Loose Change 2nd edition

[Postman]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loose+change

[TomInTib]

1. Is this an updated version? nt

[sce56]

2. It is the 2nd edition which has about twenty more minutes than the 1st

one and talks about more COINCIDENCES like flight 93 landing at Cleavland Airport!





Look closely and you can see the jets of material being shot out of the sides and the puffs of smoke in the head on view! This is just below the collapsing levels as demolition charges blast out of the tower as they cut out the support structures so the building will collapse taking us into a new war brought on by the lies and false flag ops of the war profiteers.



Got Broad Band watch the video Loose Change
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-51375819912882


Also see the call to reopen http://www.reopen911.org / they were sending out free videos watch and see how far down the rabbit hole this story goes! Watch the dramatic video as one of the World Trade Center Towers collapses
Play video (Quick Time, Real or Windows Media) http://reopen911.org/pictures_and_videos.htm#1

[RoyGBiv]

3. Cleveland ...

That was a very poorly done segment. It detracts from the the more poignant substance of the video that preceded it.

The whole thing is based on a swiss cheese theory thrown together from a single, most likely mistaken source and run through with enormous logical leaps.

For example, the idea that Flight 93 landed in Cleveland is based on a news report at 11:43am that day. The flight identified in that story as Flight 93 was also claimed to be a Boeing 767, which it was not. (I might also mention the part of the piece that they showed in the video had typos, which only gives evidence of the fast and sloppy nature of the rush to report anything at all that day.) Then, without questioning or offering any other single shred of actual evidence, the narrator assumes that Flight 93 landed at Cleveland and proceeds to work around the apparently bizarre happenings with Delta Flight 1989 as compared to "the other" plane that landed around the same time. This plane assumed to be 93 is also said to have had around 200 passengers. The Flight 93 reported to have crashed had around 44 people, including crew. With no declared explanation for the discrepancy, this bit makes the producers, imo, look like cranks, which is sad because, with certain notable exceptions, the previous parts were better put together, if still lacking in hard detail.

More bizarre, to me, was the bit at the end of that particular segment when he said it was notable that the combined total of passengers of "all four flights" was 198 ... or 243, depending on who you ask. (I assume here he's talking about the 4 hijacked planes, although he doesn't make that clear.) And then he just lets that drop. Why is this notable? He'd just been talking about two flights into Cleveland, one with around 60 passengers, the other around 200. Is he suggesting that all the passengers from all the flights were herded together into one plane and taken to a NASA research facility in Cleveland? Based on the opening segment, which recounts a suggested plot in the 60's that would have done something like this as and then blown up another plane near Cuba, which would be used as a pretext for military action, it seems so. But, the numbers don't add up at all.

About the initial assumption, I'd note simply that the early reports were heavily flawed all across the nation in various ways. Local news, for example, reported a British Airways jet landing at Will Rogers sometime that afternoon. Didn't happen. The FAA employees, who were all sent home around 10am local time, had their own versions of wild rumors of the happenings in OKC, most of which turned out not to be true in any way.

[sce56]

4. Ok maybe you did not understand what they were getting at but let me ask

you what do you think of the pictures posted above specificaly the jets of material being shot out from the building 10 to twenty floors below the collapse! Also why was the AirForce AWOL that day when they never failed to intercept any off course plane reported to them by FAA with in twenty minutes in the year prior to 911?
Also why are there explosions seen shooting up in th epictures below when the buildings just collapsed?

[Beelzebud]

5. Building 7 is curious. Those "jets" of debris can be easily explained

with physics.

The top of the building came down. Do you realize the pressures taht built up in the structure as the roof came in? Building 7 came down like a controlled demo. The twin towers did not. The roof collapsed and the pressure blew those windows, and lots of debris, out.

There are plenty of odd things that went on during 9/11, but those "jets of debris" are not one of them, IMO.

[sce56]

6. Ok how about the eyewitnesses that sya they heard explosions and the audio

that clearly shows explosions seconds before the attack!


Venezuelan Gov. Launching 9/11 Investigation
From PrisionPlanet.com

Billionaire philanthropist Jimmy Walter and WTC survivor William Rodriguez this week embarked on a groundbreaking trip to Caracas Venezuela in which they met with with the President of the Assembly and will soon meet with Venezuelan President himself Hugo Chavez in anticipation of an official Venezuelan government investigation into 9/11.

