Friday, March 23, 2007

It's about time

It's about time the Red House Press Corps started acting like journalists and not stenographers.

Too bad they waited until the House was soaked in the blood of hundred of thousands of people.

In the context of the Bush regime's refusal to allow its top capos to testify on the U.S. Attorney issue, a reporter asks Tony Snow about Cheney's refusal to disclose the people on his energy council, and about the refusal of Bush and Cheney to testify under oath about 9/11.

The below exchange is very interesting. Snow talks about a "presumption of criminality," and gets called on it.

Q You used the word "avoid." There is an avoidance, it seems, of this administration to sit down and talk on the record, under oath, about critical issues.

MR. SNOW: What you're saying is that every time somebody wants to try to mount a charge you ought to be able to get hauled up and testify under oath, with a presumption of criminality, rather than a presumption of goodwill. I'm not going to buy that.

Q Was it criminal, 9/11 -- was that criminal?

MR. SNOW: No. What I'm saying is that the 9/11 Commission, we participated fully.

Snow had to be rescued from his consciousness-of-guilt moment by a "question" alleging that Democrats are using the U.S. Attorney issue to cover up a proposed tax increase.

You can link to the Red House website's transcript and video of the press conference from Wonkette's website. Not from here.

Thursday, March 22, 2007

Did NIST use a fake video to show South Tower oscillation?

As I discussed here, NIST used the Scott Myers video of Flight 175 entering the South Tower, which it said was the best video available, to show that the South Tower oscillated, or swayed, in response to the impact.

I stated that the video must be fake because it shows the plane completely penetrating the building without slowing down at all. This is a matter both of common sense and consideration of the kinetic energy balance models of Wierzbicki and Karim and Hoo Fatt. (To be clear, I am not saying they would agree with my conclusions, but I think my use of their models as a premise is sound.)

Now I am wondering if the video can be considered authentic for the purpose of showing oscillation. NIST did not explicitly state that the oscillation was proof that a plane hit the South Tower, as NIST assumed that a plane did hit. However, Steven Jones used the oscillation to prove his "plane" theory. Despite the faked image of a plane penetrating the building, the oscillation aspect of the video could still be real, but it does place the data into question. Some "no planes" theorists have asked whether an internal explosion or impact of a missile might have caused the oscillation, but if this video is the only proof that oscillation even occurred, I wonder if this question even needs to be answered.

Morgan Reynolds suggests that many people in the tower reported oscillation, and that this is not in question:

So my question may not be significant, unless the magnitude or direction of oscillation became an issue.

It's just a little ironic to be using a faked video to prove my case that the video is faked.

NIST used the same video to calculate the speed of "Flight 175," which in turn was used by the engineers as an assumption in their kinetic energy models. (They actually averaged the speed of the "plane" in several videos - Karim and Hoo Fatt assumed 500 mph, compared to 542 mph calculated by NIST for "Flight 175" based on the Myers video.) However, for my purposes, this circular assumption yields conservative results, because if a plane near top cruising speed could not penetrate the building without any apparent resistance or damage, then a slower moving plane could not either. So I will accept this assumption.

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

Great blog

I have not linked to this blog by "Spooked," but I read it almost everyday, and have gotten a lot of ideas from Spooked.

I don't always agree with Spooked, but I usually do, and he explains and backs up his ideas, and is clearly dedicated to careful and logical inquiry into the events of 9/11.

Spooked also links to a lot of websites and blogs about 9/11 and politics, and is a great resource for that reason as well.

"I think this is a damn input, to be honest."

Someone at NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector thought Flight 175 was an "input" - a simulated scenario for the training exercise on 9/11. To be honest, I think he was right, especially in light of the Bureau of Transportation Statistics data showing that Flight 11 never took off on September 11, and that Flight 175 took off 9 minutes later than the FAA reported. The fact that both the FAA and NORAD NEADS seemed to be getting their information from CNN rather than radar, and the fact that United Airlines and American Airlines would not acknowledge the crashes of their aircraft into the World trade Center buildings, adds to my suspicion that these aircraft that supposedly hit the World Trade Center were just "inputs."

