FBI, the mob, and 9/11

[Len Colby]

On the "bad moderator" thread which John deleted the subject of academic freedom came up. I pointed out that in the US numerous professors hold leftist and other controversial views and that as far as I knew only three "truther" professors had lost their jobs. None of them were tenured they were Steve Jones, Barrett and Judy Wood. I suggested that Wood was fired for backing crackpot theories such as the structures of the WTC Twin Towers were akin to trees, they were hit by holograms rather than 767's and "the towers were destroyed by “star wars” weaponry." At first Terry indicated she thaught Wood was a crackpot but then she replied with the following

"...the towers were destroyed by “star wars” weaponry..."

That phrase alone, had the words actually been uttered by Wood, would have automatically set her up for ridicule, by the press, media, Mockingbird, just as it set up Reagan to look like a blithering idiot when he set about attempting to implement the SWI. And, shortly after which, ended up getting him shot at, whilst the man who introduced the concept of the "Star Wars Initiative," to Reagan, Lyndon LaRouche, personna non grata himself, ended up going to jail on trumped up charges driven home by the John Train Salon of NBC Television, merely for getting close enough to Reagan to get the idea across to him.

Therefore, most definitely would she have been denied tenure, let alone risk life and limb, by getting shot at, or run off the road late one night, for attempting to think in the abstract, or "outside of the box," which seems to be the favorite metaphor being used as of late.

That's why you'll never read in the history books in school about the real reason for the Vietnam debacle. Everything must be glossed over and made to appear justifiably in favor of the U.S.A., even if our government was 99.9% at fault for proceeding to defy Geneva Accords and interfere in a foreign government's affairs. Regardless of whether they asked for our help or not. You should already know that by now, as well as why our presence in Iraq is a veiled excuse for eminent domaining their oil reserves, among other things.

But, you know something? I must take leave of this place for awhile, as I've just gotten a phone call from a dear friend of the last 30 years, who just found out he has cancer, and will be going into the hospital for therapy on Thursday. I will be spending the coming weekend at his bedside, helping him to get back on his feet. So, I'll turn this over to my good friend, Myra, whom I'm sure will be able to sufficiently hold down what's left of the fort in my absence. Ciao.

“That phrase alone, had the words actually been uttered by Wood, would have automatically set her up for ridicule, by the press, media, Mockingbird…”

But she did say them and says them repeatedly, watch her videos on Google and YouTube see the various “papers” she has written and look at her site.

Have you seen the Russell Crowe film “A Beautiful Mind”? Wood’s site which is like a modern day version of Dr. John Nash’s garage/MIT office/scrapbooks has a total of 10 pages with the phrase “Star Wars Beam Weapon” in the title. The phrase (“star wars”) also appears several times on the homepage. The term SDI appears on a few other pages on her site where she promotes her risible theory that the WTC was destroyed by “Star wars” type weapons in space.

Here one of the ten "star wars" pages

http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam3.html

AFAIK thus far no one has tried to kill her or Morgan Reynolds or Jim Fetzer or any of the other handful of people who back her kooky theory. As for her being denied tenure the people who decided that would have been remiss if they had granted it to her, this is a mental health rather than a academic freedom issue.

She discussed her tree theory with a forum member who likes to tout his critical thinking skills.

Judy Wood: Part of my research work has been to look at engineering in nature. How does nature design structures? And perhaps we can copy those designs and use them in engineering designs. And one thing that struck me about the World Trade Centers is that they are very much like trees. Core, outer core, inner core. A tube within a tube design, and that's what allows a tree to wave in the breeze.

James Fetzer: Marvelous!

Judy Wood: But also I started thinking about how do trees come down? They don’t start turning into sawdust, ya know, from the top down.

(laughter)

Judy Wood: With sawdust flying out.

James Fetzer: That’s a perfect parallel, because what we actually have with the twin towers is they're blowing up from the top. Each floor is blowing up. So the sawdust, turning a tree into sawdust from the top, is perfect! Judy, absolutely a perfect analogy!

Judy Wood: And recently I gave a talk at an engineering conference where I showed some diagrams of the towers being built and I showed, “If this were a tree and the Keebler elves cut out this big chunk out of the side here, to put their, for their little house, where their dwelling is. Would that affect the towers?” And everyone in the room could see, that no, the way the structure is designed, it can’t bring it down.

James Fetzer: And the little house would be analogous to the plane impact?

Judy Wood: Right, you could have several planes, the planes hitting the towers were like a bullet being shot into a tree.

James Fetzer: Excellent! Excellent!

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread214842/pg1

Here is a slide from her the WTC was just like a tree PowerPoint presentation.

I will refrain from comment on your theory that backing Star Wars was the reason for Reagan being shot and LaRouche “going to jail on trumped up charges” other that to say it seems highly improbable, perhaps you should start a thread about it when you can spend more time here.