Rodriguez was the last survivor pulled from the rubble of the north tower of the WTC, and was responsible for all stairwells within the tower. Rodriguez represented family members of 9/11 victims and testified to the 9/11 Commission that bombs were in the north tower but his statements were completely omitted from the official record.

Jimmy Walter has been at the forefront of a world tour to raise awareness about 9/11 and has still yet to receive any response to his million dollar challenge in which he offers a $1 million reward for proof that the trade towers' steel structure was broken apart without explosives.

Rodriguez said that he was told an FBI agent had asked the hotel him and Walter were staying in turn over a list of names of residents. Upon hearing this, the National Assembly provided armed military protection for the entirety of the trip. In addition, Walters said that CIA agents were seen surveilling the beach on which he and Rodriguez had handed out free DVD's a day earlier.

The US government attempted to sabotage the trip by putting Rodriguez, who has been decorated at the White House itself, and Walter on a no fly list.

Rodriguez and Walter are educating top Venezuelan officials on the evidence that 9/11 was a self-inflicted wound carried out by the military-industrial complex. They have also appeared on every Venezuelan television and radio station both private and state owned and have given huge presentations to major universities.

Upon visiting, Rodriguez said that the President of the Assembly, Nicolas Maduro's home was brimming with books, videos and documents about the 9/11 cover-up. Maduro, Venezuela's top legislator, intoned that he was ready to create an international investigative committee, looking into the "international crime scene" that is 9/11 and that this would be structured via Hugo Chavez's government.

Rodriguez and Walter are also set to appear on Hugo Chavez's weekly broadcast 'Alo Presidente' - which is often subsequently the source of major international headlines. If there is no coverage of this event then we know for sure that a blackout order is in place.

Rodriguez and Walter offered their full support for Charlie Sheen's recent public stance on 9/11 and were heartened by his efforts. The potential of a government level inquiry endorsed by Hugo Chavez dovetails with Sheen's call for an independent investigation to be carried out by political foreign nationals.

Though the establishment media will no doubt seek to demonize Chavez as a militant with an axe to grind, this is an exciting development and the next step on the road to a genuine investigation that will seek to uncover the truth rather than hide skeletons and whitewash as was witnessed with the staged Kean committee.

[sce56]

7. How about the SEISMOGRAPH evidence

SEISMOGRAPH

More explosive evidence comes from the seismographs at Columbia University's
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York, 21 miles north
of the WTC. This facility recorded strange seismic activity on September
11 that has still not been explained.



The above image is a seismographical readout at the time of the attacks
and collapse of the WTC. You can clearly see on the top line the small
peaks of the planes impacts.

But here is where it gets interesting, check out those two really BIG
spikes on the 3rd and 4th lines. Those spikes represent the collapse
of the towers. Notice the shape of these spikes, the highest peak is
actually at the beginning. A strange anomaly when you consider the nature
of a collapse is more gradual than explosive, with the vibrations becoming
more and more intense as each floor collapses onto the next.

But this isnt the case in the seismograph.



The Palisades seismic data recorded a 2.1 magnitude earthquake during
the 10-second collapse of the South Tower at 9:59:04 and a 2.3 quake
during the 8-second collapse of the North Tower at 10:28:31.

While the aircraft crashes caused minimal earth shaking, significant
earthquakes with unusual spikes occurred at the beginning of each collapse.
Not only that, but these two unexplained spikes are more than twenty
times the amplitude of the other seismic waves associated with the collapses!


This seismic record shows that as the collapses began - a huge seismic
spike marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The
strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses,
well before the falling debris struck the earth.

[savemefromdumbya]

26. They were blown

[sce56]

8. And how about the UL lab report on the steel quality and specifications

From: Kevin R Ryan/SBN/ULI
To: [e-mail]
Date: 11/11/2004
Dr. Gayle,

Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly.

As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.

There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel . . . burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown's theory."

We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.

The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse". The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.

However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building's steel core to "soften and buckle"(5). Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C". To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above 1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.

This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.

There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at the crux of the crux of the crux. Either you can make sense of what really happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or we all face the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based on disinformation and "chatter".

