The end of IMAGE INTEGRITY

[Bill Miller]

I could and would give evidence that supports my position, but......

I will not do so because I want people to do their own nosing around.

I believe that in doing so they will be able to appreciate the many questionable, and some downright

illegal, actions taken by our govt. before, during and after this event happened.

Interesting .... an Education Forum member who does not wish to teach anyone ... let them figure it out on their own ...HOW IRONIC!

Bill Miller

[Shanet Clark]

Thanks Jack, real time photoshop means even "live" feeds will be forever suspect,

and believe me, the thought police down at the agencies have a lot more expertise than you and I,

capiche.....?

f.o.b.

atlanta

[Brendan Slattery]

Yes, Jack, he's talking about you.

Conspiracy theories sully memories of 9/11 victims

JAMES BENNETT

GUEST COLUMNIST

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER

With the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks fast approaching, the media coverage of 9/11 conspiracy theories is intensifying. While once this was solely the subject of Web sites and Internet forums, the topic has recently been covered in diverse media outlets such as The New York Times, Fox News and the Seattle P-I.

Although the coverage may address some of the views held by the conspiracy theorists, and occasionally even delve into the forensic evidence, one thing they have rarely discussed is, "Who are these people, and how do they come up with conclusions that are completely opposite of those of most people?"

These are questions I have been addressing on my blog for several months now, and after reviewing dozens of hours of video and audio clips, and reading countless Web sites, forums and books, I have had some interesting discoveries.

Most striking of all is the connection that those theories have with others. While the people proposing them may vary greatly in age, politics and education, they almost invariably are conspiracy theorists by nature. In addition to believing the World Trade Centers were demolished by the "New World Order," they also push theories that man did not walk on the moon, Minnesota Sen. Paul Wellstone was assassinated by the Bush administration, the Srebrenica massacre and even the Holocaust never happened.

In fact, the overlap with anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial is quite unsettling. A frequent source for their claims is the American Free Press, a fringe newspaper founded by Willis Carto, a man called "one of the most influential American anti-Semitic propagandists" by the Anti-Defamation League, and considered a founder of the Holocaust denial movement. Even such notable figures as Professor Jim Fetzer, co-founder of the group "Scholars for 9/11 Truth," do not shy from citing it, as if it were as credible as The New York Times.

As to how they believe what they do, one of the first things you notice while following them is a fervent, almost religious level of belief. Through this zeal, and through a selective use of evidence, they are convinced as to the truth of their claims, no matter the evidence to the contrary. One good example of this is the repeated claim that the 9/11 hijackers appear on none of the flight manifests. That myth was started by looking at a list of victims of the attacks posted on CNN's Web site and noting the terrorists' absence. Terrorists who commit suicide attacks, however, are by definition not "victims" of their attack, so there is no reason to believe they would be listed. That fact has been pointed out to them by numerous people, on countless occasions, but yet they persist in their belief. It continues even though the 9/11 Commission report, the news media and, most recently, the evidence presented at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui have all cited the hijackers on the flight manifests, even listing their seat numbers.

As the anniversary of these tragic events approaches, many will remember the victims, and many a tear will be shed for them. But a significant group of people wants to hijack their memories and falsify their history for their own motivations. It is the responsibility of this nation, its people and its media to insist that the truth be told, and their memories not be sullied.

[Len Colby]

I could and would give evidence that supports my position, but......

I will not do so because I want people to do their own nosing around.

I believe that in doing so they will be able to appreciate the many questionable, and some downright illegal, actions taken by our govt. before, during and after this event happened.

As far as changing your point of view with any "evidence"? A waste of time.

Sounds like a cop out to me. Perhaps you could change my point of view with valid evidence that stands up to scrutiny.

If God him/herself were to drop by and whisper "it was an inside job" in your ear you'd tell him to go to hell.

Well since I'm an atheist I don't think that is a likely scenario and if I heard a voice that told me it was God I'd be quite suspicious of anything it told me. This is really a meaningless comment, I'd could say the same thing in reverse for you and it would be just as meaningless.

Apparently former Iranian President Mohammed Khatami thinks bin Laden did it and so does Carlos the Jackal. I guess they're either a) sheeple or "in on it"

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/09/10/harvard.k...i.ap/index.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,62713,00.html

The evening news just had a piece on 9/11.

They reported that a recent poll they conducted show that 42% of Americans believe that our govt. covered up evidence about 9/11.

That was a rather vague question, even I think the 9/11 Commission gave political cover to:

- The failings of the Bush and (to a lesser degree) Clinton administrations, the military, FAA, intelligence services etc.

- The degree to which the US's support of Israel was a motive for the attacks.

- How the PANYNJ failure to comply with NYC building codes might have been a factor in the collapses.

-The cover-up of the level of pollution in lower Manhattan by federal, state and city authorities.

So I might have voted yes. Interestingly the lower a respondent's educational level the MORE likely they were to say yes.

http://www.911truth.org/images/911TruthZog...FinalReport.htm

This poll was commissioned by the "truth" movement and seems designed to get as many yes responses as possible. In neither poll they sponsored did they ask people if they though the government was directly responsible for the attacks. The Scripts-Howard News Service did and got the following results:

They asked people if they thought "People in the federal government either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted to United States to go to war in the Middle East."

And got the following results:

"Very likely 16%

Somewhat (sic) likely 20%

Not likely 59%

Don't know 5%"

http://newspolls.org/question.php?question_id=716

"The collapse if [sic] the twin towers in New York was aided by explosives secretly planted in the two buildings.

Very likely 6%

Somewhat likely 10%

Unlikely 77%

Don't know 6%

Other response 1%"

http://newspolls.org/question.php?question_id=718

"The Pentagon was not struck by an airliner captured by terrorists but, instead was hit by a cruise missile fired by the U.S. military.

Very likely 6%

Somewhat likely 6%

Not likely 80%

Don't know 7%

Other response 1%"

I might even have said it was "some what likely" that "people in the federal government… took no action to stop the (9/11) attacks because they wanted to United States to go to war in the Middle East." Only a small portion of the US believes what you do about 9/11. A much higher number believe in UFOs and that Iraq was involved in 9/11. Seven percent of the population believes that "Elvis is still alive" http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/08/11/...ain518294.shtml

[Brian Smith]

As the anniversary of these tragic events approaches, many will remember the victims, and many a tear will be shed for them. But a significant group of people wants to hijack their memories and falsify their history for their own motivations. It is the responsibility of this nation, its people and its media to insist that the truth be told, and their memories not be sullied.