Edited August 25, 2008 by Len Colby

[Terry Mauro]

On the "bad moderator" thread which John deleted the subject of academic freedom came up. I pointed out that in the US numerous professors hold leftist and other controversial views and that as far as I knew only three "truther" professors had lost their jobs. None of them were tenured they were Steve Jones, Barrett and Judy Wood. I suggested that Wood was fired for backing crackpot theories such as the structures of the WTC Twin Towers were akin to trees, they were hit by holograms rather than 767's and "the towers were destroyed by “star wars” weaponry." At first Terry indicated she thaught Wood was a crackpot but then she replied with the following

"...the towers were destroyed by “star wars” weaponry..."

That phrase alone, had the words actually been uttered by Wood, would have automatically set her up for ridicule, by the press, media, Mockingbird, just as it set up Reagan to look like a blithering idiot when he set about attempting to implement the SWI. And, shortly after which, ended up getting him shot at, whilst the man who introduced the concept of the "Star Wars Initiative," to Reagan, Lyndon LaRouche, personna non grata himself, ended up going to jail on trumped up charges driven home by the John Train Salon of NBC Television, merely for getting close enough to Reagan to get the idea across to him.

Therefore, most definitely would she have been denied tenure, let alone risk life and limb, by getting shot at, or run off the road late one night, for attempting to think in the abstract, or "outside of the box," which seems to be the favorite metaphor being used as of late.

That's why you'll never read in the history books in school about the real reason for the Vietnam debacle. Everything must be glossed over and made to appear justifiably in favor of the U.S.A., even if our government was 99.9% at fault for proceeding to defy Geneva Accords and interfere in a foreign government's affairs. Regardless of whether they asked for our help or not. You should already know that by now, as well as why our presence in Iraq is a veiled excuse for eminent domaining their oil reserves, among other things.

But, you know something? I must take leave of this place for awhile, as I've just gotten a phone call from a dear friend of the last 30 years, who just found out he has cancer, and will be going into the hospital for therapy on Thursday. I will be spending the coming weekend at his bedside, helping him to get back on his feet. So, I'll turn this over to my good friend, Myra, whom I'm sure will be able to sufficiently hold down what's left of the fort in my absence. Ciao.

“That phrase alone, had the words actually been uttered by Wood, would have automatically set her up for ridicule, by the press, media, Mockingbird…”

But she did say them and says them repeatedly, watch her videos on Google and YouTube see the various “papers” she has written and look at her site.

Have you seen the Russell Crowe film “A Beautiful Mind”? Wood’s site which is like a modern day version of Dr. John Nash’s garage/MIT office/scrapbooks has a total of 10 pages with the phrase “Star Wars Beam Weapon” in the title. The phrase (“star wars”) also appears several times on the homepage. The term SDI appears on a few other pages on her site where she promotes her risible theory that the WTC was destroyed by “Star wars” type weapons in space.

Here one of the ten "star wars" pages

http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam3.html

AFAIK thus far no one has tried to kill her or Morgan Reynolds or Jim Fetzer or any of the other handful of people who back her kooky theory. As for her being denied tenure the people who decided that would have been remiss if they had granted it to her, this is a mental health rather than a academic freedom issue.

She discussed her tree theory with a forum member who likes to tout his critical thinking skills.

Judy Wood: Part of my research work has been to look at engineering in nature. How does nature design structures? And perhaps we can copy those designs and use them in engineering designs. And one thing that struck me about the World Trade Centers is that they are very much like trees. Core, outer core, inner core. A tube within a tube design, and that's what allows a tree to wave in the breeze.

James Fetzer: Marvelous!

Judy Wood: But also I started thinking about how do trees come down? They don’t start turning into sawdust, ya know, from the top down.

(laughter)

Judy Wood: With sawdust flying out.

James Fetzer: That’s a perfect parallel, because what we actually have with the twin towers is they're blowing up from the top. Each floor is blowing up. So the sawdust, turning a tree into sawdust from the top, is perfect! Judy, absolutely a perfect analogy!

Judy Wood: And recently I gave a talk at an engineering conference where I showed some diagrams of the towers being built and I showed, “If this were a tree and the Keebler elves cut out this big chunk out of the side here, to put their, for their little house, where their dwelling is. Would that affect the towers?” And everyone in the room could see, that no, the way the structure is designed, it can’t bring it down.

James Fetzer: And the little house would be analogous to the plane impact?

Judy Wood: Right, you could have several planes, the planes hitting the towers were like a bullet being shot into a tree.

James Fetzer: Excellent! Excellent!

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread214842/pg1

Here is a slide from her the WTC was just like a tree PowerPoint presentation.

I will refrain from comment on your theory that backing Star Wars was the reason for Reagan being shot and LaRouche “going to jail on trumped up charges” other that to say it seems highly improbable, perhaps you should start a thread about it when you can spend more time here.

****************************************************

FYI and FWIW

A PERSONAL REFLECTION

I Remember Ronald Reagan

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

June 6, 2004

This morning's press brought me stunning news: the death of U.S. President Ronald Reagan. Although we actually met on but one occasion, at Concord, New Hampshire, for a candidates' night, in January 1980, that meeting between us changed world history in ironical ways which are reverberating still today.