Read this article and see for yourself how FAA and NORAD NEADS personnel seemed to be in the dark about the location of Flights 11 and 175 throughout the morning of 9/11, and were getting their information from CNN.

Then read these two excerpts, and listen to the tapes which are linked from the Vanity Fair article:


In the background, however, you can make out the sound of Jeremy Powell, then 31, a burly, amiable technical sergeant, fielding the phone call that will be the military's first notification that something is wrong. On the line is Boston Center, the civilian air-traffic-control facility that handles that region's high-flying airliners.

BOSTON CENTER: Hi. Boston Center T.M.U. [Traffic Management Unit], we have a problem here. We have a hijacked aircraft headed towards New York, and we need you guys to, we need someone to scramble some F-16s or something up there, help us out.
POWELL: Is this real-world or exercise?
BOSTON CENTER: No, this is not an exercise, not a test.

Powell's question—"Is this real-world or exercise?"—is heard nearly verbatim over and over on the tapes as troops funnel onto the ops floor and are briefed about the hijacking. Powell, like almost everyone in the room, first assumes the phone call is from the simulations team on hand to send "inputs"—simulated scenarios—into play for the day's training exercise.

Boston's request for fighter jets is not as prescient as it might seem. Standard hijack protocol calls for fighters to be launched—"scrambled"—merely to establish a presence in the air. The pilots are trained to trail the hijacked plane at a distance of about five miles, out of sight, following it until, presumably, it lands. If necessary, they can show themselves, flying up close to establish visual contact, and, if the situation demands, maneuver to force the plane to land.

At this point, certainly, the notion of actually firing anything at a passenger jet hasn't crossed anyone's mind.

In the ID section, the women overhear the word "hijack" and react, innocently enough, as anyone might with news of something exciting going on at work:

WATSON: What was that?
ROUNTREE: Is that real-world?
DOOLEY: Real-world hijack.



On the ops floor, there is considerable confusion as to whether the second hijacking New York Center just called in is the same plane that hit the second tower, or whether there are now three missing planes.

NASYPANY (to Marr): Sir, we got—we've got unconfirmed second hit from another aircraft. Fighters are south of—just south of Long Island, sir. Right now. Fighters are south of Long Island.

There's seemingly enough commotion in the Battle Cab that Nasypany needs to clarify: "Our fighters … " The two F-15s, scrambled from Otis, are now approaching the city.

In the background, several troops can be heard trying to make sense of what's happening.

—Is this explosion part of that that we're lookin' at now on TV?
—Jesus …
—And there's a possible second hijack also—a United Airlines …
—Two planes?…
—Get the fuck out …
—I think this is a damn input, to be honest.

The last line—"I think this is a damn input"—is a reference to the exercise, meaning a simulations input. It's either gallows humor or wishful thinking. From the tape, it's hard to tell.

"We've already had two. Why not more?"


Source of phantom Flight 11 identified by Vanity Fair

David Ray Griffin mentions in his book "Omissions and Distortions" that the 9/11 Commission Report did not identify the source of a report that Flight 11 was heading for Washington D.C. after the time it supposedly hit the WTC North Tower. It seems that Vanity Fair later identified the person in its article of August 2006, based on information that must have been available to the 9/11 Commission. It was Colin Scoggins, a civilian FAA manager acting as military liaison for the FAA's Boston Air Traffic Control Center.

[On further reading of Griffin's book, I realize that Griffin was correct that Scoggins' source within the FAA was not identified by the 9/11 Commission.]


And while NORAD commanders did, indeed, order the Langley fighters to scramble at 9:24, as Scott and Arnold testified, it was not in response to the hijacking of American 77 or United 93. Rather, they were chasing a ghost. neads was entering the most chaotic period of the morning.

"Chase this guy down"

At 9:21 a.m., just before Dooley's alert about a third hijacked plane headed for Washington, neads is in the eye of the storm—a period of relative calm in which, for the moment, there are no reports of additional hijackings.

The call that sets off the latest alarm ("Another hijack! It's headed towards Washington!") comes from Boston and is wholly confounding: according to Scoggins, the Boston manager, American 11, the plane they believed was the first one to hit the World Trade Center, is actually still flying—still hijacked—and now heading straight for D.C. Whatever hit the first tower, it wasn't American 11.