This administration's apologists use the memories of the 911 victims, in the same way they use the troops: as a form of emotional blackmail. If you don't support the "war on terror" you are disrespecting our brave young men and women who have sacrificed so much for our freedom. Forget the fact that a corrupt administration sent them into that meat grinder on a totally fabricated scare story. In the same vein, they say you are disrespecting the victims of the 911 attack and their families if you simply ask a few common sense questions like - "What caused the explosion in the sub-basements of the north tower seconds before the impact of flight AA 11?" The official explanation is that burning jet fuel poured down the elevator shafts and caused the explosion, but how could that be the case, when only one elevator had passage from the ground floor to a level at and above the impact zone? There were a dozen other elevators that went up to the level of the 78th floor, but the impact zone was at the 90th floor. Witnesses also reported that the elevator doors were blown out from the bottom up, as if the explosion came racing up the elevator shafts, not down. These are questions that cannot be satisfactorily answered by the supporters of the official 911 myth, so they resort to dishonest tactics like smearing critics of the official story as hijacking the memories of the victims for their own motives. Pardon me for pointing this out, but isn't that exactly what the war party currently running the country, and it's cheerleaders, are doing each and every time they summon the memories of those killed on 911, as a form of emotional blackmail, intended to forbid any criticism of the administrations policies? Maybe that is why Bush said he wanted to be a war time President before he was installed in the White House. Just get the country in a war, and anyone who dares criticize your policies will be immediately labeled an unpatriotic appeaser of the enemy. Just like Hermann Goering said, tell the people they are under attack from a foreign enemy, and they will be forced to either go along with your agenda, or be labelled as an enemy of the country. How convenient for those who seek to rule with an iron hand.

This is a recent study of the seismic evidence from the Scholars for 911 Truth web site. The points raised in it will not be suppressed by any amount of name calling or similar smear tactics. If it's claims are untrue, then they must be countered with facts to the contrary, not the lame tripe we are getting from the defenders of the faith who regard the official story as some kind of quasi religious article of faith.

Seismic Proof – 9/11 Was An Inside Job (Updated Version II)

by Craig T. Furlong & Gordon Ross (Member, Scholars for 9/11 Truth)

There is an appointed time for everything

And there is a time for every event under heaven

Ecclesiastes 3:1

SUMMARY

On September 11, 2001, the seismic stations grouped around New York City recorded seismic events from the WTC site, two of which occurred immediately prior to the aircraft impacts upon the Twin Towers. Because these seismic events preceded the collisions, it is clear they were not associated with the impacts and must therefore be associated with some other occurrence. None of the authorities charged with the responsibility for the investigation of the events of 9/11 have proposed a source for these seismic events, nor have they given a valid reason for the difference in times between the seismic events and the aircraft impacts. Only by consideration of the evidence of basement explosions before the aircraft impacts, as experienced by William Rodriquez and 36 others, can an explanation be found for the fact that the seismic stations recorded seismic events originating from the WTC sites prior to the aircraft impacts. It seems unlikely that Middle Eastern terrorists could have overcome the WTC security and managed this kind of high-level, technological coordination. Do the facts presented here, simple and few, raise the possibility of inside involvement in 9/11/01, both before and after the attack?

OVERVIEW

This paper is primarily concerned with the factual data surrounding the exact impact times of the two aircraft that hit WTC1 and WTC2. This is neither theory nor hypothesis, but a statement of publicized facts regarding the timing of the aircraft impacts. There exist two separate precision data time sets that address when the aircraft crashed into the Towers. Both data time sets are based on UTC (Coordinated Universal Time, the world’s atomic clock system) and the sources that determined these times were prestigious, reliable and credible. There is no question regarding the precision and accuracy of the instruments used to record both data time sets, since their entire function depends and relies upon temporal accuracy, and therefore there can be no doubt that both data time sets are correct.  The time data sets represent objective scientific data recorded by two separate, independent entities.

 

The problem is the data sets have different impact times.

 

These times were given out years ago but at different times. Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University (LDEO) gave its findings around the time of the event with what it thought were impact times based upon the seismic data recorded, while the 9/11 Commission published its impact times, based upon FAA radar data and air traffic control software logic, years later in its Final Report. The Commission no longer exists.

 

Original seismic and Commission times.

Table 1

AA Flt 11

2001 LDEO 8:46:26 Original seismic

2004 Commission 8:46:40 (14 seconds difference)

UA Flt 175

2001 LDEO 9:02:54 Original seismic

2004 Commission 9:03:11 (17 seconds difference)

SEISMIC DATA AND TIMES

LDEO Published Findings 2001

Link: http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_wtc.html

LDEO confirmed its data as accurate:

Link: http://www.mgs.md.gov/esic/publications/do...911pentagon.pdf

 

9/11 COMMISSION DATA AND TIMES

Commission Timeline Link: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/index.html

The Commission’s times are based upon: "We have determined that the impact time was 9:03:11 based on our analysis of FAA radar data and air traffic control software logic." [9/11 Commission Report, pg 460, Note 130]:

Link: http://www.insightful.com/infact/911/corpu...rt_470_460.html

(Note 130 is the basis for WTC1 & WTC2 precision impact times to the second)

It is known that the FAA followed the aircraft using the four northeast ARTCCs (Air Route Traffic Control Centers) of Boston, New York, Washington DC, and Cleveland; there was also Air Traffic Control for the local air space of New York City. All of this radar and accompanying Air Traffic Control data was recorded to UTC timestamping. These stations utilized primary radar return tracking with all times to the second. Also, an Air Traffic Controller replied to this investigation stating that a time-check is done daily by all stations to make sure that all radar tracking is precisely coordinated to UTC. Radar is based upon microwaves that travel at the speed of light, so error variance is not stated. The Commission Report has the impact times. Their data set is based upon actual flight data that ended when the Towers were struck. There is no question: AA Flight 11 died at 8:46:40 and UA Flight 175 at 9:03:11 [uTC – 4 hrs]. Since the planes crashed at those times, the question is: What caused the LDEO times 14 and 17 seconds earlier? What caused those seismic spikes?