The continuing significance of that encounter is that it led to meetings with the incoming Reagan Presidential team, in Washington, D.C., later that year, and new meetings with key representatives of the new Presidency over the interval into 1984. The most important product of those meetings was my 1982-83 role in conducting back-channel talks with the Soviet government, on behalf of that Presidency. The leading topic of those talks, coordinated through the National Security Council, was my proposal for what President Reagan was to name his "Strategic Defense Initiative" (SDI). That proposal changed the world.

In reflection on that and related experience, over the following years, I was often bemused in reflecting on the paradoxical features of that relationship to the President during that period. In part, the affirmative aspects of the relationship were rooted in our sharing the experience of our generation, despite the decade's difference in our age: the common experience of President Franklin Roosevelt's leadership of the U.S. economic recovery and the defeat of fascism. In all my dealings with the Reagan Administration during that time, this area of agreement was clearly, repeatedly demonstrated, whereas, on economic policy otherwise, such as the subject of Professor Milton Friedman, we were almost at opposite poles.

One point about those matters needs to be cleared up; and it is my special, personal obligation to do so. While it is true that Soviet General Secretaries Andropov's and Gorbachev's repeatedly hysterical rejection of President Reagan's offer of March 23, 1983, and not military threats from the U.S.A. and its allies, led to the fall of the Soviet system six years later, it was the folly of the Soviet government, not threats by the administration of President Reagan, which led to the end of the Soviet system in the way that occurred. On March 23, 1983, the President had made a public offer, which he renewed later, to find a way to escape the system of "revenge weapons." It was the Soviet rejection of the President's offer which brought down the Soviet economy and the break-up of the Soviet Union. Had the President's offer been accepted then, during the years which followed, the history of the world would have made a better turn than it did then, better for both the U.S.A. and Russia, a better way toward a better world today.

Had we reacted to the break-up of the Comecon/Warsaw Pact bloc as I proposed publicly in October 1988, the worst of the miseries experienced during the 1989-2004 interval to date, on all sides, would have been avoided. Those 1989-2004 failures of U.S. and European policies on this latter account, do not detract from the indelible achievement of President Reagan's most stunning intervention in history, as first announced on March 23, 1983. Such is his enduring personal landmark in all truthful future accounts of U.S.A. and world history. Ironically, the U.S. Democratic Party's leadership never understood any of this, to the present day; that makes it all the more important that President Reagan's achievement on this account be commonly acknowledged by his survivors, Republican, Democratic, and others, today.

Such is the nature of the institution of the U.S. Presidency. That is not past history. It is a lesson in statecraft which the new generations of this world must still learn today.

As well as...

This article appears in the July 20, 2007 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

The Long Road to U.S.-Russian Missile Defense Cooperation

by Marsha Freeman

On March 23, 1983, President Ronald Reagan made a stunning proposal on national television: The United States would develop a Strategic Defense Initiative, to end the age of Mutual and Assured Destruction, or "MAD," and instead make nuclear weapons "impotent and obsolete." The revolutionary new technologies that would be developed, using the "new physical principles" of lasers and other directed-energy systems, would be shared with the Soviet Union. That proposal, which had been forumlated and then publicly discussed by Lyndon LaRouche the previous year, was turned down by the Soviet leadership.

On March 23, 1993, Lyndon LaRouche released a statement, "On the Tenth Anniversary of President Reagan's Announcement of the SDI." Describing Reagan's proposal, as "an announcement which changed the course of history," as it could only lead either to new cooperation between the two powers, or "the collapse of the Soviet empire for economic reasons, within about five years." LaRouche noted that, "once again the time has come for similar bold initiatives." Scientists in both the U.S.A. and Russia had been thinking along the same lines.

Discussions were already underway on U.S.-Russian missile defense cooperation. In October 1991, the Wall Street Journal reported on a visit by Russian Gen. Konstantin Kobets to Washington. In public discussions, his deputies proposed that, with the Soviet Union gone, there be the integration of Russian and U.S. Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) efforts, including a joint space-based defense.

The following year, a group of American and Russian scientists began discussions to define areas of potential missile defense cooperation. In a June 10, 1992 article in Nezavismaya Gazeta, entitled, "From Star Wars to a Global System for the Protection of the World Community: Boris Yeltsin Will Discuss That Topic With George Bush," Academician Yevgeny Velikhov spelled out the strategic importance of this cooperation. Velikhov recalled that President Yeltsin had proposed, in his speech to the UN Security Council in January 1992, the creation of a global system to protect the world community, "based on the reorientation of the U.S. SDI, using high-technology systems developed within the Russian defense complex."

Russia, "as a leading nuclear power bears a special responsibility, together with the United States, for averting the threat of nuclear war," Velikhov wrote. The specific proposal included joint monitoring of the launch of ballistic missiles, notifying the world community of any missile attack, and "protecting the member states against ballistic missiles."