The chase is on for what will turn out to be a phantom plane.

NASYPANY: O.K. American Airlines is still airborne—11, the first guy. He's heading towards Washington. O.K., I think we need to scramble Langley right now. And I'm—I'm gonna take the fighters from Otis and try to chase this guy down if I can find him.

Arnold and Marr approve scrambling the two planes at Langley, along with a third unarmed trainer, and Nasypany sets the launch in motion.

It's a mistake, of course. American 11 was, indeed, the plane that hit the first tower. The confusion will persist for hours, however. In Boston, it is Colin Scoggins who has made the mistaken call.

"When we phoned United [after the second tower was hit], they confirmed that United 175 was down, and I think they confirmed that within two or three minutes," Scoggins, the go-to guy at Boston Center for all things military, later told me. "With American Airlines, we could never confirm if it was down or not, so that left doubt in our minds."

An unwieldy conference call between F.A.A. centers had been established, and Scoggins was monitoring it when the word came across—from whom or where isn't clear—that American 11 was thought to be headed for Washington. Scoggins told me he thinks that the problem started with someone overheard trying to confirm from American whether American 11 was down—that somewhere in the flurry of information zipping back and forth during the conference call this transmogrified into the idea that a different plane had hit the tower, and that American 11 was still hijacked and still in the air. The plane's course, had it continued south past New York in the direction it was flying before it dipped below radar coverage, would have had it headed on a straight course toward D.C. This was all controllers were going on; they were never tracking an actual plane on the radar after losing American 11 near Manhattan, but if it had been flying low enough, the plane could have gone undetected. "After talking to a supervisor, I made the call and said [American 11] is still in the air, and it's probably somewhere over New Jersey or Delaware heading for Washington, D.C.," Scoggins told me.


There are other oddities in this article, which I will address later. The general impression I got from the article was that neither NORAD NEADS nor the FAA - in New York and Boston - actually tracked Flight 11 into the North Tower, and that they were getting their information from CNN television.

I found it strange that American Airlines, which tracks its planes itself, would not confirm that Flight 11 hit the North tower for several hours:

The problem, Scoggins told me later, was that American Airlines refused to confirm for several hours that its plane had hit the tower. This lack of confirmation caused uncertainty that would be compounded in a very big way as the attack continued. (Though airlines have their own means of monitoring the location of their planes and communicating with their pilots, they routinely go into information lockdown in a crisis.)

I have already discussed how even late in the afternoon on September 11, United Airlines was not confirming, at least in its press releases, that Flight 175 had hit the South Tower, but was sending employees to New York "based on information received from the authorities":

This Vanity Fair article somewhat contradicts the United Airlines press releases I discussed, because it says that United Airlines confirmed almost immediately that Flight 175 was "down" (though not that it had hit the WTC South Tower) .

In its press release of 11:17 a.m., United said it was "deeply concerned" about Flight 175, and confirmed that Flight 93 crashed near Pittsburgh.,11641,-1__1748_1,00.html

In its press release of 11:53 a.m., said that it had confirmed that Flight 175 and Flight 93 had crashed, but did not say where either aircraft had crashed.,11641,-1__1750_1,00.html

In its press release of 2:09 p.m., United said as follows:

Earlier today, United confirmed the following details:

  • United Flight 93, a Boeing 757 aircraft, departed from Newark, NJ, at 8:01 a.m. local time, bound for San Francisco with 38 passengers onboard, 2 pilots and 5 flight attendants. This aircraft crashed near Johnstown, PA.
  • United Flight 175, a Boeing 767 aircraft, departed from Boston, MA, at 7:58 a.m local time, bound for Los Angeles with 56 passengers onboard, 2 pilots and 7 flight attendants. United has confirmed the loss of this aircraft. Last radar contact with the aircraft was between Newark, NJ, and Philadelphia, PA.

United is dispatching a team to Johnstown, PA, as soon as possible to assist in every way with the investigation and to provide assistance, help and support to family members. Based on information received from the authorities, United is also sending employees to the New York City area to assist in every way it can with this tragedy.