BASEMENT EXPLOSIONS

On the face, it seems tenuous that the spikes were "impact times". How does an aircraft impacting the WTC near the 90th floor result in sufficient energy transference that travels all the way down to the earth, even through the massive multi-level, 6-story sub-basement structure, and be picked up by LDEO as a seismic spike? Energy from the crash should have mostly been absorbed by the building’s immense structure and mass.

The following is an excerpt about an eyewitness at WTC1 by the name of William Rodriguez (he worked at the WTC complex for 20 years, was acknowledged a hero for the many lives he saved that day, and he was the last person out of the building before it came down):

Link: http://www.newswithviews.com/Spingola/deanna17.htm

-------

Arriving at 8:30 on the morning of 9-11 he went to the maintenance office located on the first sublevel, one of six sub-basements beneath ground level. There were a total of fourteen people in the office at that same time. As he was discussing the day’s tasks with others, there was a very loud massive explosion which seemed to emanate from between sub-basement B2 and B3. There were an additional twenty-two people on B2 sub-basement who also felt and heard that first explosion.

At first he thought it was a generator that had exploded. But the cement walls in the office cracked from the explosion. "When I heard the sound of the explosion, the floor beneath my feet vibrated, the walls started cracking and everything started shaking." said Rodriguez, who was crowded together with fourteen other people in the office including Anthony Saltamachia, his supervisor for the American Building Maintenance Company.

Just seconds later there was another explosion way above which made the building oscillate momentarily. This, he was later told, was a plane hitting the Tower at about the 90th floor. Upon hearing about the plane, he immediately thought of the people up in the restaurant. Then there were other explosions just above B1 and individuals started heading for the loading dock to escape the explosion’s resulting rampant fire. When asked later about those first explosions he said: "I would know if an explosion was from the bottom or the top of the building." He heard explosions both before and after the plane hit the Tower.

-------

The number of witnesses who presented evidence of explosion and explosion damage, and particularly the injuries that some witnesses received, again leaves no room for doubt that there were explosions in the basement of WTC1. The following video link is powerful testimony by William Rodriguez and is evidence that corroborates the facts of this paper; also, these facts corroborate the 37 eyewitnesses in the WTC1 basement: Link: http://www.jonhs.net/911/william_rodriguez.htm

BASEMENT AND LOBBY DAMAGE

It is noted that the damage caused by these explosions had previously been attributed to aircraft impact. However, refutation of this is provided by both the testimonies of William Rodriguez in the above link, and by NYFD Lieutenant William Walsh in the below link. This concerns specifically the middle, local elevators that were blown off their hinges from below, as evidenced by the doors resting outward at 45 degree angles that met in the middle near the bottom. These local elevators serviced only Floors 34 down to the lowest level of the building, Level B6 in the basement. They could not have been the result of aircraft impact:

Link: Testimony, Lt. William Walsh NYFD, Jan 11, 2002.pdf

WTC Building Layout Link: World Trade Center Building Layout, Floors and Elevators

----------------------------

Lt. Walsh- Answer: What else I observed in the lobby was that – there’s basically two areas of elevators. There’s elevators off to the left-hand side which are really the express elevators. That would be the elevators that’s facing north. Then on the right-hand side there’s also elevators that are express elevators, and that would be facing south. In the center of these two elevator shafts would be elevators that go to the lower floors. They were blown off the hinges. That’s where the service elevator was also.

Chief Congiusta- Question: Were these elevators that went to the upper floors? They weren’t side lobby elevators?

Answer: No, no, I’d say that they went through floors 30 and below.

Question: And they were blown off?

Answer: They were blown off the hinges, and you could see the shafts. The elevators on the extreme north side and the other express elevator on the extreme south side, they looked intact to me from what I could see, the doors anyway…….

…….So I headed for the B stairway. I did not want to deal with elevators. So Ladder 1—

Question: Were there any elevators working or no? Probably no, I assume.

Answer: I couldn’t tell about the express elevators. The elevators that I mentioned before that were on the extreme north end and the extreme south end, I don’t know about those elevators. But I headed for where the service elevator was, which was in the center where the lower floor elevators were, the ones where the doors were blown off them.

----------------------------

Lieutenant Walsh makes an extremely relevant point when he shows that the local elevator shafts acted as a conduit for the explosive effects and thereby limits the source of the explosion to the area covered by those shafts. His evidence shows that the elevator shafts affected by the explosions served only the lower floors and not those at the impact levels, thereby ruling out jet fuel from the aircraft as being involved in the explosions.

Additional corroboration of the elevators being blown out is provided by Lt. Brian Becker & Firefighter Robert Byrne, NYFD: Link: Lt. Brian Becker, NYFD, Elevators Were Blown Out

Link: Firefighter Robert Byrne, NYFD: Core Elevators (Blown Apart)

Since only one elevator shaft was continuous from the aircraft impact level to the basement level, we can further rule out the aircraft impact as being the cause of the basement explosions by using additional testimony of William Rodriguez. In direct response to a question which postulated that the explosion was caused by aircraft fuel traveling down the elevator shafts, he stated, "Very strange indeed, since there were only one elevator shaft (the 50A car) that went all the way to B6, the operator was inside, Mr. Griffith and he survived with a broken ankles. He should have died burnt since on this theory the ball of fire went down. He is alive and well and I will interview him in the future to clear the disinformation."

Link: William Rodriguez | 08.18.06 - 12:20 am

When talking about the lobby damage and his experiences, Rodriguez added, "I said many times that when I got back to the basement after escorting a person totally burnt and 14 people from my office out of the building, there were sprinklers going off on the basement and not on the upper floors. Also when I got to the lobby, the passenger elevators in the field of view, their doors were popped open sideways like a pyramid, from the bottom up."

The evidence of William Walsh and William Rodriguez shows that there were explosions that affected the basement and lobby levels, and these were not caused by the jet fuel.

TIME DELAY FROM BASEMENT EXPLOSIONS TO AIRCRAFT IMPACT

The authors have located evidence that possibly shows how long the time was between the initial explosion and the later impact of AA Flt 11 at WTC1. Jenny Carr was at a business meeting with others on the morning of 9/11 at 1 Liberty Plaza, and a recording was being made of that meeting. During this recording a first explosion is heard, and then a second one about 9 seconds later. This data still needs to be corroborated, and both authors and the Scholars for 9/11 Truth are involved in this; however, it is worth presenting at this time. This was found inside a movie compendium, "9/11 Controlled Demolitions of September 11, 2001". To repeat, this needs further corroboration.

Link: Jenny Carr, Video - 9 Seconds and go in 14 minutes, 30 seconds.