"Cooperation in defense technologies with the United States is in Russia's national interests and, on the one hand, will help to maintain the country's scientific and technical potential through investment and stem the 'brain drain,' and, on the other hand, will help the country's high-technology output gain access to the world market and aid industrial conversion," from defense to civilian production. Velikhov also emphasized the potential use of defense technologies "in the solution of a broad range of questions," both in defense and the civilian economy.

Velikhov, having been prominently involved in leadership positions in Russian scientific endeavors, from thermonuclear fusion, to magnetohydrodynamics, to lasers, pleaded with his nation's political leadership to preserve science. "If we destroy science, we shall never rebuild it," he warned in 1991, "then we will have no future."

Over a period of four decades, the Soviet Union had created the most robust manned space program in the world. When the U.S.S.R. collapsed, the very real danger existed that this globally critical capability would be lost. Discussions between the U.S. and Russia on manned space cooperation began in 1991, and in October 1992, an initial agreement was signed to fly an astronaut on a Russia Soyuz, and a cosmonaut on the Space Shuttle.

In 1993, President Clinton made a strategic foreign policy decision, agreeing to a greatly expanded cooperative program, and a virtual integration of the world's only two manned space programs. The agreement included long-term stays of American astronauts aboard the Russian Mir space station. It also invited Russian partnership in the future International Space Station, cementing together two formerly parallel programs, now to be dependent upon one another. The $400 million that NASA paid the Russian space agency for the use of its Mir space station through the late 1990s, kept the former Soviet manned space program alive.

On the strategic defense side, Aviation Week reported, on Sept. 28, 1992, on continuing high-level military/security discussions, stemming from the Bush/Yeltsin summit meeting the previous June.

'Trust'

On April 2, 1993, an article appeared in Izvestia by Viktor Litovkin, titled, "On the Eve of Vancouver, Russia Proposes to the USA a Joint Plasma Weapon Experiment." Russian scientists told Litovkin that at the upcoming summit between the U.S. and Russian Presidents, the "Trust" program proposal would be offered to President Clinton.

This would involve use of ground-based components, such as microwave or optical (laser) generators, to produce an ionized structure, known as a plasmoid. The plasmoid would be directed and concentrated not directly on a ballistic missile target, but aimed at the area of the atmosphere directly in front of the missile, its warhead, or even an aircraft. The energy-dense plasmoid would ionize the surrounding area of the atmosphere, disrupting the flight of the target, at an altitude of up to 50 km. The target's trajectory disrupted, it would be destroyed by enormous aerodynamic forces.

Because the plasmoid is traveling at the speed of light, Russian scientists explained, it is a "practically invulnerable weapon, with guaranteed defense against any attack from space, or from the upper or lower layers of the atmosphere." Such a system would be able to offer protection against offensive weapons in space, or those used by nuclear terrorists.

To do joint testing of this new capability, Russia, it was proposed, would send the required equipment, including microwave generators to create the plasmoids, by ship to America's Kwajalein Atoll in the Pacific Ocean. The target missiles could be launched either from Russia or the U.S.A., and the United States would provide the solid-state electronics and computer technology for the experiments. Litovkin's article was accompanied by a drawing of a coordinated land and sea, anti-ballistic missile system, demonstrating the "Trust" plasmoid concept.

While the U.S. press ridiculed the proposal, at a press conference in Rome on April 20, Dr. Leonid Fituni of the Center for Strategic and Global Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, was asked by EIR to expand on his comments on the "plasmoid weapon" proposal. He explained that it was designed as a Soviet "secret weapon"; as the unconventional response to the American SDI. He said there was no possible countermeasure, and that "Trust" could become a major point of future joint talks.

But implemention of the "Trust" proposal never moved forward. As Lyndon LaRouche explained on July 10: In 1993, at the outset of his Presidency, Clinton was briefed on LaRouche's role in Reagan's SDI, and adopted the concept of cooperation with Russia. Later, Yeltsin raised the prospect of cooperation with Clinton, and the idea was moving ahead, until Vice President Al Gore sabotaged it, in 1996. At the time, LaRouche was in Moscow engaged in critical discussions with leading people about the revival of SDI cooperation.

Even though President Clinton backed down from missile defense cooperation with Russia at the time, and an historic opportunity to revive the LaRouche-Reagan SDI was missed, the idea did not die. This was the prelude to the developments during the recent Bush-Putin summit.

Following the capture of Congress by the Gingrichite neo-conservatives in 1994, Clinton came under increasing pressure to proceed with a near-term, in fact ineffective, limited ground-based kinetic-kill vehicle program, with the commitment to decide on deployment of the interceptor system by 2000. President Reagan's Soviet-partnership SDI became a national missile defense program, without "new physical principles" or Russian cooperation. The revolutionary directed-energy technologies that would have created entirely new industries as well as an actual defense, were de-funded.