In its press release of 3:18 p.m., United gave the same information, but added that families of passengers of Flights 93 and 175 would receive initial payments of $25,000:,11641,-1__1756_1,00.html

At 5:23 p.m, United repeated the same information about Flight 93 crashing in Pennsylvania, and Flight 175 having been lost and radar contact lost between Newark and Philadelphia:,11641,-1__1760_1,00.html

Although United Airlines may have had reasons to delay announcing that Flight 175 had hit the South Tower, I find it strange that American and United had their own means of tracking their planes and communicating with their pilots, as stated in the Vanity Fair article above, but would not confirm that their planes hit the World Trade Center buildings for many hours. I can understand "information lockdown," and there may be reasons United Airlines was more willing to acknowledge that its plane crashed into a field with only passenger deaths but was not willing to admit its plane hit the South Tower, which involved many more deaths. Still, I wonder if this means that American and United did not agree that their planes had hit the World Trade Center buildings.

And of course, I wonder about the Bureau of Transportation Statistics that first showed Flight 11 not being scheduled for September 11, then showing Flight 11 scheduled but not taking off:

And I wonder about the Bureau of Transportation Statistics data showing that Flight 175 took off 9 minutes later than the FAA and the 9/11 Commission say:

Another reason this time is important has become apparent to me from reading this FAA Report on Aircraft Accident about Flight 11:

At page 3 of 4, the report states that Flight 175 made visual contact with Flight 11 and verified Flight 11's altitude at 8:38 a.m. (1238 universal time). This would not have been possible if Flight 175 left the ground at 8:23 as BTS says, rather than at 8:14, as the FAA and the 9/11 Commission say, because Flight 175 would have been 50 miles or more east of Flight 11's reported flight path.

What does this prove? Nothing. It's just odd to me. My gut tells me that Flights 175 and 11 were just "damn inputs," as I will write in my next post.

Sunday, March 18, 2007

Please watch "Jesus Camp"

Hollywood Video has it on DVD.

A few months ago, I heard Chris Hedges on the radio speaking about his new book, American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America.

Hedges sounded genuinely frightened, even despairing. After seeing this movie, which shows the kind of people he interviewed for his book, I know why.

I consider what I saw in this movie to be child abuse. Adults at this camp had children smash coffee cups with a hammer, saying that the cup represented enemies in government. They also had children dancing in fatigues and camouflage face paint, and in another scene, were yelling "This is war!." In another scene, the preacher of the camp says that children are "usable" for Christianity, and talks about the militaristic inculcation of Muslim kids she says she saw on the Internet, suggesting that Christians need to do this also. Again, please watch this - it is very disturbing.

"Riveting" "Provacative" "Eye-Opening" Startling" "Important" "One of the Best Films of the Year" "Two Thumbs Up" ® says the cover - I agree.

The Justice Department under George W. Bush might consider what I just said to be an attack on religious freedom, and sic the power of the federal government on me:

Gonzalez unveiled this "First Freedom" initiative at a Southern Baptist Convention executive committee meeting:

I can't find the article, but someone wrote that Gonzalez was basically enlisting the Southern Baptist Convention to go around looking for "discrimination" against Christians.

Like zoning laws applied to megachurches?

Here is an excellent review of "Jesus Camp":

My only criticism of this review is that she describes the effect as a generation of voters that will determine the outcome of elections. These kids will be voters, but will also be citizens and soldiers. The clear distinction these kids draw between "Christians" and "non-Christians," and even among Christians, suggests that these kids are being inculcated to view me as the enemy because I am an agnostic about good and evil. So I fear worse, and so apparently does Chris Hedges.

My Christian upbringing makes me think that these adults are deceivers, and I even read demonic looks into their eyes. Or maybe that is just the look of a human predator, abuser, exploiter. An adult that says that children are "usable" for any cause is all three.

These Evangelicals would agree that there are deceivers and apostates leading many churches:

Why aren't they teaching these kids the Sermon on the Mount? You know, the New Testament? Basic ethics? Love, not hate?

Friday, March 16, 2007

What time did Flight 175 take off?

According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, United Airlines Flight 175 took off from Boston's Logan Airport at 8:23 a.m, as this is listed as the "wheels-off time."