FAA TIMES

Within the Federal Aviation Administration’s “Summary of Air Traffic Hijack Events September 11, 2001” are found the impact times of 8:46:35 and 9:03:14.

Link: FAA Summary of Air Traffic Hijack Events September 11,2001

What is interesting is, when the 9 seconds found on the Jenny Carr tape are added to the original LDEO seismic time of 8:46:26, the result is 8:46:35, the exact FAA impact time for AA Flt 11.

And although anecdotal, it is also intriguing that the FAA’s 9:03:14 for UA Flt 175 matches closely to the time of 9:03:17 found in the recent Vanity Fair article by Michael Bronner.

Link: Vanity Fair article by Michael Bronner This 9:03:17 time occurred when NEADS received the call notifying them of a 2nd possible hijacking while “almost simultaneously” people in the NEADS control room watched Flt 175 crash into WTC2 on CNN, including Colonel Marr, the commanding officer. This adds credibility to the Commission’s impact time of 9:03:11. Nevertheless, although the 9/11 Commission referred to this FAA Summary many times in its Final Report, it still based its impact times upon all the data they had and issued impact times of 8:46:40 and 9:03:11.

NTSB TIMES

Within the flight path studies by the National Transportation Safety Board are found approximate impact times of 8:46:40 and 9:02:40.

Link: NTSB report, "Flight Path Study-American Airlines Flight 11," Feb. 19, 2002

Link: NTSB report, "Flight Path Study-United Airlines 175," Feb. 19, 2002

These reports, as a matter of course, state times of impact as approximate, this done with an understanding that higher authority will review all data in determining actual times of impact.

The 9/11 Commission’s impact time of 8:46:40 for AA Flt 11 is the same as is found in the NTSB report that the Commission referred to in its Note 39.

The Commission referred to the NTSB report for the impact time of UA Flt 175 in its Note 51, but even in doing so, it rejected the NTSB’s approximate 9:02:40 time and issued instead 9:03:11 as the official time.

When one examines the radar graph from the study on AA Flt 11, it can be seen there was one last radar position-plot at the end. This coincides with testimony by Controller Dave Bottiglia who tracked AA Flt 11 that morning: This is from an article that covers this: “It was now being tracked by New York Centre, where a controller, Dave Bottiglia, saw it disappear from his screen just before 8.47. It had ploughed into the World Trade Centre's north tower.”

Link: Controller Dave Bottiglia, AA Flt 11 Disappears From Radar

Reference is now made to the original source data used by the 9/11 Commission when analyzing the impact time supplied by the NTSB flight path study for AA Flight 11. Examination of this and particularly the radar graph supplied by magnification of the ending point area shows the last radar return from the aircraft before impact at 08.46.40.

AA Flt 11 crashed at 8:46:40 EDT.

FAA & NTSB times added.

Table 2

AA Flt 11

2001 LDEO 8:46:26 Original seismic

2001 FAA 8:46:35 Rejected by Commission

2002 NTSB 8:46:40

2004 Commission 8:46:40

UA Flt 175

2002 NTSB 9:02:40 Rejected by Commission

2001 LDEO 9:02:54 Original seismic

2004 Commission 9:03:11

2001 FAA 9:03:14 Rejected by Commission

NIST TIMES

NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) developed its own times over the years regarding the plane impacts of AA Flt 11 and UA Flt 175, and these were made available in the progress report of June 2004. Link: NIST Interim Progress Report June 2004 - Appendix H

So, what are these NIST times? NIST had around 14,000 photos and videos of the events of 9/11 and wanted to bring this information into a chronological timeline to better understand the events of that day. They first had to determine a standard or baseline to use in order to bring all the data into temporal alignment. They decided to use the impact time of UA Flt 175 crashing into WTC2 at 9:02:54 because of the many TV stations and cameras trained on WTC1 at the time, as it had just been hit by AA Flt 11 moments before. This 9:02:54 time is seismic data from LDEO. NIST later claimed that the actual impact time of UA Flt 175 was not 9:02:54 but 9:02:59 ± 1 sec. Their basis for this were four TV stations with timestamped transmissions, times that are presumed to have been accurately updated to UTC at the time of the event. The difference between 9:02:54 and 9:02:59 is 5 seconds. NIST then took this 5 second differential to make the other 4 major events “relative”; i.e., they added 5 seconds to each time they had for the other 4 major events (the impact into WTC1, and the collapses for WTC2, WTC1, and WTC7). This meant they took the supposed time of “impact” for AA Flt 11 into WTC1 of 8:46:25 [seismic] and added 5 seconds to it to come up with their new supposed time of “impact” of 8:46:30. (Please recall that the facts put forth in this paper bring into question the causes of the seismic spikes, and this is why these seismic times are referred to as “supposed” times of “impacts”.)

NIST used false logic in doing this 5-second addition. It is wrong. Adding 5 seconds is sleight-of-hand statistics, a non sequitur that is meaningless. The 9:02:59 is from a discrete event with a time set derived from TV stations (one type of source). The other time of 8:46:25 is from another distinct event derived from seismic data (another type of source). These then are two detached time sets for two separate events from two different source types. Therefore, the adding of 5 seconds can not be done according to either logic or statistics. (In accounting this type of error is known as “mixing apples with oranges”.) Therefore, the NIST 8:46:30 “Adjusted Time from Television Broadcasts”, for their first aircraft “impact”, is not real. To reiterate: the NIST 8:46:30 a.m. time labeled as “First aircraft impact” under the column “Adjusted Time from Television Broadcasts” is artificial.

Table 3

AA Flt 11

2001 LDEO 8:46:26 Original seismic

2004 NIST 8:46:30 Artificial

2001 FAA 8:46:35 Rejected by Commission

2002 NTSB 8:46:40

2004 Commission 8:46:40

UA Flt 175

2002 NTSB 9:02:40 Rejected by Commission

2001 LDEO 9:02:54 Original seismic

2004 NIST 9:02:59 Adjusted per TV

2004 Commission 9:03:11

2001 FAA 9:03:14 Rejected by Commission

NIST times added.

NIST SPONSORED RE-ANALYSIS SEISMIC TIME STUDY

Additionally, NIST contracted in 2005 for the services of Dr. Won-Young Kim of Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (LDEO) to re-analyze the original seismic data and times that were issued by LDEO back in 2001 (Kim was instrumental in the issuance of the original times). This new study resulted in Kim issuing revised seismic times in 2005 that added three seconds to both of the 2001 originally calculated times for aircraft “impacts”. The revised times were 8:46:29 and 9:02:57.

