Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Guest David Guyatt]

When they handled the building security "up until the building fell down" it didn't mean that the contract happened to expire that day. It meant that they no longer provided security because there was no building to provide security for.

Yes Mathew, I concur. That is the obvious conclusion which crept past by me as I blinked.

David

[Ron Ecker]

Discussion of Marvin Bush should include mention of the curious death of his family babysitter on the family property on 9/29/03.

Bertha Champagne was babysitting at Marvin's home when she went outside to get something from her car, and the car proceeded to move forward and crush her when she was in a position in front to be crushed.

The police report (which doesn't mention Marvin Bush) doesn't explain how this car could pin Champagne "between the car and a small building next to the driveway," and then "continued to roll down the driveway." Did the car have to back up first? Was it trying to get away?

This unusual death on Bush family property was reported only by the Washington Post, about a week after it happened, buried on page 3 of the Metro section.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/...bush_death.html

Edited September 16, 2007 by Ron Ecker

[Duane Daman]

The short story is the author thinks it just did not look right...'to him' Pretty much the standard stuff from the Half-Truthers.

And that rather lame but nevertheless antagonistic reply , is pretty much the standard stuff from those who promote the offical version of 9/11, which is nothing but more government lies and cover-ups.

[Charles Drago]

Duane,

I seem to remember my son telling me that there was a suggestion of how the explosives (if such there were) got into the building. Maybe I'm misremembering now, but I thought that the security firm operating the towers, was a Bush relative and that the weekend before the attack there was a unexpected power outage that killed all the camers, and that during that period lots of unidentified workmen - supposedly responding to the power crash - were going in and out of the buildings for some hours.

If the foregoing is true, there at least is an opportunity for such skullduggery.

David

David, et al,

On the "Political Conspiracies" Forum I started a thread titled "Gelatin -- The 'B' Thing." It focuses on published documentation of how a small group of "artists" may have penetrated WTC security in 2000.

Granted we're not talking about a relatively large operation involving the planting of explosive devices. But as an indication of how one of the towers could have been compromised ...

Another aspect of the story to keep in mind: It might be a hoax.

In any event, my original post:

I have been sitting on this (non) story since 2003, when I purchased a copy of The B-Thing, a slim, hardcover volume comprised of drawings, color photographs, and minimal text by one or more authors identified as "Gelatin."

The book is copyright 2001 Verlag der Buchhandlung Walther Konig, Koln. I'll include more credits at the end of this post.

In short, the work purports to document a March 6, 2000 attempt by art students occupying "studiospace provided by the lower manhatten cultural council (all quoted passages are reproduced as they originally appear, replete with poetically licensed grammar, punctuation, spelling, and line breaks) on the "91. floor of world trade center 1."

"gelatin is on a floor with other artists who are part of this studio program.

gelatins space (the window, where the action will happen), is walled in with a

system of cardboard boxes.

other artists sharing 91. floor do not know what we are planing and doing.

the construction of the balcony and all other preparations are not visible

for them."

The narrative continues:

"the balcony is a prefabriacted construction, made by gelatin.

one person at a time will be able to stand on it.

the balcony will be camouflaged.

it will be built to be as less visible as possible for any passerby on the street.

it will be taken apart the moment after beeing pulled back in."

Further:

"one window will be taken out.

the removing of the window is done in a professional and secured action.

no constructive parts of the building will be removed or damaged.

there will not be any visible traces, after the window will have been put

back in."

Finally (for this post)"

"nobody but gelatin is officially involved into the project.

there will be an attorney telling gelatin how to behave.

there will be an attorney responsible to handle the case for gelatin."

A brief section of glossy color photographs "documents" the project. Individuals, apparently of college age, are depicted; all males are turned away from the camera. Two Asian females appear in full-face shots. The majority of pages depict drawings and calculations.

Photos of the balcony -- a narrow, cramped space protruding between exterior support columns -- appear to have been taken from ground level, and these images are grainy and, well, unconvincing. Also, there are photos that appear to have been shot from the balcony itself.

This is a most troubling and thought-provoking little publication. If what it documents is nothing more than a successful prank-as-statement by European and Asian art students, then what does it tell us about the vulnerability of the WTC, just prior to the attacks, to this sort of "tampering"?

Or is there more to the story?

Art students ... Hmmm ...