This data is published in my last post:

However, the 9/11 Commission Report states that "United 175 pushed back from its gate at 7:58 and departed Logan Airport at 8:14. By 8:33, it had reached its assigned cruising altitude of 31,000 feet."

This document states that Flight 175 "departed" at 8:14.

FAA report, Executive Summary, Chronology of a Multiple Hijacking Crisis, September 11, 2001, Sept. 17, 2001 [Referenced Chapter 1, The 9/11 Commission Report, "We Have Some Planes," footnotes 40, 41] (page 1 of 3)

This more detailed FAA document states that Flight 175 began its takeoff roll at 8:14, and that at 8:23, "Flight 175 established radio contact with Boston Air Route Traffic Control Center (ZBW). 'Boston, morning, United one-seventy-five out of one-nine (nineteen thousand feet) for two-three-zero (twenty-three thousand feet).'" The document continues that sometime after 8:23, Flight 175 was instructed to climb to 31,000 feet, and that at 8:40, Flight 175 radioed that it was at 31,000 feet.

FAA report, Summary of Air Traffic Hijack Events: September 11, 2001, Sept. 17, 2001 [Referenced Chapter 1, The 9/11 Commission Report, "We Have Some Planes," footnote 44] (page 12 of 59)

JPEG here - click to enlarge and read or print:

So what does this all mean? Is the BTS database wrong? If not, how could Flight 175 radio that it was at 19,000 feet at 8:23 when it was just taking off? Could Flight 175 have reached 31,000 feet in 17 minutes at a normal rate of ascent? Would Flight 175 have been in the location it was said to be at various times if it in fact took off nine minutes later? If the FAA thought it was speaking to a plane that was at location X, and Flight 175 was not in fact at location X, what does that mean?

[Update: Another reason this time is important has become apparent to me from reading this FAA Report on Aircraft Accident about Flight 11:

At page 3 of 4, the report states that Flight 175 made visual contact with Flight 11 and verified Flight 11's altitude at 8:38 a.m. (1238 universal time). This would not have been possible if Flight 175 left the ground at 8:23 as BTS says, rather than at 8:14, as the FAA and the 9/11 Commission say, because Flight 175 would have been 50 miles or more east of Flight 11's reported flight path.]

I don't know if my questions make sense as my knowledge of air traffic control comes from watching John Cusack and Billy Bob Thornton in "Pushing Tin." But given the war games going on, and the fact that as many as 11 planes were reported missing on 9/11, I have to wonder if the discrepancy in take off times means that the FAA in the documents above was not tracking and talking to Flight 175, but to some other plane or blip.

Wednesday, March 14, 2007

Flight 11 and Flight 77 now in BTS database, but with incomplete data

Gerard Holmgren searched the Bureau of Transportation Statistics online database, learned that American Airlines Flight 11 and Flight 77 were not scheduled for September 11, 2001, and wrote about his findings here:

The JPEG files below are partial copies of the American Airlines flights leaving Boston's Logan Airport and Washington DC Dulles Airport on September 11, 2001, produced on March 14, 2007, using this database:

As of March 14, 2007, Flight 11 and Flight 77 are now listed in the database, each with a scheduled departure and scheduled elapsed time listed, but with no actual departure time and no "wheels off" time. The tail numbers are also not listed.

Other planes scheduled to depart after planes were grounded that day have the same data listed, including the lack of a tail number But Flight 11 and Flight 77 supposedly had an actual departure time and a wheels off time, so why are these not listed, along with the tail numbers?

It does not seem to be because they crashed, because United Airlines Flight 175 and Flight 93 have this data listed in the JPEGs below, produced from the same BTS database. The only difference between Flights 175 and 93 and the other planes that got off the ground is that 175 and 93 do not state actual elapsed flight time.

Flight 11 - click to enlarge and read or print.

Flight 77 - click to enlarge and read or print.

Flight 175 (page 2 of 3) - click to enlarge and read or print.

Flight 93 (on page 2 of 2) - click to enlarge and read or print.

Killtown compiles a variety of data about the flights, airplanes, and passengers here:

Zbigniew Brzezinski warns Senate of false-flag terror

Zbigniew Brzezinski was national-security adviser in the Carter administration, and is considered a geopolitical expert. He is part of the Establishment, and has all the hawkishness necessary to be seen as "serious" in our nation.

