FBI, the mob, and 9/11

[Pamela Brown]

The damage to the slurry wall during the first WTC bombing may have been more devastating than has been revealed. It was nearly breached by the explosion. They believed they repaired it. However, whether or not it was completely solid is open to question considering what happened at 9/11. This information is from a book called "Two Seconds Under the World."

Information about the unique construction of the WCT towers came from interviews with the architect.

This diagram shows how the floors were constructed:

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/fig3.gif

This was a lightweight, perimeter-tube design, a modular design. The elevators and stairwells were in the center of the building. When a number of those trapped in the upper floors of WTC1 realized the stairwells were not accessible they realized they were doomed and chose to jump.

Edited April 21, 2009 by Pamela McElwain-Brown

[Pamela Brown]

You may be mixing apples and oranges when you talk about 'all tall buildings' in the same category as WTF1/2. They were built in a manner different from most skyscrapers, in that their structure was based on girders in the center of each building and on load-bearing walls, leaving the rest of each floor basically open. Typical skyscrapers have steel girders at regular intervals throughout the building. Any qualified architect or engineer should specify this prior to making a statement regarding why they fell as they did.

In WTC1 the plane sheared the elevator shafts in the center of the floors it hit. This made it impossible for anyone in the floors above to descend to safety, perhaps destabilizing the building. In each building, slicing through the load-bearing walls may have created a structural trauma that contributed to the fact that they fell and the manner in which they pancaked.

Also, ironically, with WT1, the lower floors may not have been completely stabilized after the first attack in '93. The slurry wall was almost breached also at that time.

Pamela's conjectures are without any foundation whatsoever.

...sheared the elevator shafts? nonsense

...slicing through load bearing walls? nonsense

...pancaked floors? nonsense.

...slurry wall breached in '93? nonsense

Where does such disinformation originate?

Jack

Anyone with any knowledge of the WTC SLURRY WALL knows that the reason

for the wall WAS TO KEEP THE HUDSON RIVER WATER OUT OF THE BASEMENT

AND SUBWAY! It is nonsense to say the wall was breached.

Jack

You're misstating what I said. The question is whether or not the slurry wall was destabilized during the first WTC bombing in 1993.

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp...firstwtcbombing

There was concern that the explosion had been powerful enough to have been traumatic to it. Whether or not it was brought back to its original pristine state is a valid question. The idea of the slurry wall was controversial right from the start.

Edited April 21, 2009 by Pamela McElwain-Brown

[Len Colby]

You may be mixing apples and oranges when you talk about 'all tall buildings' in the same category as WTF1/2. They were built in a manner different from most skyscrapers, in that their structure was based on girders in the center of each building and on load-bearing walls, leaving the rest of each floor basically open. Typical skyscrapers have steel girders at regular intervals throughout the building. Any qualified architect or engineer should specify this prior to making a statement regarding why they fell as they did.

In WTC1 the plane sheared the elevator shafts in the center of the floors it hit. This made it impossible for anyone in the floors above to descend to safety, perhaps destabilizing the building. In each building, slicing through the load-bearing walls may have created a structural trauma that contributed to the fact that they fell and the manner in which they pancaked.

Also, ironically, with WT1, the lower floors may not have been completely stabilized after the first attack in '93. The slurry wall was almost breached also at that time.

Pamela's conjectures are without any foundation whatsoever.

...sheared the elevator shafts? nonsense

...slicing through load bearing walls? nonsense

...pancaked floors? nonsense.

...slurry wall breached in '93? nonsense

Where does such disinformation originate?

Jack

Pamela's conjectures are without any foundation whatsoever.

Once again Jack YOU are the one who is misinformed

...sheared the elevator shafts? Nonsense

There are multiple reports of elevator cables being slashed by the planes as well as of jet fuel and debris falling down the shafts.

...slicing through load bearing walls? Nonsense

This is even more obvious, no one but Jack White disputes it. The perimeter columns (walls) bore 40% of the gravity load and 100% of the wind load. Perimeter columns of both towers were breached by the incoming Boeings and outgoing debris. Even you posted images of chunks of perimeter wall that fell to street level (remember the one with the landing gear stuck in it?)

...pancaked floors? nonsense.

Technically you are right and Pamela is wrong the floors didn’t actually pancake because they didn’t remain largely intact. Hair-splitting semantics aside there was a progressive collapse in which the dynamic load of the falling mass of the upper floors overwhelmed the carrying capacity of the floors below leading to a snowball type effect of collapse wave increasing in mass and velocity on the way down.

