination of a list of the more controversial and/or abvious issues surrounding 9/11, instead of the all or nothing POV, a position that many 'truthers' have adopted. I think you would likely be able to provide a fairly objective and comprehensive list, of your suspicions and facets, and one which this site could help insghtfully edit to provide a decent base from which to debate, without getting sidetracked to more contentious facets. This will hopefully (maybe) help us avoid some of the more diametrically opposed arguments and begin a constructive bit of groundwork.

I would like to read your recommendations for such a list, and then make my comments, so that we could begin to reach some consensus on some of the facets most agree need some further attention. Does this interest you?

Thank you, Peter McKenna

Peter...you simply are not up to speed regarding the IMPOSSIBLE COLLAPSES

OF WTC 1 and 2.

Go to

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html

and read the studies of Dr. Judy Wood, professor of engineering, regarding

the SIMPLE ELEMENTARY PHYSICS of an object in FREE FALL which can be

calculated by any physics student. She calculates the time it would take

a billiard ball to fall from the tops of the buildings vs the time it took the

buildings themselves to fall. BOTH THE TOWERS as well as BUILDING 7

FELL WITHOUT RESISTANCE, WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE. Steel and concrete

below the areas of impact and fire PROHIBIT the entire buildings from

falling at free fall speed.

Jack

Jack,

I do not wish to rehash the WTC 1 and 2 collapse. I have read the reports from various academic and engineering organizations, which explain the WTC 1 and 2 collapse to my satisfaction (at this time anyway).

I have other suspicions which I would like to see explored, and which others may agree also appear suspicious. Whether or not the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 is either suspicious to you or you have convinced yourself that the 'official' (i.e. the explanation provided by bona fide engineering associations) portraying these events have been fictionalized is irrelevant to my request.

I am simply trying to come up with some aspects of 9/11 that are suspicious to many to establish some common ground from which I and others may begin some of our own research and evaluation. Bldg. 7 I believe is one such aspect. There are others.

I felt Sid could step back from the all or nothing POV and help come up with a set of aspects of 9/11 that more mainstream skeptics might agree with are worth further insight. Whether or not you feel some other aspects have been spun or fictionalized (that are not suspect to the majority on this site) will only detract.

If you feel strongly that WTC 1 and 2 should be re-examined, perhaps it would benefit this task to first establish some common ground for others who do not feel this way. A case should be built from the bottom up, and from more obvious suspicions to those less obvious. If one establishes reasonable confidence in the fact that WTC 7 was 'Pulled' in a controlled demolition, then one might find material for a case in point concerning WTC 1 and 2. Either way it doesn't do much good to insist on focusing on WTC 1 and 2, at this time.

Peter, I find your reply disingenious at best. You insist on a 'BONAFIDE ENGINEERING ASSOCIATION"

doing calculations. Why?

Why won't a BONAFIDE PROFESSOR OF ENGINEERING do? After all, these calculations can be done by

any PHYSICS STUDENT aware of the laws of gravity. Dr. Woods' studies can be understood easily by

anyone of average intelligence. A falling body accelerates at 32 feet per second per second regardless

of the person or group doing the study. Or do you disagree?

Did you take time to read her studies, or did you find them inconvenient to your preconceived beliefs?

How about actually commenting on her studies, and then refuting them if you can. No need to consult

an engineering "association". Common sense is good enough.

Jack

[William Kelly]

Thanks for that Link to PDS's latest talk Anthony.

I found a reference to COG and MAD in the Bureau and the Mole, secrets betrayed to the Ruskies in 1985.

So the enemy knew all about COG all along, and the secrets were kept only from the American people.

BK

Vise, David A. The Bureau and the Mole (Grove Press, NY, 2002, Appendix I, The Betrayals of a Spy - 1985-2000. Robert Philip Hanssen. p. 242):

…According to court documents and interviews, while working as a double-agent for the GRU, the KGB, and its successor intelligence services in Russia, Robert Philip Hanssen:

-increased the prospect of nuclear war by compromising the Continuity of Government Plan, the super secret program to ensure the survival of the president and U.S. government operations in the event of a nuclear attack. This crown jewel of U.S. national security was an important element of the "mutually assure destruction" (MAD) theory, in which both the United States and the Soviet Union refrain from using nuclear weapons because a retaliatory strike would prove as deadly as a first strike. However, with knowledge of the U.S. continuity program, the Soviets believed they could win a nuclear war and begin to devise an offensive nuclear strategy.

-divulged the identities of at least nine Soviet officials recruited to spy for the United States….

-revealed the existence of the "spy tunnel" constructed beneath the Soviet embassy in Wasingtion, D.C., to evesdrop on conversations and communications….

-disclosed the National Intelligence Program, which detailed everything that the U.S. intelligence community planned to do for a given year, and how money would be spent….

-severely hampered the U.S. intelligence community's ability to recruit foreign double agents, by revealing both overall strategies and key operational details, such as the identities of potential targets. Hansen divulged a document entitled "The FBI's Double Agent Program," which included an internal evaluation of double agent operations worldwide, including joint operations with other U.S. intelligence agencies, and he later handed over another management review of U.S. double agent recruitment efforts.

-divulged information about at least five Soviet defectors, including high-ranking KGB officers Victor Sheymov and Vitaliy Yurchenko….

-revealed the ongoing FBI espionage investigations of Felix Bloch, a State Department officer who was believed to be spying for the Soviet Union…

-18 other items…..

-provided the Soviets with a highly specific and technical document regarding the MASINT (measurement and signature intelligence) program, which monitored keystrokes and other elements of communications in a clandestine fashion.

……12 other items.

Edited June 25, 2007 by William Kelly