From the copyright page, more credits:

Text: Tex Rubinowitz

Photos: Maria Ziegelbock, Thomas Sandbichler, Susanne Wimmer, Gelatin

Translation: Jonathan Quinn

Reproductions: Cyberlab, Vienna

Layout: Johannes Heuer

Print: Groebner Druck, Oberhart

Binding: Papyrus, Vienna

Courtesy: Leo Koenig Inc./New York

Galerie Meyer Kainer/Vienna

Curiously,

Charles

[Craig Lamson]

That means that not just some posters on this forum but 45 percent of Americans are basically troofers. They just want to know the troof about 9/11. I would like to ask you if you agree that there should be an investigation to answer the many unanswered questions that the 9/11 commission did not answer and/or would not try to answer.

Radical, irresponsible madman! Don't you know the truth is un-American these days. Belief, blind unquestioning faith in the Leaders, Officials, Corporations, Military, Police, Rich, Media, etc - now that's being a true 'patriot' - or is that parrot? The Emperor has spoken. 911 was as reported. It even was connected to Iraq and Hussein - despite that quietly being denied of late. Dallas was one lone-nut who loved Castro and read spy novels who did it all alone and does the cover-up himself stil from the grave. Stop thinking and questioning.....or your car wll crush you against you security gatehouse and then keep on rollling away...don't be a trouble-maker, be a sheep.

What "TRUTH" would that be? Lots of 'hot air' by the Half Truthers, but very little that could, by ANY leap of imagination that could be called truth Same goes for most of the CT's advanced by Half Truthers.

So now its public opinon as expressed in a sampling of 1000 or so Americans and created by the asking of leading questions that passes for a mandate? What a very weak position you find yourself in .... pretty 'sheepish' if you ask me.

Edited September 16, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Len Colby]

Evan's sarcasm aside, presumably there is no need to read the actual article or wait for the peers to review.

Let's just accept his conclusions now....why wait? After all, he lectures at Cambridge.

His paper passed peer review in a prominent engineering journal. So far papers from the "inside job" camp have only passed "peer-review" and "inside job" publications. And yes having a a degree in civil engineering from and teaching at one of the world's top universities does make him more qualified than Drs. Fetzer and Jones

From Nature International Weekly Journal of Science:

Nevertheless, scientists understand that peer review per se provides only a minimal assurance of quality, and that the public conception of peer review as a stamp of authentication is far from the truth.

http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/de...ature05032.html

Quality assurance of scientific publications usually proceeds through two pathways: a pre-publication short-term assessment by designated reviewers during the peer-review process, and a post-publication long-term assessment by the scientific community through comments, citations, review articles and monographs.

http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/de...ature04988.html

I never said that peer review meant that the reviewers agreed with the paper’s conclusions but as you so helpfully point out it indicates “Quality assurance” or “a minimal assurance of quality” i.e. the basic science (if not the conclusions) is sound. The various “peer-reviewed papers” of the “inside job” camp passed “review” in “inside job” rather than scientific publications so their “quality assurance” is suspect to say the least

From the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE):

Peer reviews are performed by independent teams or individuals not associated with the original design team.

http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/policy_...s.cfm?hdlid=117

I don’t how that is supposed to counter my point it actually buttresses it. Papers are supposed to reviewed “by independent teams or individuals not associated with the original design team” but we have no assurance that happened with the “truther” papers because the anonymous reviewers were chosen by people closely associated with the authors

Have you read his article?

No, because it “will be published in a forthcoming issue of the American Society of Civil Engineers' Journal of Engineering Mechanics”

Did you bother to read the linked article?

Do you understand what led him to his conclusions?

That was explained in the linked article did you bother to read it?

Are you aware of any counter-arguments to his theories?

I haven’t heard of any arguments against his specific paper but a few “inside jobbers” have reached different conclusions about his basic premise (that a complete collapse at close to free fall speed was to be expected once local collapse ensued) they include Dr. Steve Jones ({particle} physicist), Dr. Judy Wood (mechanical engineer), and Jim Hoffman (computer programmer). The only one of these who is reasonably qualified is Dr. Wood but her theories are so off the wall that they were strenuously refuted/repudiated by Dr. Jones and most of the other scientists who once belonged to “Scholars for Truth”. This was the main reason for the break up of that organization.

Hoffman’s main argument was that there was not enough potential energy in the towers to account for all the destruction. One of his main points was the degree to which concrete was pulverized but he based his calculations on a misinterpretation of published data. http://911myths.com/html/pulverised_concrete.html

Interestingly though responding to Woods, information from Jones also contradicts Hoffman’s conclusions regarding the degree to which concrete was pulverized.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters...teven-jones.pdf

Charles Pegelow a structural engineer who spent his entire career working on deep sea oil rigs also came to conclusions different than Dr. Seffen's but AFAIK he hasn’t done any actual calculations and just said this or that should or shouldn't have happened.