...slurry wall breached in '93? Nonsense

This one I’m not sure about, I don’t remember hearing about this but since you are 0 and 3 against Pamela I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt, even IF you’re right she’s 3 to 1 against you, not bad.

[Evan Burton]

Wasn't there something about the retaining wall being damaged? I watched a NatGeo (or Discovery or History Channel) programme about the rebuilding - or at least clearance - of the WTC site. They mentioned having to repair part of the retaining walls, but I don't have much detail on it.

[Len Colby]

You're misstating what I said. The question is whether or not the slurry wall was destabilized during the first WTC bombing in 1993.

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp...firstwtcbombing

There was concern that the explosion had been powerful enough to have been traumatic to it. Whether or not it was brought back to its original pristine state is a valid question. The idea of the slurry wall was controversial right from the start.

Pamela,

We cross posted so I didn't see your last reply when I made mine. I think Jack is probably right about this, I didn't see anything to support your claim on the linked page from the 9/11 time line that would support your claim nor could I find any during a (brief Google search).

In any case even if true its not relevant, the Twin Towers collapsed top down and the stability of the land around them has never been theorized to have been a factor in the collapses of any of the WTC buildings.

Back to the subject of the thread. Jack, how do explain that apparently none of the handful structural engineers who support the demolition theory have experience with buildings more than 2 - 3 stories high but engineers with experience in tall buildings including Leslie Robertson who designed the WTC and whose firm was involved in the post 93 repairs and the ASCE and NIST investigation of the collapses, Hyman Brown who was the on-site construction manager support the impact dammage and fire induced collapse theory?

[Len Colby]

Firefighters for 9/11 Truth and its supporters believe that firefighters are better qualified than the general populace to evaluate the collapses of the WTC buildings. Truthers and I are rarely of one mind about anything 9/11 related but in this case I couldn’t agree more, fire fighters are uniquely qualified to judge whether the fires in those buildings were infernos as most people accept or weak as truthers allege and weather or not fire could lead to structural failure.

According to the US Fire Administration the “estimated number of [career and volunteer] firefighters [in the US] in 2007: [was] 1,148,800”. “Career firefighters included here work for a public municipal fire department; they do not include career firefighters who work for state or FEDERAL government or in private fire brigades.” Also not included are volunteers not involved in firefighting.

According to a 2007 Zogby poll sponsored by a truth.org 4.6% of “likely voters” chose MIHOP as the explanation for 9/11 they though most likely. Most firefighters are high school but not college graduates. 9.6% of H.S. graduates (with no college education) chose MIHOP. A 2006 Scripts-Howard Poll found that 16% thought MIHOP or LIHOP were “very likely” and 20% thought those theories “somewhat likely”, 6% thought it very likely the WTC was felled by controlled demolition and an addition 10% though this was “somewhat likely”. If the truthers theories had any merit to them I would expect firefighters to be more likely than the average American to believe them but even if we calculate for the same proportion 4.6% - 16% of them would believe or at least suspect the towers were brought down, that would come out to about 53000 – 18300 firefighters.

FF9/11T’s support among their colleagues however is infinitesimally small. Their petition has only 47 signatures but even that over represents their support among the firefighters counted by the USFA. Eight of the signatories classify themselves as retired or FORMER firefighters, one is a nurse another is the brother of a deceased fireman, one is Canadian, two are with the Marines which leaves us with 34. Even accepting their claims the people on the list have been verified 8 of the 34 give little or no information about themselves so only 26 – 34 would count among the 1.15 million estimated by the USFA. Thus even if all the signatories are real and none of the 34 “forgot” to say the are retired they only represent one out of 33788 to 44185 firefighters (0.002 - 0.003%) and a tin an almost equally tiny fraction of their expected support.

Notably none the signatories said they were on Ground Zero on 9/11 and only one claims to be a member or the FDNY and it isn’t clear if he believes the towers were demolished he said "There is more behind this story than the public is being told. I wasn't working that day but went to the site many times afterwards; I know many guys who have respiratory illnesses due to what happened at the WTC on 9/11. L35."