On February 1, 2007, Brzezinski spoke to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the war in Iraq, and warned of coming war with Iran.

In his statement, he made a terrifying prediction of false-flag terror in the U.S., blamed on Iran as an excuse for a "defensive" war against Iran:

A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a “defensive” U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

How else would you interpret a "terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran"? He did not say "a terrorist act by Iran."

"Defensive " in quotes also implies the fraud of false-flag terror.

The Associated Press in reporting on this left out "in the U.S.," and took the quotes off of "defensive."

A full comparison of Brzezinski's statement to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with the incomplete Associated Press report on this statement is here:

Brzezinski was asked specifically if he was saying that the U.S. government might be the source of a provocation. Judge for yourself, but I read between the lines and say that he specifically answered "yes" when he said that "all sorts of calculations can produce a circumstance that would be very difficult to trace."

Following the hearing, this reporter asked Brzezinski directly if he was suggesting that the source of a possible provocation might be the US government itself. The former national security adviser was evasive.

The following exchange took place:

Q: Dr. Brzezinski, who do you think would be carrying out this possible provocation?

A: I have no idea. As I said, these things can never be predicted. It can be spontaneous.

Q: Are you suggesting there is a possibility it could originate within the US government itself?

A: I’m saying the whole situation can get out of hand and all sorts of calculations can produce a circumstance that would be very difficult to trace.

The Seattle Times ignored Brzezinski's statement to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, even though it has often recently quoted Brzezinski several times:

I guess I should not blame the Seattle Times - they generally run foreign policy articles by the Washington Post, New York Times, or Los Angeles Times, who did not report on Brzezinski's statement.

According to this article, none of the major newspapers covered Brzezinki's statement, even though the Washington Post gave extensive coverage to war-supporter Henry Kissinger's statement to the same committee the day before.

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer also ignored the Brzezinski statement. This is ironic, because in 2004 the editorial board published an editorial citing the views of Brzezinski and calling for detente with Iran.

Ironically, the editorial board parroted without question the allegations of President Bush that Iran may have played a role in the 9/11 attacks.

Later, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer published a letter by a citizens group arguing for government complicity in the 9/11 attacks. This letter cited Brzezinski's 1997 statement that the key to global dominance in the 21st century lies in control of Central Asian oil and gas reserves, and that establishing a U.S. presence there would require the kind of military deployment that only "a direct external threat" could justify.

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer has published other articles or columns mentioning Brzezinski:

Why do these papers ignore this latest warning by Brzezinski? They parrot unsubstantiated allegations of 9/11 complicity against the enemy de jure, then ignore a warning by an Establishment mandarin that a terrorist act could occur in the United States and be blamed on Iran as an excuse for a "defensive" war.

It's outrageous, if you think about it.

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

Firefighters Union Letter On Rudy Giuliani

Here is an example of why I think 9/11 was "just business" for the gangsters running our country. The EPA's false statement to responders about safety of the air at Ground Zero is another example. Bhopal, Walter Reed, the Nigerian Delta, Cancer Alley, Katrina, ill-equipped troops in Iraq - the list goes on. These are of course my own views, not to be attributed to the firefighters union, whose words speak for themselves.

Firefighters Union Letter On Rudy Giuliani
March 8, 2007


In conjunction with the cut in fire fighters allowed to search, Giuliani also made a conscious decision to institute a "scoop-and-dump" operation to expedite the clean-up of Ground Zero in lieu of the more time-consuming, but respectful, process of removing debris piece by piece in hope of uncovering more remains.

Mayor Giuliani's actions meant that fire fighters and citizens who perished would either remain buried at Ground Zero forever, with no closure for families, or be removed like garbage and deposited at the Fresh Kills Landfill.

. . .

Giuliani argued that the change was for our own safety, but his argument was empty and without substance. Fire fighters had been on that pile since minutes after the twin towers fell — why all of a sudden, after nearly two months working on the pile, was Giuliani concerned about fire fighter safety?