[Reference report: “NIST NCSTAR 1-5A, WTC Investigation, Chapter 3, pages 22-24]

See Table 3-1 Link: NIST NCSTAR 1-5A, Chapters 1-8

NIST's determination of 8:46:30 time of first “impact” is artificial. It is not only erroneous, but may be specious if time manipulation is the motive.  This phony time for AA Flt 11 is directly contradicted by the statement made by the NTSB and is not supported by the radar data supplied by the NTSB. The last radar signal from the aircraft before impact was received at 8:46:40, ten seconds after the time that NIST now says is when the aircraft impacted the Tower. One wonders again if the NIST 2005 contract with Dr. Kim to re-analyze the seismic times is also an attempt at time manipulation in order to find credibility for the bogus 8:46:30 NIST time. An audit by independent seismological experts to determine the authenticity of the revised seismic times would be in order to resolve this matter. It would be worth doing as this concerns the mass murder of nearly 3,000 people.

Table 4

AA Flt 11

2001 LDEO 8:46:26 Original seismic

2005 LDEO 8:46:29 Revised per NIST contract

2004 NIST 8:46:30 Artificial

2001 FAA 8:46:35 Rejected by Commission

2004 Commission 8:46:40

2002 NTSB 8:46:40

UA Flt 175

2002 NTSB 9:02:40 Rejected by Commission

2001 LDEO 9:02:54 Original seismic

2005 LDEO 9:02:57 Revised per NIST contract

2004 NIST 9:02:59 Adjusted per TV

2004 Commission 9:03:11

2001 FAA 9:03:14 Rejected by Commission

NIST sponsored revised seismic times added.

The first aspect of these times that must be commented upon is the fact that, after three major enquiries, we are still left without answers, even on such basic questions as when the various events occurred. It must be seen as an indictment of these bodies that most people would probably regard the best evidence as having come from television rather than the official investigations.  Are we to understand that NIST, FEMA and the 9/11 Commission did not have access to exactly the same, many, television sources of the event? It is a sad commentary that the words “9/11 Commission” are not found once throughout both NIST reports [NCSTAR 1-5 and NCSTAR 1-5A]. And if a word search is done on the Final Report of the 9/11 Commission for the words “Lamont” or “LDEO” or “8:46:26”, the answer is the same: nothing. This appalling lack of attention to detail is inexcusable and can be viewed by some as highly sinister.

NIST suffers a lack of credibility for its issuance of the false 8:46:30 “impact” time for AA Flt 11. It is an unreal time and is not an impact. What is needed from NIST are: (1) the names of the four television stations whose data was used, (2) the actual times of impact from these four stations, and (3) the procedures used by each station in the regular synchronization process to UTC.

Regarding UA Flt 175, a question remains: What are the main specifics that the Commission based its time of 9:03:11 on, those that go to the heart of their Note 130?  The Commission based it on something, as one doesn’t just come up with such a precise number out of thin air. “FAA radar data and air traffic control software logic” needs to be elaborated upon. Something is behind this time, and if this something is credible, this would confirm once and for all the large time-gap between seismic and impact, and would be another conclusive demand for a new investigation. Nevertheless, until the specifics become known, the 9:03:11 remains the official time of impact, and this by itself demands a new investigation.

Regarding AA Flt 11, there still remains a huge 11 - 14 second time-differential between the precision times of seismic & impact.  This time-gap, along with the many corroborating WTC1 basement eyewitnesses and fire department personnel, demands a new investigation now, and this can not be emphasized or stressed any stronger.

CONCLUSION

Several seismic stations recorded seismic signals originating from two events which occurred at the WTC site, immediately prior to both aircraft impacts. Because these signals preceded the impacts there can be no doubt that the seismic signals recorded were not those associated with the aircraft impacts on the Towers. These signals were in fact the seismic spikes associated with the huge basement explosions reported by witnesses. Only by a revision of the previously well-regarded seismic times has NIST been able to attempt to say the times of the aircraft impacts coincide with the seismic signals, and even then, their 8:46:30 first impact time is a fake.  Meanwhile, the evidence of basement explosions prior to the impact of AA Flt 11 has not been explored or examined at all, even with so great a cloud of witnesses.

The inescapable conclusions drawn from this analysis and the facts contained herein, cast extreme doubt on the government's claim that these attacks were carried out solely by Middle Eastern terrorists, who would not have had the ability or opportunity to plant the explosive devices, nor to detonate them so as to be masked and partially hidden by the aircraft impacts.  The real perpetrators, those who actually did plant these devices, clearly had free access to the Towers.  The total number of people who had this opportunity was small and a list of these people should be easily available. Middle Eastern terrorists alone could not have been responsible as they do not have the wherewithal of this kind of scale. It is more than remarkable that the 9/11 Commission, although it had heard the testimony of William Rodriguez regarding the explosions in the basements, did not deem it important enough to be included in the Final Report. In Rodriguez’s testimony he says many of his fellow witnesses wanted to give their testimony to the Commission, and tried repeatedly to bring this about, but the 9/11 Commission never called any of them. Rodriguez said the only reason he was able to appear out of all of them was because he was instrumental in bringing about the actual formation of the Commission (he was heavily involved with many of the families of the victims who were trying to get a commission formed to investigate 9/11).

This analysis has examined the evidence of basement explosions as given by William Rodriguez and others and has shown by the evidence given by William Walsh, and by examination of the Tower’s elevator layout, that it is not physically possible that these could have the aircraft impact as their source.

The analysis has identified further information from Jenny Carr and shown that this confirms the evidence of William Rodriguez that the basement explosions preceded the first aircraft impact by nine seconds. Examination of the various times given for the seismic events and aircraft impacts, detailed by the FAA, the NTSB and the LDEO original seismic analysis confirm that there was a time delay between the basement explosions and the aircraft impact.

 

THEREFORE, the facts in this paper, which pertain directly to the greatest crime and conspiracy of modern times, demand a new independent, quasi private/public, non-politicized 9/11 investigation (a real one this time, one with teeth) be formed immediately to pursue this crime investigation until the murderers / conspirators are identified, apprehended, and brought to justice. All Americans, especially the NYPD, the Attorney General for the State of New York, Congress, and the Bush Administration need to work in answering this question: Who are the ones responsible for the explosions before the planes hit the buildings?