Thanks for your efforts to determine what happened on that day. You may know that there are a number of other current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth. I've copied one of these people on this message as a sign of respect and support. I believe your work could also be a nucleus of fact around which the truth, and thereby global peace and justice, can grow again. Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel.

1. http://www.boulderweekly.com/archive/102104/coverstory.html
2. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 61st edition, pg D-187

3. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofSteel.pdf
4. http://www.voicesofsept11.org/archive/911ic/082703.php
5. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACWTCStatusFINAL101904WEB2.pdf (pg 11)

6. http://www.forging.org/FIERF/pdf/ffaaMacSleyne.pdf
Kevin Ryan
Site Manager
Environmental Health Laboratories
A Division of Underwriters Laboratories

South Bend



UQ Wire: Underwriter Speaks Out On WTC Study
Monday, 15 November 2004, 2:33 pm
Article: www.UnansweredQuestions.org

Distribution via the Unanswered Questions Wire
http://www.unansweredquestions.org/ .

UL Executive Speaks Out On WTC Study

Friday, November 12, 2005
(911Truth.org news service -- updated 11/13, 11/14)

"The buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel." - Kevin RyanAn executive at Underwriters Laboratories (UL), the company that certified the steel used in the construction of the World Trade Center, has questioned the common theory that fuel fires caused the Twin Towers to collapse.

In a letter dated Thursday (11/11, complete text below), UL executive Kevin Ryan called on Frank Gayle, director of the government team that has spent two years studying how the trade center was built and why it fell, to "do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel."

Kevin Ryan is Site Manager at Environmental Health Laboratories (EHL) in South Bend, Indiana. This is a division of UL, the product-compliance and testing giant. Because UL certified the WTC steel for its ability to withstand fires, the steel's performance on September 11 is obviously of concern to the company. While Ryan's letter does not constitute an official statement from Underwriters Laboratories, it suggests incipient disagreements between UL and NIST about the true cause of the WTC collapses.

Gayle is deputy chief of the Metallurgy Division at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and head of the "NIST and the WTC" team. A draft of the government agency's final report on the WTC collapses is due in January.

Ryan copied the letter to Gayle in e-mails to David Ray Griffin, author of the New Pearl Harbor, and to Catherine Austin Fitts, who is a member of the 911Truth.org board. Griffin requested and received permission to distribute Ryan's letter to other parties. The letter was published Friday (11/12) at septembereleventh.org, the site of the 9/11 Visibility Project.

ADVERTISEMENT
911Truth.org called Ryan Friday to confirm his authorship. Ryan made it clear he is speaking for himself only, not on behalf of his laboratory or the company, but others at UL are aware of his action.

The letter raises disturbing questions, pointing out that the temperatures of fuel fires in the towers on September 11 appear to have been far too low to cause a failure of the structural steel.

A chemist by profession, Ryan said he considers Gayle to be a good scientist and an honest person. Given the impact of September 11 on events around the world, Ryan said everyone needs to know the full truth of what really happened on that day.

In a related development, the New York Times reported Friday (11/12) that the NIST team under Gayle is planning to hold some of its deliberations in secret. "The announcement has been sharply protested by advocates for families of the 9/11 victims, who said they were considering a lawsuit to force the agency to open the meetings to the public," the Times wrote.

As the Times noted, the NIST investigation was started in 2002 after lobbying by, among others, the Skyscraper Safety Campaign, an organization created by Monica Gabrielle and Sally Regenhard, both of whom lost family on September 11.

Gabrielle told the Times that NIST should have "one job, and one job only - to find out the truth of what happened to those buildings and to report to the public about it. You don't owe industry, the Port Authority or federal agencies anything. You owe it to the public - the truth, no matter where it goes." (See www.nytimes.com)

-911Truth.org (nl)




THE ONLY THING MISSING HERE IS THAT AFTER THIS INFO WAS PUBLISHED MR RYAN WAS FIRED!

UQ Wire: Underwriter Speaks Out On WTC Study
Monday, 15 November 2004, 2:33 pm
Article: www.UnansweredQuestions.org

Distribution via the Unanswered Questions Wire
http://www.unansweredquestions.org/ .

UL Executive Speaks Out On WTC Study

Friday, November 12, 2005
(911Truth.org news service -- updated 11/13, 11/14)

"The buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel." - Kevin RyanAn executive at Underwriters Laboratories (UL), the company that certified the steel used in the construction of the World Trade Center, has questioned the common theory that fuel fires caused the Twin Towers to collapse.