In our view, he wasn't really concerned. The fact is that the Mayor's switch to a scoop-and-dump coincided with the final removal of tens of millions of dollars of gold, silver and other assets of the Bank of Nova Scotia that were buried beneath what was once the towers. Once the money was out, Giuliani sided with the developers that opposed a lengthy recovery effort, and ordered the scoop-and-dump operation so they could proceed with redevelopment.

In the first few days immediately after the disaster, Giuliani had said he was committed to the recovery of those lost "right down to the last brick." We believed him at the time. But, what he proved with his actions is that he really meant the "last gold brick."

. . .

Fraternally and Sincerely,

Harold A. Schaitberger, General President

Vincent J. Bollon, General Secretary-Treasurer and Past President, UFOA of NYC, Local 854

Kevin Gallagher, IAFF 1st District Vice President and Past President, UFA of NYC, Local 94

Stephen Cassidy, President, UFA of NYC, Local 94

Peter Gorman, President, UFOA of NYC, Local 854

Written by IAFF - FireFighter Owned and Operated
©2007 e-Firefighter, LLC - All Rights Reserved.

Wednesday, March 7, 2007

United Airlines reports on Flight 175

I cannot confirm their authenticity, but this archive has United Airlines press releases from throughout the day on 9/11/2001.,11641,-1_,00.html

It is odd to me that by 11:17 a.m., Flight 93 was reported to have crashed, while United was only "deeply concerned" about Flight 175.,11641,-1__1748_1,00.html

In the press release of 11:53 a.m., United said it was sending a team to Johnstown , PA for Flight 93, to assist in the investigation and help family members, but said nothing about sending a team anywhere for Flight 175. The 11:53 press release said that United had confirmed that both planes had crashed, but did not say where Flight 175 had crashed.,11641,-1__1750_1,00.html

In the press release of 2:09 p.m., United was saying it had "confirmed the loss of [Flight 175]. Last radar contact with the aircraft was between Newark, NJ, and Philadelphia, PA." United also said it was sending a team to New York:

Based on information received from the authorities, United is also sending employees to the New York City area to assist in every way it can with this tragedy.,11641,-1__1752_1,00.html

Even at 5:23 PM, United Airlines was still saying only that it had confirmed the loss of the aircraft and was sending people to New York based on information received from authorities.,11641,-1__1760_1,00.html

It seems almost as if United did not know or did not agree that Flight 175 had hit the South Tower, and was sending employees to New York based only on what the authorities were saying.

The 9/11 Commission Report says that United Airlines headquarters knew at 9:20 a.m. that Flight 175 had hit the South Tower. The 9/11 Commission Report says a lot of things. Perhaps it is true that United Airlines was told at 9:20 that Flight 175 had hit the South Tower, and perhaps United Airlines had some reason for not saying two hours and even eight hours later that Flight 175 had hit the South Tower.

Friday, March 2, 2007

Jose Padilla - tortured, mind erased

Jose Padilla, American citizen, was accused of a dirty bombing plot. This allegation was used to terrorize the American people. When the Bush regime eventually brought him into the criminal justice system to avoid an adverse ruling from the Supreme Court, this charge could not be proved, and was dropped for the charge of "providing - and conspiring to provide - material support to terrorists, and conspiring to murder individuals who are overseas."

This cynical strategy is described here:

Now that Padilla has been charged, he may never stand trial because his mind has been destroyed by sensory deprivation. Tortured until he can't be proven guilty. Which means that an innocent man, and a U.S. person to boot, has been imprisoned and tortured for no possible justifiable reason. (Remember that radical idea "innocent until proven guilty"?)

The forensic psychiatrist who examined him says that he “does not appreciate the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him, is unable to render assistance to counsel, and has impairments in reasoning as the result of a mental illness, i.e., post-traumatic stress disorder, complicated by the neuropsychiatric effects of prolonged isolation.” (2) Jose Padilla appears to have been lobotomised: not medically, but socially.

This is a high crime. Congress should impeach based on the Padilla case alone. Otherwise, Congress condones this barbarity.

Thursday, March 1, 2007

Sandia has new video of crash test

This video shows more of the debris that resulted from the crash, some of which is fairly large. One shot appears to show a large wingtip shooting off to the side. I'll have to wait to describe what this new video means in my view; for now, here it is:

(Click on "F-4 Videostream." The .mov file links don't work.)