"You want to conclude that his theories are valid based upon what you know so far?"

I never said I was sure his conclusions were entirely of wholly correct. But they are in line with those of numerous other highly qualified engineers and scientists including:

Drs. Bazant and Zhou (structural engineering – Northwestern University), http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/b.../Papers/405.pdf

Dr. Eduardo Kausel (civil engineering MIT)

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/nr/2001/skyscrapers.pdf

Drs. Oral Buyukozturk and Franz-Josef Ulm (civil engineering MIT)

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2001/skyscrapers.html

Several other MIT civil engineering professors

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/

Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl (structural engineering – U. Cal. Berkley)

http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/2007/06/...-for-truth.html

Leslie E. Roberson (lead structural engineer WTC)

http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/webli...CB?OpenDocument also see Cliff’s link on the OBL thread

Drs. A.S. Usmani, Y.C. Chung, J.L. Torero (University of Edinburgh, School of Engineering and Electronics, BRE Cemtre for Fire safety Engineering)

http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/1842.../1/WTCpaper.pdf

Dr. Frank Greening (chemical engineer, atomic energy specialist and ex-“truther”)

http://911myths.com/html/other_contributions.html

Among numerous others some of whose articles are linked here

http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default

"That pretty much sums up how you evaluate things with no evidence in front of you."

No the person on this thread who came to a conclusion based on "no evidence" is sitting in front of your computer. Why do you constantly feel the need to make threads about me rather than the subject at hand?

"Of course knowing nothing about an author, or failure to read their work hasn't stopped you in the past from making your pronouncements."

What pronouncements have I made about Dr. Seffen other than he got his degrees from and teaches Engineering at Cambridge?

What pronouncements have I made about his paper other than it passed peer-review for a prominent engineering journal?

"Fetzer and Jones are not even relevant to the discussion. Just another non sequitur to avoid the issue."

I’m not avoiding anything Jones and Fetzer were relevant because they have made a big hoopla about the supposedly peer reviewed papers that they wrote and those by others they have released.

EDIT dropped word added

Edited September 17, 2007 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

According to a Zogby International poll last year, 45 percent of Americans believe that "so many unanswered questions about 9/11 remain that Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any U.S. government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success."

The question was worded in a leading way and 45% simple agreed that the attacks should be "re-investigated"

"Some people say that so many unanswered questions about 9/11 remain that Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success. Other people say the 9/11 attacks were thoroughly investigated and that any speculation about US government involvement is nonsense. Who are you more likely to agree with?"

http://www.zogby.com/features/features.dbm?ID=231

Interestingly the higher a respondants educational level the LESS likely they were to agree. I might even have agreed because although I don't believe "any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success" I agree that there are "so many unanswered questions about 9/11 remain that Congress or" an independent body "should re-investigate"

[Len Colby]

A whole lot of us have to read your longwinded and uninformed posts.....proof positive you are either lazy [not likely] or here only to divert persons with busy work and thwart progress. I'd request the cliff's notes version of all of your posts rather than the posts....better yet just send them telepathically or by drum.

Ironic coming from the guy who claims that 90% of my posts are personnel attacks. Obviously no one is obliged to read my or anybody else's posts here whether they be "longwinded and uninformed " or succinct and informative

...do your own homework and read the article yourself

Just as no one is obliged to read anyone's posts no one is obliged to read other's links especially when they are very long and long-winded. I could argue that it was the poster's "homework" to summarize what the main arguments were of such a length essay. If Jack, Duane or you found it so compelling it would be easier to comply with my reasonable request than argue with me about it. I tried reading it but lost interest before I could figure what points if any the author was trying to make.

[William Kelly]

"Nuclear Bombs Mistakenly Flown Over US

By PAULINE JELINEK,AP

Posted: 2007-09-05 23:11:46

WASHINGTON (AP) - A B-52 bomber was mistakenly armed with six nuclear warheads and flown for more than three hours across several states last week, prompting an Air Force investigation and the firing of one commander, ........

The Air Combat Command has ordered a command-wide stand down on Sept. 14 to review procedures, officials said. They said there was minimal risk to crews and the public because of safety features designed into the munitions."

--How scary is this? And the Air Combat Command has been given a command standdown and they even announce the date.

Kathy

The inmates are running the asylum.

Send in the clowns.

Chris,

What makes you think it was a mistake, accident or clowning around?

While there are accidents - Broken Arrow nuke incidents, but I haven't seen mistakes or clowing around on the record at all. Mistakes aren't allowed to happen at that level.