Obviously just as not every one who believes 9/11 was an “inside job” has joined a group or sighed a petition not all firefighters who believe this signed the petition but what faction is reasonable to expect? One in 10, 20, 100? Even if only 1/1000^th they believe this at rates lower than the general populace. Firefighters are people not easily intimidated they routinely risk there lives to save the lives, property and pets of strangers. More than anyone other than survivors or the next of kin of victims they have a stake in the truth being told. New York City firefighters rioted the search for human remains at GZ was called off sooner than they liked and protested about unsafe conditions at the Bankers Trust building.

So how can such low support by fire fighters for FF911T be explained, support apparently at levels lower than the population as a whole? Simple FF911T is right firefighters are better qualified than the general populace to evaluate the collapses of the WTC buildings and 99.997% of them have not signed up.

This is not of course unique to firefighters, architects and engineers especially structural engineers, pilots and the people who were in the WTC that morning are also better qualified than others to reach an informed conclusion but the factions of those groups to publicly support the truth movement are in one out of tens of thousands range. Pilots for 9/11 Truth for example lists about 54 US pilots as being members, many are military pilots who don’t need FAA licenses for they jobs (but do if they want to fly civilian aircraft), but in 2006 there were 610,000 pilots licensed by the FAA.

Sources

1] USFA Firefigthers statistics - http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/statistics/firefighters/index.shtm, the CDC and BLS, two other government agencies, came up with similar numbers. (See sources 2 & 4)

2] CDC firefighter statistics - http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5516a3.htm

3] 2007 Zogby poll - http://www.911truth.org/images/ZogbyPoll2007.pdf page 5

4] Firefighters education - http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos158.htm#training

5] 2006 Scripps –Howard poll - http://newspolls.org/question.php?question_id=714

6] FF9/11Truth petition - http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?page_id=469

7] Pf9/11T membership - http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core

8] 2006 testimony of FAA administrator - http://www.faa.gov/news/testimony/news_story.cfm?newsId=7140

[Evan Burton]

When I did the calcs on the Pilots for Truth group, I came up with a figure of less than 0.05% (IIRC). I used figures based on all PfT members who claimed they were pilots (from student to retired, whether in the US or not, giving the largest number possible), and compared them to only active FAA pilots who held an ATPL (giving a minimum number). It demonstrates that their opinions are of a very small minority who do not represent the vast majority of professional pilots.

[Evan Burton]

No Peter. If the MAJORITY of a profession (pilots, engineers, etc) agreed with a LIHOP / MIHOP scenario, you'd be crowing about it from the treetops. Do you deny that? There are only a small number of "truthers" because they are a fringe element.

The facts are that when you have people claiming thermite brought down the WTC, that the WTC were brought down by demolition, that no aircraft flew into the Pentagon, etc, the overwhelming majority of professionals in those relevant fields DISAGREE with those theories. Why haven't genuine professional organisations come forward, agreeing with these theories? Why do they not at least offer some type of endorsement to the 9-11 groups?

Because they DISAGREE with them and consider them WRONG.

[Len Colby]

What a rediculous thread and absurd logic. Activists working for the truth are small. The number of JFK researchers seeking the truth is small. The number of those who worked to expose Iran-Contra was small. The number of people who exposed the Big Tobacco Conspiracy were small. Those that work for Peace and Justice, Prison reform, Indiginous Rights, Workers Rights, rolling back repression and injustice - whatever you want to think of - are small in number. ETC.!

Those that are willing to fight against the dominant culture, the power elites, the lethargy of the sheeple and the inertia of society to make positive social change and are willing to endanger their careers and sometimes their lives by going against and exposing the crimes, lies etc. of the dominant powers/oligarchy and their mythologies of control are always small. How many stood up to the looming Nazi menace before it fully took control? - few. How many dare to stand-up and be whistleblowers - very few. Most just don't look up nor stand up - but go along to get along - afraid of the consequences or too long on their knees to know how to stand up anymore. How many take social or political action? Usually very few. How many soldiers who saw or participated in atrocities and war crimes joined the Winter Soldiers to testify about the crimes - very few. Karen Silkwood tries to expose Kerr-McGee - dead....and so many others have lost jobs and lives for trying the same. From the White Rose to today. Ward Churchill and other professors have lost their jobs just speaking truth to power about 911, generally. It is dangerous and you and persons like you are trying to raise the bar of the danger and sow confusion with illogical arguements, staw-dogs and red-herrings.