By the end of the 1990s, as the U.S. deployment decision was nearing, the Russian military was warning the U.S. that it could revitalize its nuclear arsenal, deploying "unconventional" capabilities, to overwhelm any limited anti-missile defenses. In response, Clinton, as reported by NBC's Tom Brokaw in June 2000, said that he was willing to share U.S. anti-missile technology. In a June 1 interview, President Putin proposed "pooling" U.S. and Russia efforts to protect against emerging missile threats, concentrating on boost-phase intercept, which could protect against missiles as they are fired. But this effort went nowhere.

President George W. Bush's accession to office the following year put the kinetic interceptor anti-missile program on a deployment fast-track. Having reached no agreement with Russia on treaty modifications, the Bush Administration unilaterally abrogated the ABM Treaty in December 2001. In a further provocation, in 2004, the Bush Administration was discussing placing anti-missile interceptors in Poland, at Russia's doorstep.

RAMOS

One joint U.S.-Russian anti-ballistic missile project that did get off the ground was the Russian-American Observation Satelite, or RAMOS. The U.S. team on RAMOS was sponsored by the Defense Department's Ballistic Missile Defense Office (BMDO), through the Space Dynamics Laboratory at Utah State University. The objectives were to develop new, advanced sensors to measure mid-to-long-wave infrared Earth background radiance and structure, measure the polarization of short-wave infrared Sun glint from high-altitude clouds, and use stereo observations, in order to be able to detect and track moving objects against the background radiation of the Earth. Two satellites taking measurmenets simultaneously would allow stereoscopic imagery.

Preliminary measurements occurred between 1995 and 1997, using existing Russian and U.S. satellites.

Although the deadline was approaching for President Clinton to make a decision on BMD deployment, which would necessitate changes in the ABM Treaty, cooperation was still on the table with Russia. At a press briefing on Jan. 21, 1999, Robert Bell, Space Assistant to the President for National Security and Arms Control, was asked if there were consideration of cooperation with Russia on the limited ABM system the Clinton Administration was developing, for deployment against "rogue states."

Bell responded that joint exercises had been carried out using theater missile defense systems with the Russians. The U.S., he said, was "proposing missile-data-warning sharing to allow them to use the information we have about incoming threats that their Theater Missile Defenses could counter."

Even at the national missile defense level, Bell stated, "there has been a program of collaboration with the Russians." A "major exercise" was being planned in Alaska, with Russian participation, to test methods of discriminating warheads reentering the atmosphere. The BMDO is "pursuing important collaborative programs with the Russian Academy of Sciences," he reported.

Two months later, Aerospace America reported that, "At the last U.S.-Russia summit, there was an agreement to have a shared early warning arrangement between the two countries. The Administration was considering whether to move to the next step in the RAMOS project, for a space surveillance demonstration. Another program, called the Advanced Plasma Experiment, involving sounding rocket flights from Alaska, was planned for early 1999, with both sides taking measurements.

But just weeks later, testifying on the FY2000 budget for the BMDO, Gen. Lester Lyles said that the estimate to complete the program, and build the two observational satellites, was about $250 million. The BMDO decided that against that level of funding, in light of the limited resources available for technology development.

The curtailment of the RAMOS project was not due to a lack of progress. In March 1999 Defense Department Congressional testimony, it was reported that, in the previous two years, newly developed American and Russia sensors had been jointly tested aboard a U.S. aircraft, the first joint images had been taken from space.

At a press conference following a U.S.-EU economic summit, on March 31, 2000, President Clinton said that the U.S. would share missile defense technology. "We've done a lot of information-sharing with the Russians," he said. "We have offered to do more, and we would continue to." He described as "unethical" the position that such technology would not be shared.

Bush Ends Cooperation

Statements continued to be made by representatives of the Cheney/Bush Administration on the potential for cooperation with Russia, following the U.S. abrogation of the ABM Treaty at the end of 2001. But actions spoke louder than words.

On May 22, 2003, President Putin sent a letter to President Bush, proposing to expand cooperation in missile defense. Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said that Russia was ready to start talking about cooperation. But the following year, the U.S. began discussions with Poland, on stationing interceptor missiles in Russia's backyard.

The end of U.S.-Russian ballistic missile cooperation, and of the only program still functional from the 1993 Russian Trust proposal, finally came to an end in February 2004. In its FY05 budget request, the Missile Defense Agency cancelled the RAMOS program. About $120 million had been spent on it, and it was projected to cost an additional $550 million to build the two observational satellites. To no avail, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and other members of Congress urged the Pentagon to continue the program, citing it as the most important military cooperation project with Russia.

Putin's recent offer, to make the Gabala radar in northern Azerbaijan, as well as an upgraded radar in southern Russia, components of a joint global missile defense system, is perhaps the last opportunity for a strategic partnership.

In an official briefing just before the Kennebunkport summit, Gen. Alexander Yakushin, from Central Command Space Troops, explained to Western journalists visiting the site, that the radar's 6,000 km range could detect launches from the Indian Ocean, to the Arabian Sea, to the Middle East. He said that it had been used during the Iran-Iraq War, and in Iran missile tests in January.