In a letter dated Thursday (11/11, complete text below), UL executive Kevin Ryan called on Frank Gayle, director of the government team that has spent two years studying how the trade center was built and why it fell, to "do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel."

Kevin Ryan is Site Manager at Environmental Health Laboratories (EHL) in South Bend, Indiana. This is a division of UL, the product-compliance and testing giant. Because UL certified the WTC steel for its ability to withstand fires, the steel's performance on September 11 is obviously of concern to the company. While Ryan's letter does not constitute an official statement from Underwriters Laboratories, it suggests incipient disagreements between UL and NIST about the true cause of the WTC collapses.

Gayle is deputy chief of the Metallurgy Division at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and head of the "NIST and the WTC" team. A draft of the government agency's final report on the WTC collapses is due in January.

Ryan copied the letter to Gayle in e-mails to David Ray Griffin, author of the New Pearl Harbor, and to Catherine Austin Fitts, who is a member of the 911Truth.org board. Griffin requested and received permission to distribute Ryan's letter to other parties. The letter was published Friday (11/12) at septembereleventh.org, the site of the 9/11 Visibility Project.

ADVERTISEMENT
911Truth.org called Ryan Friday to confirm his authorship. Ryan made it clear he is speaking for himself only, not on behalf of his laboratory or the company, but others at UL are aware of his action.

The letter raises disturbing questions, pointing out that the temperatures of fuel fires in the towers on September 11 appear to have been far too low to cause a failure of the structural steel.

A chemist by profession, Ryan said he considers Gayle to be a good scientist and an honest person. Given the impact of September 11 on events around the world, Ryan said everyone needs to know the full truth of what really happened on that day.

In a related development, the New York Times reported Friday (11/12) that the NIST team under Gayle is planning to hold some of its deliberations in secret. "The announcement has been sharply protested by advocates for families of the 9/11 victims, who said they were considering a lawsuit to force the agency to open the meetings to the public," the Times wrote.

As the Times noted, the NIST investigation was started in 2002 after lobbying by, among others, the Skyscraper Safety Campaign, an organization created by Monica Gabrielle and Sally Regenhard, both of whom lost family on September 11.

Gabrielle told the Times that NIST should have "one job, and one job only - to find out the truth of what happened to those buildings and to report to the public about it. You don't owe industry, the Port Authority or federal agencies anything. You owe it to the public - the truth, no matter where it goes." (See www.nytimes.com)

-911Truth.org (nl)

[sce56]

9. The Week The USA Went Down The 911 Rabbit Hole Wednesday, 5 April 2006

The Week The USA Went Down The 911 Rabbit Hole
Wednesday, 5 April 2006, 11:23 am
Opinion: www.UnansweredQuestions.org

Distribution via the Unanswered Questions Wire
http://www.unansweredquestions.org/ .

The Week The Nation Went Down The 9-11 Rabbit Hole

March 28, 2006
by Les Jamieson
From: http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060328141014712We always knew that one good news event exposing the official deception of 9/11 could be the catalyst to unravel the Big Lie. We didn't know there would be several news events in one week! Now we see what it looks like when the truth breaks loose.

Last Monday an article titled "The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll" by Mark Jacobson came out in New York Magazine. The 8,000 word article with photos gets to core questions still unanswered after 4 ½ years, and delineates the four different possible viewpoints regarding the attacks. We get to view 9/11 in the context of other unsolved conspiracies and their cover-ups. One of the points most incriminating to the government is that NIST's lead investigator stated that he couldn't explain why Building 7 collapsed. This gets personal. Mark, the author, saw Building 7 freefall himself.