This line of insane reasoning you posit means nothing. You are grasping at straws in your endless attempt to fulfill your mission of attacking anyone and anything related to the truth of 911.

Truth is truth if only one person stands up for it. Did you ever stand up for the truth anywhere or participate in any positive social action? I'd doubt it and now you only engage in negative social action IMO - fighting for the Olligarchy and their lies to control us; blind us; oppress us; confuse us; divide us; disempower us. Shame on you and people like you. When you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. -Margaret Mead

For all their crowing about the evil NOW members of the truth movement have suffered very few negative repercussions due to their activism. Cases of them dying fired or otherwise harassed are rare. Jim Hoffman said he has been harassed by rival truthers more than by debunkers.

Perhaps the rest or the world has to be more afraid of truthers than vice-versa recently one killed his dad in Colorado and another shot three cops to dead in Pittsburg, another said he was glad his ex-wife died in a car accident and threatened to kill or blind Mark Roberts (a debunker), Chris Bollyn was convicted of assaulting some cops and is now a fugitive from justice, another truther was arrested for attacking a girl in a wheelchair, Kevin Barrett beat his son and has called for those who disagree with him to be executed, when some truthers called for TV stations to be taken over Fetzer called for a military coup.

It’s ironic that Peter mentioned Ward Churchill because their views on 9/11 do not in any way correspond. Churchill like Chomsky, Said, Cockburn and Ron Paul etc has said the US was attacked due to its Middle East policy, i.e. it WAS attacked by radical Muslims, OBL said the same thing. In Churchill’s controversial essay which Peter described as “truth to power” he classified the attacks as “the justice of roosting chickens” and the WTC workers “little Eichmanns”. He opined that “That they waited so long to do so is, notwithstanding the 1993 action at the WTC, more than anything a testament to their patience and restraint.”

http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill.html

The apologist for mass murder was not fired for his horrid worldview but for academic fraud which several faculty committees agreed either unanimously or overwhelmingly he had committed. He doesn’t even deny he made “mistakes” but has proven himself to be repeatedly dishonest even about stuff as basic as his ethnic background (falsely claiming to be Native American).

Other cases are few and far between. In 2006 a student member of Scholars for Truth was shot to death in Minneapolis but as even Fetzer said it seems to have been nothing more than a mugging gone bad. Barry Jennings died a few months ago but he had several risk factors for cardiovascular disease, he was quite overweight, African American, had presumably breathed in quite a bit of WTC dust and a few days after the attacks reported to be suffering from PTSD and taking sleeping pills.

Jones was forced to retire from BYU but he did so with a full salary pension, still has an office on campus and pages on the university’s website. Officially he was retired because he made statements that were perceived as anti-Semitic. Other truthers, including 2 of the Harritt paper co-authors, remain on BYU’s faculty. BYU is fairly unique in that it doesn’t offer tenure

Judy Woods was denied tenure at Clemson but there is no evidence it was due to her ‘activism’ profs being denied tenure is not uncommon, at some schools/departments it’s more the rule than the exception. AFAIK she has never this was why she was denied tenure. That said if I were on the faculty committee and read her rambling essays about how the 90% air WTC towers should have collapsed like trees I would have voted her down.

Kevin Barrett claims he was fired but the truth is when local politicians called for his dismissal the school stood by him. After teaching one class for one semester he took a semester off and was not rehired, academic jobs especially in fields like Islamic mythology are not easy to come by.

Kevin Ryan was fired but only after he used company stationary to falsely claim others at UL backed his position.

On the other hand you have thousands of members of groups like pilots, architects and engineers, scholars fire fighters etc etc etc for 9/11 truth who are alive and well and still employed.

Polls show that about 5 – 6 % of the population believe 9/11 was “an inside job” and another 10% suspect this. If there were truth to such theories a majority of people with applicable specialized knowledge, pilots, firefighters, engineers and people who were there should believe this (or at least be more likely to that the general populace) and more likely to speak up but the numbers show that one in 10 – 100 thousand do so, I’m not talking about becoming an activist but simply signing a petition or otherwise making their views public. If one goes to forums for these professions one sees that they overwhelmingly oppose such theories. The truthers on these forums normally have very low post counts and don’t seem to actually be pilots etc.

See for example the thread linked below for firefighters and the thread from the structural engineers’ forum I posted on the “QUALIFIED Engineers” thread.