On June 22, representatives of the Russian Duma, who were visiting the United States, were given a briefing and tour of the Airborne Laser Laboratory aircraft at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland, after having been invited by Rep. Dana Rohrbacher (R-Calif.).

It is past time to pick up where the SDI left off, more than 20 years ago, and make nuclear weapons "impotent and obsolete."

[Evan Burton]

Thanks for that Eric - should be a good website, used in conjunction with things like snopes.

[Len Colby]

I will refrain from comment on your theory that backing Star Wars was the reason for Reagan being shot and LaRouche “going to jail on trumped up charges” other that to say it seems highly improbable, perhaps you should start a thread about it when you can spend more time here.

****************************************************

FYI and FWIW

A PERSONAL REFLECTION

I Remember Ronald Reagan

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

June 6, 2004

This morning's press brought me stunning news:...

My qualms about LaRouche aside I did not see anything there which indicated he was set up or that Reagan was shot for backing SDI.

[Mark Vernon]

This is start of failure....it is obvious to me explosions are present and the subsequent collapse is not spontaneous. It also defies known physics...buildings damaged non symetrically, do not fall symetrically....and they do not fall into the path of greatest resistance.

[Len Colby]

This is start of failure....it is obvious to me explosions are present and the subsequent collapse is not spontaneous. It also defies known physics...buildings damaged non symetrically, do not fall symetrically....and they do not fall into the path of greatest resistance.

This has already been discussed ad-infinium on other threads and has little relevance to Woods space beams theory. Numerous highly qualified structural engineers who have closely studied the collapses disagree with your conclusions. The buildings collapsed downwards because that is the direction of gravity.

You think collapsing in on itself would use more energy than tipping over? Lets see your or someone else's calcs.

[Evan Burton]

This is start of failure....it is obvious to me explosions are present and the subsequent collapse is not spontaneous. It also defies known physics...buildings damaged non symetrically, do not fall symetrically....and they do not fall into the path of greatest resistance.

Fair enough comment, Mark, but can you support any of what you say?

To simply state it is your opinion is one thing. We most all have opinions with respect to 9/11 in regard to any complicity of governments, if evidence is missing or faked, motives, etc.

Supporting those opinions to claim they are fact ("... defies all known physics...") is another matter. Perhaps there is evidence to suggest your opinions are correct. Perhaps there is evidence to conclusively support your opinion. On the other hand, there might be evidence to suggest you are wrong, or conclusively refute your opinion.

So, is it just an honest opinion, or is it more? Do you believe you can present supporting evidence for what you believe?

[Mark Vernon]

This is start of failure....it is obvious to me explosions are present and the subsequent collapse is not spontaneous. It also defies known physics...buildings damaged non symetrically, do not fall symetrically....and they do not fall into the path of greatest resistance.

This has already been discussed ad-infinium on other threads and has little relevance to Woods space beams theory. Numerous highly qualified structural engineers who have closely studied the collapses disagree with your conclusions. The buildings collapsed downwards because that is the direction of gravity.

You think collapsing in on itself would use more energy than tipping over? Lets see your or someone else's calcs.

Its already tipping over, are you suggesting it isnt??...and I dont really care how many "highly qualified structural engineers" you run out, I can produce any amount of "highly qualified structural engineers" that say differently. Are those not explosions? Why don't you tell me what you see in that picture, instead of being a parrot to someone elses opinion?

[Mark Vernon]

This is start of failure....it is obvious to me explosions are present and the subsequent collapse is not spontaneous. It also defies known physics...buildings damaged non symetrically, do not fall symetrically....and they do not fall into the path of greatest resistance.

Fair enough comment, Mark, but can you support any of what you say?

To simply state it is your opinion is one thing. We most all have opinions with respect to 9/11 in regard to any complicity of governments, if evidence is missing or faked, motives, etc.

Supporting those opinions to claim they are fact ("... defies all known physics...") is another matter. Perhaps there is evidence to suggest your opinions are correct. Perhaps there is evidence to conclusively support your opinion. On the other hand, there might be evidence to suggest you are wrong, or conclusively refute your opinion.

So, is it just an honest opinion, or is it more? Do you believe you can present supporting evidence for what you believe?

Until we get someone to sign a confession, all we will have is opinions Evan. Unfortunately, or fortunately for the guilty, the debris from WTC was quickly removed and recycled....had it been taken for evaluation and testing, we could have by now atleast determined what kind of explosives were used...if any of course. In fact, this debris was removed illegally as there is a law that makes tragedies such as 9/11 be investigated to determine if any changes to existing statutes needs to be changed or updated to prevent a similar occurance in the future....Im sure you all remember TWA 800, exploded over LI Sound and put back together piece by piece in a hangar...at great cost and manpower to determine what caused the plane to explode.

[Evan Burton]

This is start of failure....it is obvious to me explosions are present and the subsequent collapse is not spontaneous. It also defies known physics...buildings damaged non symetrically, do not fall symetrically....and they do not fall into the path of greatest resistance.