Can anyone direct me to a news story or press release naming the General relieved of command, a very rare occassion, or a followup story on the Sept. 14 stand down, test and reup exercise?

I haven't seen any followup.

Thanks,

BK

[Michael Hogan]

Why do constantly feel the need to make threads about me rather than the subject at hand?

It's yet another invalid premise from you.

I'm not the one who started a self-pitying and self-serving thread about myself. You seem to enjoy making yourself the subject at hand.

I see inconsistencies and double standards coupled with a know it all attitude in your posts. There seem to be plenty of other Forum members that see the same things. Mark Stapleton summed it up well.

Len, it's a big ask arguing on three fronts all at once--especially against formidable opponents like Ron, Robert and Cliff. The fact that you're getting trounced notwithstanding, I truly admire your fighting spirit, which is matched only by your ability to go to any lengths of logic-bending denial in order to avoid confronting the truth.

You seem to think one wins arguments by simply getting in the last word. I enjoy making you earn it.

[Ron Ecker]

Was a Covert Attempt to Bomb Iran foiled by a Military Leak?

http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Fron...9/07/01751.html

Interesting article. I seriously doubt that Cheney would or could use these things on Iran without the knowledge or cooperation of the Air Force. But I can certainly see how it could have been a covert attempt to get them to the Middle East for possible false flag purposes. I mean, isn't this more or less the way it would have to be done?

[Evan Burton]

My God. That's at least the third time I've seen that pitiful "cartoon" posted on a forum. I feel sorry for people who actually think it's humorous, whatever their stance on 9/11. The person who wrote and/or drew it has no sense of humor whatsoever. It does appear, however, that he or she is filled with unadulterated hate. Some "troofer" must have pissed in his or her cereal.

Ron,

I disagree. To me it is extremely apt. I have seen instances where a simple explanation exists, and when you try to tell people of it you are accused of either being "9/11 disinfo agent", a "sheeple", a "Bush lover", etc. The personality displayed by the "twoofer" in the cartoon is almost the same as displayed by some people who claim that 9/11 was a massive lie.

For instance, do you believe that two airliner-type craft hit the WTC towers? If you do, there are people who will treat you as did the cartoon character, and proclaim vehemently that you saw a hologram (or were subjected to mass hypnosis - ignoring the film record, of course). These people believe, with religious passion and zealotry, that NO aircraft hit the towers.

You might believe that 9/11 was a cover-up, but they believe you are a disinfo agent, a "false flag", trying to distract them from the REAL truth.

Are you a sheeple?

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Perhaps the CIA recruited those terrorists;

And that, for me at least, is the meat in this particular sandwich.

The CIA, with the blessing of central Goverment, encoraged the Mujahadeen uprising against the Soviets. They also helped to fund, arm and train said insurgents.

Many Mujahadeen later morphed into Al Quida, including Bin Laden, who many claim was angry with America's abandonment of Afganistan.

Were ties between US agents, and ex Mujahadeen fighters still in place 20 years later. How deeply penetrated were the Jihadist units, and who were they actually serving. In who's best interests did 911 occur.

All the rest is just window dressing, until we can answer the above questions you are dancing in the dark People.

[Evan Burton]

Can anyone direct me to a news story or press release naming the General relieved of command, a very rare occassion, or a followup story on the Sept. 14 stand down, test and reup exercise?

I haven't seen any followup.

Thanks,

BK

Bill,

Are you aware of any senior military personnel being "cashiered" for a supposed error, but not having been reported per se?

I am. Sea King Shark 02. Many people were held to account ... justly or otherwise. many people, including very senior Officers, were dismissed.

No details of them have been released, but I know two of those 'senior Officers', one particularly well.

The media does not always follow up on these matters; is there a public source you can check to see if anyone has been relieve of command? Transferred?

[Evan Burton]

Peter,

No, I did not mean it in jest. There is a world of difference in claiming no aircraft hit the Pentagon, or that the WTC were brought down by demolition, and the claim that certain forces - other than Al Queda or Bin Laden - were responsible for organising the events of 9/11.

I am yet to be convinced, but I acknowledge that it is certainly possible that a group - official or otherwise, rogue or otherwise, domestic or otherwise - organised the hijacking of the aircraft on 9/11. The hijackers may have been agents (unlikely) or have been genuine but recruited by a front organisation (possible) to carry out the attacks. I have seen no convincing evidence that any part of the US government actively aided the attacks.

Now, I don't think this is correct. I think it was just a terrorist attack. I think the Bush administration took advantage of it to advance whatever political agenda they saw fit - but I don't think they organised, aided, or had credible foreknowledge of the attacks.