The number of firefighters on this thread alone who attack FF911T rivals that group’s membership:

http://forums.firehouse.com/showthread.php?t=107457

Peter I won't say where you live but it is home to two or more well respected university engineering departments and obviously has a fire department. Why don't you ask the people who work at them and perhaps some pilots what they think and get back to us?

[Jack White]

On 911, few noticed any loud noise of a jetliner flying low overhead Manhattan.

But a military photo-op points out the OBVIOUS, according to Morgan Reynolds:

..............from Morgan Reynolds

Panic in lower Manhattan: few missed hearing and many saw this 747 jetliner fly over/near event yesterday in lower Manhattan, despite the Air Force One Boeing backup flying at far lower speeds than the alleged kamikaze 767 wide-body jetliners on 9/11.

Makes a man wonder why so few witnesses claimed that they saw or heard jetliners in lower Manhattan on 9/11 despite far higher speeds claimed, at lower altitudes with ear-splitting, window-rattling noise from full-throttle engines? Don’t the data from this event put the defenders of 9/11 airplane orthodoxy in a new bind? The NIST/media 9/11 airplane crash fraud is once again exposed as a naked lie.

Air Force One Low Flyover Causes Panic In Lower Manhattan

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com

Posted by JacobSloan 16 hours ago

The New York Times reports:

An Air Force One lookalike flew low over parts of [lower Manhattan] on Monday morning, accompanied by two F-16 fighters, so Air Force photographers could take pictures.

But the exercise — conducted without any notification to the public — caused momentary panic in some quarters and led to the evacuation of several buildings in Lower Manhattan and Jersey City. By the afternoon, the situation had turned into a political fuse box, with Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg saying that he was “furious” that he had not been told in advance about the flyover. When President Obama learned of the episode on Monday afternoon, aides said, he, too, was furious.

[At 1 Liberty Plaza] Johnny Villafane, 42, said, “The plane did a 360. There was a vibration. The glass in the skyscrapers was shivering.” He added, “It sounded like the building were cracking, everything started shaking. I thought the plane was coming down.”

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/...new-york-nerve/

[Len Colby]

On 911, few noticed any loud noise of a jetliner flying low overhead Manhattan.

But a military photo-op points out the OBVIOUS, according to Morgan Reynolds:

..............from Morgan Reynolds

Panic in lower Manhattan: few missed hearing and many saw this 747 jetliner fly over/near event yesterday in lower Manhattan, despite the Air Force One Boeing backup flying at far lower speeds than the alleged kamikaze 767 wide-body jetliners on 9/11.

Makes a man wonder why so few witnesses claimed that they saw or heard jetliners in lower Manhattan on 9/11 despite far higher speeds claimed, at lower altitudes with ear-splitting, window-rattling noise from full-throttle engines? Don't the data from this event put the defenders of 9/11 airplane orthodoxy in a new bind? The NIST/media 9/11 airplane crash fraud is once again exposed as a naked lie.

Air Force One Low Flyover Causes Panic In Lower Manhattan

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com

Posted by JacobSloan 16 hours ago

The New York Times reports:

An Air Force One lookalike flew low over parts of [lower Manhattan] on Monday morning, accompanied by two F-16 fighters, so Air Force photographers could take pictures.

But the exercise — conducted without any notification to the public — caused momentary panic in some quarters and led to the evacuation of several buildings in Lower Manhattan and Jersey City. By the afternoon, the situation had turned into a political fuse box, with Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg saying that he was "furious" that he had not been told in advance about the flyover. When President Obama learned of the episode on Monday afternoon, aides said, he, too, was furious.

[At 1 Liberty Plaza] Johnny Villafane, 42, said, "The plane did a 360. There was a vibration. The glass in the skyscrapers was shivering." He added, "It sounded like the building were cracking, everything started shaking. I thought the plane was coming down."

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/...new-york-nerve/

We've been over this before Jack several witnesses commented on the noise made by the 767's.

Since they have 2 engines they would presumablly make less noise than the heavier 4 engine 747. 175 the faster of the two flew high over NJ and only started to dive towards the end. Diving naturaly increases airspeed and the last couple of miles were over the Hudson.

[William Kelly]

Questioning 9/11 in Japan's Parliament - Can Obama Change the USA?