To ignore the facts of this paper would be intellectual dishonesty at best, and if the government and the media do not respond, it is like an admission of guilt and/or continued coverup.

Five years is long enough.

Now is the time for justice for those who died that day, justice for their families and friends who grieve to this day, justice for all the victims who survived, and that those who did this heinous act receive the full measure of justice befitting their crime.

No stone should be left unturned until these murderers are caught.

Now is the time for the new 9/11 investigation.

Edited September 11, 2006 by Brian Smith

[Len Colby]

Brian -Instead of using this as a catch all thread for 9/11 inside job theories it would make sense to start new threads for specific topic such as this in the "Political Conspiracies" section. First of course check to make sure there isn't already a thread covering the topic. You brought up the "theory" that the planes were remote controlled but there already is a thread covering that.

[Brian Smith]

Brian -Instead of using this as a catch all thread for 9/11 inside job theories it would make sense to start new threads for specific topic such as this in the "Political Conspiracies" section. First of course check to make sure there isn't already a thread covering the topic. You brought up the "theory" that the planes were remote controlled but there already is a thread covering that.

Jack White started this thread, and he hasn't complained yet. Besides, he linked to a 911 "conspiracy theory" site in the first post, so I don't think the subject is entirely irrelevant to this thread. Also, I was responding to the previous poster.

[Len Colby]

Brian -Instead of using this as a catch all thread for 9/11 inside job theories it would make sense to start new threads for specific topic such as this in the "Political Conspiracies" section. First of course check to make sure there isn't already a thread covering the topic. You brought up the "theory" that the planes were remote controlled but there already is a thread covering that.

Jack White started this thread, and he hasn't complained yet. Besides, he linked to a 911 "conspiracy theory" site in the first post, so I don't think the subject is entirely irrelevant to this thread. Also, I was responding to the previous poster.

The "specific topic" I was referring to was the seismic "evidence" paper. The first part of you post was replying to the editorial BS posted, the paper wasn't at all relevant to that. Discussion of complex subjects like alternate 9/11 theories is facilitated by breaking them down into threads concerning specific questions. It wouldn't make sense for example to debate if the rifle ordered from Klein’s was the same as the one found in the TSDB in the same thread were people speculate whether of not the Z-film was faked. Call me crazy but my impression was the topic of this thread was the "no planes hit the WTC theory". Jack brought it up about an hour and a half after starting this thread.

Len

PS - John or Andy, shouldn't this thread be moved to the conspiracies section?

[Brendan Slattery]

CONSPIRACY CRANKS

CREATING CRAZED '9/11 TRUTH'

By JAMES B. MEIGS

September 12, 2006 -- ON Feb. 7, 2005, I became a member of the Bush/Halliburton/Zionist/CIA/New World Order/Illuminati conspiracy for world domination. That day, Popular Mechanics, the magazine I edit, hit newsstands with a story debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories. Within hours, the online community of 9/11 conspiracy buffs - which calls itself the "9/11 Truth Movement" - was aflame with wild fantasies about me, my staff and the article we had published. Conspiracy Web sites labeled Popular Mechanics a "CIA front organization" and compared us to Nazis and war criminals.

For a 104-year-old magazine about science, technology, home improvement and car maintenance, this was pretty extreme stuff. What had we done to provoke such outrage?

Research.

Conspiracy theories alleging that 9/11 was a U.S. government operation are rapidly infiltrating the mainstream. These notions are advanced by hundreds of books, over a million Web pages and even in some college classrooms. The movie "Loose Change," a slick roundup of popular conspiracy claims, has become an Internet sensation.

Worse, these fantasies are gaining influence on the international stage. French author Thierry Meyssan's "The Big Lie," which argues that the U.S. military orchestrated the attacks, was a bestseller in France, and his claims have been widely repeated in European and Middle Eastern media. And recent surveys reveal that, even in moderate Muslim countries such as Turkey and Jordan, majorities of the public believe that no Arab terrorists were involved in the attacks.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion," Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan was fond of saying. "He is not entitled to his own facts." Yet conspiracy theorists want to pick and choose which facts to believe.

Rather than grapple with the huge preponderance of evidence in support of the mainstream view of 9/11, they tend to focus on a handful of small anomalies that they believe cast doubt on the conventional account. These anomalies include the claim that the hole in the Pentagon was too small to have been made by a commercial jet (but just right for a cruise missile); that the Twin Towers were too robustly built to have been destroyed by the jet impacts and fires (so they must have been felled by explosives), and more. If true, these and similar assertions would cast serious doubt on the mainstream account of 9/11.

But they're not true. Popular Mechanics has been fact-checking such claims since late 2004, and recently published a book on the topic. We've pored over transcripts, flight logs and blueprints, and interviewed more than 300 sources - including engineers, aviation experts, military officials, eyewitnesses and members of investigative teams.

In every single case, we found that the very facts used by conspiracy theorists to support their fantasies are mistaken, misunderstood or deliberately falsified.

Here's one example: Meyssan and hundreds of Web sites cite an eyewitness who said the craft that hit the Pentagon looked "like a cruise missile with wings." Here's what that witness, a Washington, D.C., broadcaster named Mike Walter, actually told CNN: "I looked out my window and I saw this plane, this jet, an American Airlines jet, coming. And I thought, 'This doesn't add up. It's really low.' And I saw it. I mean, it was like a cruise missile with wings. It went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon."

We talked to Walter and, like so many of the experts and witnesses widely quoted by conspiracy theorists, he told us he is heartsick to see the way his words have been twisted: "I struggle with the fact that my comments will forever be taken out of context."

Here's another: An article in the American Free Press claims that a seismograph at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory picked up signals indicating that large bombs were detonated in the towers. The article quotes Columbia geologist Won-Young Kim and certainly looks authoritative. Yet the truth on this issue is not hard to find. A published Lamont-Doherty report on the seismic record of 9/11 says no such thing. Kim told Popular Mechanics that the publication's interpretation of his research was "categorically incorrect." Yet the claim is repeated verbatim on more than 50 Web sites as well as in the film "Loose Change."

Every 9/11 conspiracy theory we investigated was based on similarly shoddy evidence. Most of these falsehoods are easy to refute simply by checking the original source material or talking to experts in the relevant fields. And yet even the flimsiest claims are repeated constantly in conspiracy circles, passed from Web site to book to Web site in an endless daisy chain. And any witness, expert - or publication - that tries to set the record straight is immediately vilified as being part of the conspiracy.