Fair enough comment, Mark, but can you support any of what you say?

To simply state it is your opinion is one thing. We most all have opinions with respect to 9/11 in regard to any complicity of governments, if evidence is missing or faked, motives, etc.

Supporting those opinions to claim they are fact ("... defies all known physics...") is another matter. Perhaps there is evidence to suggest your opinions are correct. Perhaps there is evidence to conclusively support your opinion. On the other hand, there might be evidence to suggest you are wrong, or conclusively refute your opinion.

So, is it just an honest opinion, or is it more? Do you believe you can present supporting evidence for what you believe?

Until we get someone to sign a confession, all we will have is opinions Evan. Unfortunately, or fortunately for the guilty, the debris from WTC was quickly removed and recycled....had it been taken for evaluation and testing, we could have by now atleast determined what kind of explosives were used...if any of course. In fact, this debris was removed illegally as there is a law that makes tragedies such as 9/11 be investigated to determine if any changes to existing statutes needs to be changed or updated to prevent a similar occurance in the future....Im sure you all remember TWA 800, exploded over LI Sound and put back together piece by piece in a hangar...at great cost and manpower to determine what caused the plane to explode.

Again, another fair point... but I question if it might be a little more than opinions? Each side of the fence can gather qualified people to support their own opinions. So what do we do? I'd suggest for those of us that do not hold the qualifications to make a professional determination, listen to both sides. Listen to the qualified people on both sides. Then look at the proportions of qualified people on both sides, and use that as a guide.

Because more qualified people hold a certain opinion, it does not make it certain... but it does indicate that on the balance of probability, one side of the argument is more likely. We can use this as a guide for us to decide who is right, and who is wrong.

That's all any of us can do in those respects.

[Kevin M. West]

Are those not explosions? Why don't you tell me what you see in that picture, instead of being a parrot to someone elses opinion?

No actually, they aren't explosions. If you watch the video, the velocity of the clouds of smoke & dust being ejected is a couple orders of magnitude too slow to be an explosion. I can see how you think it looks like an explosion from the still frame though.

As yourself this... If those are explosions, why do they start after the building starts to collapse, not before? Cause has to come before effect.

Edited August 26, 2008 by Kevin M. West

[Mark Vernon]

Are those not explosions? Why don't you tell me what you see in that picture, instead of being a parrot to someone elses opinion?

No actually, they aren't explosions. If you watch the video, the velocity of the clouds of smoke & dust being ejected is a couple orders of magnitude too slow to be an explosion. I can see how you think it looks like an explosion from the still frame though.

As yourself this... If those are explosions, why do they start after the building starts to collapse, not before? Cause has to come before effect.

How is it that you can say there were no explosions for a fact? Are you stating opinion, or do you have some other kind of supporting documentation?

[Mark Vernon]

This is start of failure....it is obvious to me explosions are present and the subsequent collapse is not spontaneous. It also defies known physics...buildings damaged non symetrically, do not fall symetrically....and they do not fall into the path of greatest resistance.

Fair enough comment, Mark, but can you support any of what you say?

To simply state it is your opinion is one thing. We most all have opinions with respect to 9/11 in regard to any complicity of governments, if evidence is missing or faked, motives, etc.

Supporting those opinions to claim they are fact ("... defies all known physics...") is another matter. Perhaps there is evidence to suggest your opinions are correct. Perhaps there is evidence to conclusively support your opinion. On the other hand, there might be evidence to suggest you are wrong, or conclusively refute your opinion.

So, is it just an honest opinion, or is it more? Do you believe you can present supporting evidence for what you believe?

Until we get someone to sign a confession, all we will have is opinions Evan. Unfortunately, or fortunately for the guilty, the debris from WTC was quickly removed and recycled....had it been taken for evaluation and testing, we could have by now atleast determined what kind of explosives were used...if any of course. In fact, this debris was removed illegally as there is a law that makes tragedies such as 9/11 be investigated to determine if any changes to existing statutes needs to be changed or updated to prevent a similar occurance in the future....Im sure you all remember TWA 800, exploded over LI Sound and put back together piece by piece in a hangar...at great cost and manpower to determine what caused the plane to explode.

Again, another fair point... but I question if it might be a little more than opinions? Each side of the fence can gather qualified people to support their own opinions. So what do we do? I'd suggest for those of us that do not hold the qualifications to make a professional determination, listen to both sides. Listen to the qualified people on both sides. Then look at the proportions of qualified people on both sides, and use that as a guide.

Because more qualified people hold a certain opinion, it does not make it certain... but it does indicate that on the balance of probability, one side of the argument is more likely. We can use this as a guide for us to decide who is right, and who is wrong.

That's all any of us can do in those respects.

I have no explaination as to who or what caused these towers and building 7 to come down....and neither did the 9/11 commission... people who want a fair and independent investigation are well within normal intelligence parameters and should not have to deal with angry sheep who question our patriotism.

[Len Colby]

Its already tipping over, are you suggesting it isnt??