Yumi Kituchi, David Ray Griffin and Akira Dojimaru.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Major-9-1...-090425-34.html

Spectacular Support for Yukihisa Fujita (April 2009)

http://www.911video.de/news/fujita/fu-en.htm

>

Yukihisa Fujita, a member of the Upper House of the Japanese Parliament has recently published a book titled:

"Questioning 9/11 in Japan's Parliament - Can Obama Change the USA?"

Co-authors are David Ray Griffin, Yumi Kikuchi and Akira Dojimaru.

Councilor Fujita is a current member and former director of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defense. In this function he questioned 9/11 three times in parliament. Fujita claims that 9/11 as the main reason for the "War on Terror" needs to be newly investigated in order to find peaceful solutions.

[Guest Tom Scully]

.....If you are of the establishment persuasion (and I am), reading Krugman makes you uneasy. You hope he's wrong, and you sense he's being a little harsh....

....By definition, establishments believe in propping up the existing order. Members of the ruling class have a vested interest in keeping things pretty much the way they are. Safeguarding the status quo, protecting traditional institutions, can be healthy and useful, stabilizing and reassuring.

Reporter Evan Thomas -Newsweek March 28, 2009

Here is Evan Thomas's boss at Newsweek, this week:

.....Nor, I think, do we want to open criminal investigations into those who participated in brutal interrogation methods. And to pursue criminal charges against officials at the highest levels—including the former president and the former vice president—would set a terrible precedent. ....

....That is not to say presidents and vice presidents are always above the law; there could be instances in which such a prosecution is appropriate, but based on what we know, this is not such a case....

The only "journalists" in the US who are not merely "stenographers", shilling for your predictable and reflexive points

of view.....work here:

McClatchy Washington bureau shines as bright example for online ...

I spoke with McClatchy Washington Bureau Web editor Jim Van Nostrand by phone this ... the whole truth-to-power stuff – aligns very well with McClatchy's ...

http://www.ojr.org/ojr/people/robert/200806/1513/

McClatchy rolls out site redesign with new motto: "Speaking Truth to Power"

Wed, 06/20/2007 - 3:15pm

http://www.correntewire.com/mcclatchy_roll..._truth_to_power

Len, Evan....

We can keep 'em comin' quicker than you can attempt to 'splain 'em all, away !

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...iew=getlastpost

They don't get involved because their priority is to "put food on their families".....here is the fate of a famous muckraker:

By Matt Potter | Published Wednesday, Feb. 27, 2008

http://backissues.cjrarchives.org/year/92/5/sinclair.asp

...RIGHT BACK WHERE WE STARTED FROM

by Curt Gentry

Gentry is a former journalist and the author of thirteen books, including The Last Days of the Late, Great State of California and J. Edgar Hoover: The Man and the Secrets.

Upton Sinclair's surprise victory in the California Democratic primary of 1934 frightened the California business establishment -- and the California press lords -- as did nothing before or after.

....., his EPIC (End Poverty in California) plan drew a huge grass-roots following. Sinclair advocated having idle factories turned into cooperatives and manned by the unemployed; public ownership of utilities; special taxes on large land holdings; and -- the clincher that brought Standard Oil of California, banks, insurance companies, realtors, and the major movie studios into the fray -- a state income tax on corporations.

The campaign that followed has been described by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., as "the first all-out public relations blitzkrieg in American politics." Realizing that too much depended on the outcome of the election to entrust it to the state's feeble Republican party, business and industry leaders banded together and hired outside help....

.....Late in the campaign, The New York Times sent Turner Catledge out to report on the strange goings-on in California. Scanning the Los Angeles Times, he saw stories on Governor Merriam's every appearance, but no mention of EPIC rallies or speaking engagements by candidate Sinclair. At dinner that night he queried the paper's political editor, Kyle Palmer. "Turner, forget it," Palmer replied. "We don't go in for that kind of crap that you have back in New York -- of being obliged to print both sides. We're going to beat this son-of-a-bitch Sinclair any way we can. We're going to kill him." ....

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...aordinaire.aspx

Jonathan Kay: An evening in Montreal with Richard Gage, 9/11 Truth Movement prophet extraordinaire

Posted: April 23, 2009, 10:53 PM by Jonathan Kay

Jonathan Kay

Three years ago, Richard Gage says, he was just a run-of-the mill architect, designing steel-frame buildings for clients in the San Francisco area. In March, 2006, that changed: While flipping through stations on his car radio, he caught an interview with David Ray Griffin, a retired philosophy and religion professor who calls the official account of the 9/11 attacks "one big lie."