The American public has every right to ask hard questions about 9/11. And informed skepticism about government and media can be healthy. But skepticism needs to be based on facts, not fallacies. Unfortunately, for all too many, conspiratorial fantasies offer a seductive alternative to grappling with the hard realities of a post-9/11 world.

[Jack White]

Brian -Instead of using this as a catch all thread for 9/11 inside job theories it would make sense to start new threads for specific topic such as this in the "Political Conspiracies" section. First of course check to make sure there isn't already a thread covering the topic. You brought up the "theory" that the planes were remote controlled but there already is a thread covering that.

Jack White started this thread, and he hasn't complained yet. Besides, he linked to a 911 "conspiracy theory" site in the first post, so I don't think the subject is entirely irrelevant to this thread. Also, I was responding to the previous poster.

The "specific topic" I was referring to was the seismic "evidence" paper. The first part of you post was replying to the editorial BS posted, the paper wasn't at all relevant to that. Discussion of complex subjects like alternate 9/11 theories is facilitated by breaking them down into threads concerning specific questions. It wouldn't make sense for example to debate if the rifle ordered from Klein’s was the same as the one found in the TSDB in the same thread were people speculate whether of not the Z-film was faked. Call me crazy but my impression was the topic of this thread was the "no planes hit the WTC theory". Jack brought it up about an hour and a half after starting this thread.

Len

PS - John or Andy, shouldn't this thread be moved to the conspiracies section?

OK, Len...you asked for it. YOU ARE CRAZY, per your request. I started this

thread RELATED TO JFK PHOTO ALTERATION by reporting information that

PHOTO ALTERATION CAN NOW BE DONE IN REAL TIME. The example used

was that it is POSSIBLE that an AIRPLANE CRASHING INTO THE WTC COULD

HAVE BEEN INSERTED IN REAL TIME VIDEO now, much like a first down

yellow line in football. The thrust of my comment was that the faked JFK

films and photos would be much EASIER to achieve with today's computer

technology. This is a JFK PHOTO ALTERATION THREAD. You are the one

trying to hijack it.

In 1963 it took days, maybe weeks to alter the Zapruder film. Today it

could be done almost instantly, with preplanning and blue screen technology.

Jack

Edited September 13, 2006 by Jack White

[Shanet Clark]

j.a.

Yes, Jack, he's talking about you.

Conspiracy theories sully memories of 9/11 victims

JAMES BENNETT

GUEST COLUMNIST

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER

With the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks fast approaching, the media coverage of 9/11 conspiracy theories is intensifying. While once this was solely the subject of Web sites and Internet forums, the topic has recently been covered in diverse media outlets such as The New York Times, Fox News and the Seattle P-I.

Although the coverage may address some of the views held by the conspiracy theorists, and occasionally even delve into the forensic evidence, one thing they have rarely discussed is, "Who are these people, and how do they come up with conclusions that are completely opposite of those of most people?"

These are questions I have been addressing on my blog for several months now, and after reviewing dozens of hours of video and audio clips, and reading countless Web sites, forums and books, I have had some interesting discoveries.

Most striking of all is the connection that those theories have with others. While the people proposing them may vary greatly in age, politics and education, they almost invariably are conspiracy theorists by nature. In addition to believing the World Trade Centers were demolished by the "New World Order," they also push theories that man did not walk on the moon, Minnesota Sen. Paul Wellstone was assassinated by the Bush administration, the Srebrenica massacre and even the Holocaust never happened.

In fact, the overlap with anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial is quite unsettling. A frequent source for their claims is the American Free Press, a fringe newspaper founded by Willis Carto, a man called "one of the most influential American anti-Semitic propagandists" by the Anti-Defamation League, and considered a founder of the Holocaust denial movement. Even such notable figures as Professor Jim Fetzer, co-founder of the group "Scholars for 9/11 Truth," do not shy from citing it, as if it were as credible as The New York Times.

As to how they believe what they do, on

e of the first things you notice while following them is a fervent, almost religious level of belief. Through this zeal, and through a selective use of evidence, they are convinced as to the truth of their claims, no matter the evidence to the contrary. One good example of this is the repeated claim that the 9/11 hijackers appear on none of the flight manifests. That myth was started by looking at a list of victims of the attacks posted on CNN's Web site and noting the terrorists' absence. Terrorists who commit suicide attacks, however, are by definition not "victims" of their attack, so there is no reason to believe they would be listed. That fact has been pointed out to them by numerous people, on countless occasions, but yet they persist in their belief. It continues even though the 9/11 Commission report, the news media and, most recently, the evidence presented at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui have all cited the hijackers on the flight manifests, even listing their seat numbers.

As the anniversary of these tragic events approaches, many will remember the victims, and many a tear will be shed for them. But a significant group of people wants to hijack their memories and falsify their history for their own motivations. It is the responsibility of this nation, its people and its media to insist that the truth be told, and their memories not be sullied.

[Brian Smith]

I guess he may have a point. A detailed discussion of the 911 topic would be be more in place on the political conspiracies section, but discussions about complex issues like these often have a way of veering off into other directions. Thanks for being a nice guy and not complaining though. If only all these detractors of yours should be so polite.

[Jack White]

j.a.

Yes, Jack, he's talking about you.

Conspiracy theories sully memories of 9/11 victims

JAMES BENNETT

GUEST COLUMNIST

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER

With the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks fast approaching, the media coverage of 9/11 conspiracy theories is intensifying. While once this was solely the subject of Web sites and Internet forums, the topic has recently been covered in diverse media outlets such as The New York Times, Fox News and the Seattle P-I.

Although the coverage may address some of the views held by the conspiracy theorists, and occasionally even delve into the forensic evidence, one thing they have rarely discussed is, "Who are these people, and how do they come up with conclusions that are completely opposite of those of most people?"

These are questions I have been addressing on my blog for several months now, and after reviewing dozens of hours of video and audio clips, and reading countless Web sites, forums and books, I have had some interesting discoveries.

Most striking of all is the connection that those theories have with others. While the people proposing them may vary greatly in age, politics and education, they almost invariably are conspiracy theorists by nature. In addition to believing the World Trade Centers were demolished by the "New World Order," they also push theories that man did not walk on the moon, Minnesota Sen. Paul Wellstone was assassinated by the Bush administration, the Srebrenica massacre and even the Holocaust never happened.