Of course it is tipping over, the upper part of WTC 2 started tilting before the building collapsed downward. I’m confused by your position, do you think the collapses were suspicious because they basically were symmetrical or because the top of 2 tilted for the 1st few seconds?

Have you read the peer reviewed Bazant and Zhou paper ? If not why are you venturing opinion without having read the most important scientific paper about the collapses? If so explain your rejection of their analysis.

...and I dont really care how many "highly qualified structural engineers" you run out, I can produce any amount of "highly qualified structural engineers" that say differently.

Not exactly true the number of licensed structural engineers who have gone on record as saying the think the towers were destroyed by CD is small. The number who have expertise in tall steel frame buildings is even smaller, the most well know specializes in oil rings another in ship hulls a few others in one and two story structures. I have yet to see any of them go into detail about why they reject the NIST report several of them simply repeat fallacies from “truther” sites such as “jet fuel can’t melt steel” and “the towers collapsed at free fall speed” etc. The one who made the most detailed comments was the oil rig engineer but for some reason he mostly refuted the ASCE/FEMA Report which was supplanted by the more extensive and authoritative NIST Report. This would be like Creationists refuting points made by Darwin no longer accepted by biologists to cast doubt on evolution.

So far the "truthers" have not been able to get a single article or paper published in established scientific or engineering publications anywhere in the world.Why do you think that is?

Are those not explosions?

No

Why don't you tell me what you see in that picture, instead of being a parrot to someone elses opinion?

So your opinion was in no way shaped by the opinions of others? I see a building collapsing in on itself.

Why do buildings that collapse due to CD expel dust? Is it because

a) the cutter charges pulverize the building contents or

because the mass of the building collapsing on itself creates dust clouds?

Until we get someone to sign a confession, all we will have is opinions Evan.

And the overwhelming preponderance of expert opinion is that the buildings collapsed due to the plane impacts and resulting fires.

Unfortunately, or fortunately for the guilty, the debris from WTC was quickly removed and recycled....had it been taken for evaluation and testing,

The parts of it deemed relevant by the engineers from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Structural Engineers Association of NY (SEAofNY) and other professional groups were “taken for evaluation and testing” other experts including engineers from UC-Berkley and FBI also had accesses to the steel

we could have by now atleast determined what kind of explosives were used...if any of course.

Experts who had access to the debris said they saw no signs explosives were used.

In fact, this debris was removed illegally as there is a law that makes tragedies such as 9/11 be investigated to determine if any changes to existing statutes needs to be changed or updated to prevent a similar occurance in the future

There were 2 such investigations as well as 2 non-official ones. Please cite the law that mandated that all the steel from the towers , even the parts deemed unimportant by engineers investigating the collapses, be retain for analysis.

This and your other points have been covered repeatedly on this forum were debunked on th3 911 Myths site among others http://www.911myths.com/html/obstructing_justice.html , http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc__demolition_.html , http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc__other_.html

....Im sure you all remember TWA 800, exploded over LI Sound and put back together piece by piece in a hangar...at great cost and manpower to determine what caused the plane to explode.

At first they had no idea why the plane exploded and until they did every part was relevant, They knew what damaged the towers and in what parts of them the collapse initiated. There was also a bit if a size difference. Let’s see -

Mass of TWA 800 a 747-131 - 370 tons,

Mass of the Twin Towers - 1,000,000 tons

Length, width and height of a 747-131 fuselage: 232 x 22 x 24 feet

Height and floor dimensions of the twin towers: 1365 x 208 x 208 feet

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/7471sec2.pdf

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/jetliner/b747/

I have no explaination as to who or what caused these towers and building 7 to come down....and neither did the 9/11 commission

Strawman since discovering the reason for the collapses was not part of their mandate, that was left up to NIST. By the same logic you could complain that NIST has no explanation as to how and why the attacks were carried out. Have you actually read the ASCE/SEAof NY/FEMA, NIST or 9/11 Commission Reports?

[Mark Vernon]

I am not some newcomer to investigating 9/11 and have no desire or feel compelled to read anything from organizations that are not independent and unbiased.

You are stating the government version of 9/11....a clearly biased point of view, that has been heavily debunked.... I do not intend to go tit for tat with you, as you clearly have more time to waste on this topic than I care to. What is fact is the 9/11 commission was ridiculously biased, they did not take any account of eyewitnesses that didn't spew the official account. This is well documented, and anything you say to the otherwise is just absurd. A new investigation, a transparent and honest one is what is needed, and that will not happen until the current administration is out of office...if ever.

We are still waiting for the evidence that 'proves' it was carried out by OBL.

Since this event is the firestorm that is responsible for the Patriot Act, MC Act, the AFG and Iraq war...and is a direct assault on the civil liberties of AMERICAN Citizens, we have not only the right, but the responsibilty to question every aspect and conclusion. I will ask you a very direct question that has a very precise answer.... was the Patriot Act drafted before or after 9/11? And how many that voted on it actually read it?

Take your time.