Beginning that day, Gage became skeptical of the idea that "people living in Afghan caves" could possibly have brought down the World Trade Center. Spreading this skeptical point of view is now the man's full-time job.....

.....Last Saturday, I went to see Gage speak at a Montreal event hosted by the Mouvement montréalais pour la vérité sur le 11 septembre, along with about 150 others (not a bad crowd, given the 10$ cover charge, and the fact it was a hockey night).

As part of my research for a book I'm writing on the Truther movement, I've gone to see a variety of events like this — but none of the speakers I've seen are as lucid as Gage......

....On the other hand, I protested, at least I’d shown up in the first place — the only working mainstream journalist (to my knowledge) in the room.

I'd hoped this would count for something: One of the Truthers’ biggest complaints is that they are ignored by the mainstream media. You do sometimes see stray mentions of the movement in op-ed columns or on radio programs, but usually it's in the spirit of mockery or passing sarcasm. No major media outlet has done a truly comprehensive profile or investigation of the Truther movement — which is what led me to my book project in the first place.

Even if you are — like me — part of the majority that believes the "official theory" of 9/11, it's a mistake to ignore a movement as large and passionately championed as this one.....

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/amrarticle.html

Could Barbara Olson Have Made Those Calls?

An Analysis of New Evidence about Onboard Phones

David Ray Griffin and Rob Balsamo

......That conclusion is, in any case, starkly contradicted by evidence about phone calls from Flight 77 presented by the US government at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui in 2006.28 Far from attributing all four of the “connected calls to unknown numbers” to Barbara Olson, as the 9/11 Commission suggested, the government’s evidence here attributes none of them to her, saying instead that each of them was from an “unknown caller.” The only call attributed to Barbara Olson, moreover, is an “unconnected call” to the Department of Justice, which was said to have been attempted at “9:18:58” and to have lasted “0 seconds.” According to the US government in 2006, in other words, Barbara Olson attempted a call to the DOJ, but it did not go through.29 The government itself has presented evidence in a court of law, therefore, that implies that unless its former solicitor general was the victim of two faked phone calls, he was lying.....

The government does not make it easy, but if you download and extract the zip file with the "evidence" presented in federal criminal court, you can verify that there is no proof of Barbara Olson's "four calls" on 9/11

28 United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui, Exhibit Number P200054 ( http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/...rosecution.html ). If unable to download this document, see “Detailed Account of Phone Calls From September 11th Flights” ( http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidenc...etail.html#ref1 ).

But the news media has not reported any of this.......

Edited April 29, 2009 by Tom Scully

[Jack White]

FAA Memo: Feds Knew NYC Flyover Would Cause Panic --Threatened Federal Sanctions Against NYPD, Secret Service, FBI and Mayor's Office If Secret Ever Got Out[Wow, that's some 'photo op!'] 28 Apr 2009 A furious President Barack Obama ordered an internal review of Monday's low-flying photo op over the Statue of Liberty. CBS 2 HD has discovered the feds will have plenty to question. Federal officials knew that sending two fighter jets and Air Force One to buzz ground zero and Lady Liberty might set off nightmarish fears of a 9/11 replay, but they still ordered the photo-op kept secret from the public. In a memo obtained by CBS 2 HD the Federal Aviation Administration's James Johnston said the agency was aware of "the possibility of public concern regarding DoD (Department of Defense) aircraft flying at low altitudes" in an around New York City. But they demanded total secrecy from the NYPD, the Secret Service, the FBI and even the mayor's office and threatened federal sanctions if the secret got out.

[Len Colby]

Tom

I replied to all the parts of your post that were relevant to the topic of this thread i.e. support (or more acccuratelly the lack there of) of the "Truth" movement's claims by people with relevant expertise -

Before making lengthy post you should be sure it is relevant to the thread.

The reason for the MSM not reporting what was in your post is that its crap.

Gage as he admits was a "run-of-the mill architect" his CV confirms this most of the fast-food joints and school buildings he designed were signle story affairs, he did a hand full of 2 story buildings and was "project director" of a complex with a single 3-story building. But even in those cases a strucural engineer rather than Gage himself would have been responsible for designing the steel frames (if any) of those structures. The overwhelming consensus of qualified engineers is that the towers collapsed due impact and fire dammmage and that 7 WTC collapsed due to fire dammage and its unconvetional architecture.