In fact, the overlap with anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial is quite unsettling. A frequent source for their claims is the American Free Press, a fringe newspaper founded by Willis Carto, a man called "one of the most influential American anti-Semitic propagandists" by the Anti-Defamation League, and considered a founder of the Holocaust denial movement. Even such notable figures as Professor Jim Fetzer, co-founder of the group "Scholars for 9/11 Truth," do not shy from citing it, as if it were as credible as The New York Times.

As to how they believe what they do, on

e of the first things you notice while following them is a fervent, almost religious level of belief. Through this zeal, and through a selective use of evidence, they are convinced as to the truth of their claims, no matter the evidence to the contrary. One good example of this is the repeated claim that the 9/11 hijackers appear on none of the flight manifests. That myth was started by looking at a list of victims of the attacks posted on CNN's Web site and noting the terrorists' absence. Terrorists who commit suicide attacks, however, are by definition not "victims" of their attack, so there is no reason to believe they would be listed. That fact has been pointed out to them by numerous people, on countless occasions, but yet they persist in their belief. It continues even though the 9/11 Commission report, the news media and, most recently, the evidence presented at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui have all cited the hijackers on the flight manifests, even listing their seat numbers.

As the anniversary of these tragic events approaches, many will remember the victims, and many a tear will be shed for them. But a significant group of people wants to hijack their memories and falsify their history for their own motivations. It is the responsibility of this nation, its people and its media to insist that the truth be told, and their memories not be sullied.

What a phony non sequitur. The airline PASSENGER MANIFESTS said nothing

about VICTIMS. The manifest is a listing of ALL PEOPLE ON BOARD. It is not

honoring hijackers to have their names on passenger manifests...it is a

material fact to the event. If the case ever came to trial, the passenger

manifests would be KEY EVIDENCE that no hijackers were aboard.

Jack

[Len Colby]

OK, Len...you asked for it. YOU ARE CRAZY, per your request. I started this thread RELATED TO JFK PHOTO ALTERATION by reporting information that PHOTO ALTERATION CAN NOW BE DONE IN REAL TIME. The example used was that it is POSSIBLE that an AIRPLANE CRASHING INTO THE WTC COULD HAVE BEEN INSERTED IN REAL TIME VIDEO now, much like a first down yellow line in football. The thrust of my comment was that the faked JFK films and photos would be much EASIER to achieve with today's computer technology. This is a JFK PHOTO ALTERATION THREAD. You are the one trying to hijack it.

In 1963 it took days, maybe weeks to alter the Zapruder film. Today it could be done almost instantly, with preplanning and blue screen technology.

Let's check the validity of that claim. Jack's first message didn't have a thrust because he posted the article without comment. Nor did the second because all he said was "Along the same lines, check out this". Are we supposed to believe that the ability to alter live VIDEO feed in 2006 using sophisticated computer technology some how validates his belief that it was possible to alter movie film in the way suggested in 'Hoax' back in 1963?

Except for one sentence by me there was no mention of the assassination let alone JFK photo alteration by Jack or anyone else in this thread. How can he claim the thread is about subject that was never discussed? How can Jack accuse some one else of hijacking that thread when he himself has repeatedly posted supposedly off topic (i.e. 9/11) content but never anything that was explicitly about the supposed topic?

"The thrust of my comment was that the faked JFK films and photos would be much EASIER to achieve with today's computer technology"

It's bad enough that he seems unable to understand what he reads*, now he is claming to have made comments he never did.

*See below and this thread http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=74696

"The example used was that it is POSSIBLE that an AIRPLANE CRASHING INTO THE WTC COULD HAVE BEEN INSERTED IN REAL TIME VIDEO"

Nothing in that article which gets little acceptance even within the "truth" movement provides evidence that such an insertion was possible. The author claims based on very shaky "evidence" that the plane was inserted. The second article in no way supports the first.

What a phony non sequitur. The airline PASSENGER MANIFESTS said nothing about VICTIMS. The manifest is a listing of ALL PEOPLE ON BOARD. It is not honoring hijackers to have their names on passenger manifests...it is a material fact to the event. If the case ever came to trial, the passenger manifests would be KEY EVIDENCE that no hijackers were aboard. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=74696

The only non-sequitur is in Jack's thinking. Once again he shows that he has difficulty understanding what he reads. The author of the editorial never said the names didn't appear on the flight manifests to the contrary he said they DID but that their names were missing from "a list of victims".

One good example is the repeated claim that the 9/11 hijackers did not appear on any of the flight manifests. This myth was started by looking at a list of victims posted on CNN's website and noting the terrorists' absence. Terrorists who commit suicide attacks, however, are by definition not "victims" of their attack, so there is no reason to believe that they would be listed. This fact has been pointed out to them by numerous people, on countless occasions, but yet they continue in their belief. Even though the 9/11 Commission report, the news media, and most recently the evidence presented at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui have all cited the hijackers on the flight manifests, even listing their seat numbers.

Perhaps Jack can provide a link to an official passenger manifest without the names of the hijackers. The Boston Globe reported having access to both Logan manifests with the hijackers names and seat numbers days after the attacks http://graphics.boston.com/news/packages/u...11_manifest.gif

Below is a graphic from the Boston Globe based on the official manifest for flight 11

http://graphics.boston.com/news/packages/u...11_manifest.gif

"If the case ever came to trial, the passenger manifests would be KEY EVIDENCE that no hijackers were aboard."

As the author mentioned the Moussaoui case did go to trial and the manifests including the hijackers names were introduced.

Len

Edited September 13, 2006 by Len Colby

[Brian Smith]

"If the case ever came to trial, the passenger manifests would be KEY EVIDENCE that no hijackers were aboard."

As the author mentioned the Moussaoui case did go to trial and the manifests including the hijackers names were introduced.

This is very interesting. Didn't they also say that videos definitely showing a Boeing 757 at the pentagon were also shown at this trial? If this is the case, then these videos must exist, so why haven't we seen them? Will the public ever get to actually see this evidence for themselve's, or do we just have to take the governments word that it truly exists? Show me an image of the passenger manifests, with the hijackers names on them, and then you will have a case. Saying that the evidence proves something happened, and then refusing to show it is not at all convincing. Show me the evidence that supposedly proves the official account of the 19 hijackers.

Edited September 13, 2006 by Brian Smith