Right on the heels of this ground-breaking article, actor Charlie Sheen was interviewed by radio host and documentary producer, Alex Jones. Alex is known for his investigative work into false flag terror and New World Order machinations. Sheen expressed his grave doubts about the official explanation of 9/11 and gave detailed reasons why. He also witnessed part of that tragic day and is speaking from first hand experience. This was no ordinary person speaking out. His celebrity status coupled with what's considered a "far-fetched conspiracist" viewpoint made this a very risky move and required great courage and exhibited great passion for truth.
ADVERTISEMENT
This explosive interview immediately caused a whirlwind of coverage on the net, with articles on Rawstory.com, Propagandamatrix.com, 911blogger.com, Prisonplanet.com and 911truth.org, to name a few. Other print media such as the New York Post and Boston Herald carried stories. To top it off, CNN's "Showbiz Tonight" carried three consecutive nights of programming that included clips of the Sheen interview, interviews with Alex Jones, a segment with researcher Mike Berger and film producer Nicole Rittenmeyer, a short clip of comments by Webster Tarpley, and an interview with journalist Mark Jacobson. Mark was also interviewed on Air America Radio's Rachel Maddow show Friday morning. Sheen has now further addressed the press now, with a firm admonition to "Challenge Me on the Facts."

Speaking of Air America, today host Randi Rhodes, known for her hard hitting investigative commentary mixed with raw humor and occasional shock-jock antics, took a call from a listener who saw the CNN coverage with the Berger/Rittenmeyer interview. Turns out Randi saw it, too. She said that was the best 10 minute news segment she's ever seen, other than some segments on Bill Maher and John Stewart's show and was amazed she would have to see this coverage on what is essentially a Hollywood gossip show. Randi went on to exclaim it was bizarre that Building 7 fell without being hit by a plane and how unbelievable it was that Hani Hanjour could have piloted that flight maneuver into the Pentagon.

CNN posted a poll on Thursday, asking whether people agreed with Charlie Sheen's view that the government is covering up what really happened on 9/11. Final results of the poll --with over 52,600 votes cast, 84% agreed with Sheen.

And today, 3/28/06, CNN announced for tonight's show, "Exclusive: Actor Ed Asner takes on the controversy over Charlie Sheen's comments about a 9/11 conspiracy theory. ("Showbiz Tonight" airs live on Headline News at 7 p.m. and replays at 11 p.m.Eastern). He will be joined by Sander Hicks, Green Party Candidate for US Senate, to discuss 9/11 and the whistleblowers who tried to stop it.

Please take a moment to thank Showbiz Tonight for their ongoing coverage of 9/11 Truth. You can reach host A. J. Hammer at this weblink, or leave a general comment for CNN, supporting Hammer at this link. And join New Yorkers in thanking CNN tomorrow, 3/29/06, at a "Demonstration of Gratitude""Demonstration of Gratitude" at Time-Warner Center.)

So the dam is breaking, the tide is turning, and the wave is cresting, truth lovers. Now we wait for more of our fellow citizens to wake up to the fact that people like Paul Craig Roberts, Howard Zinn, Steven Jones, David Ray Griffin, Peter Dale Scott, Daniel Ellsberg, and many more of their stature, have challenged the official account of 9/11. Maybe more family members and firemen will have the courage to come forward to reveal truth that will shed light on the deepest darkness imaginable to a nation raised to believe in goodness and liberty. It's a good bet that citizens will finally become aware of some of the 115 omissions and distortions detailed in David Ray Griffin's analysis of the fake investigation known as the 9/11 Commission Report. Maybe citizens will pay attention to the revelations of the Moussaoui trial and Able Danger proceedings which show that the scapegoats set up to look like hijackers were Oswalds -- in other words, patsies or decoys. Now maybe people who hate the war, hate the assault on civil liberties, have had all they can stand with the undermining of the middle class, are shell-shocked with the trillions of debt caused by the war and terror economy, and are appalled with criminal negligence in the wake of Katrina, will all have an epiphany and realize 9/11 was the New Pearl Harbor called for by the Machiavellian mob who have overtaken the highest levels of government. Maybe a sizable majority will ask Congress why they have been complicit by allowing this criminal administration to function after committing acts of treason and crimes against humanity.

We have to be sensitive to the fact that as many of our fellow citizens slide into the rabbit hole where we've been they'll have difficulty grappling with the notion that our own government was responsible for the massacre of 3,000 of our own people, (albeit they represent 84 different countries). There's no shielding the naïve from the fact that hundreds of thousands of our soldiers were exposed to Agent Orange during the Viet Nam War. Hundreds of thousands more were exposed to Depleted Uranium during Gulf War I, the Balkan War, and the current invasion of Iraq. Again, hundreds of thousands of our citizens who live and work in lower Manhattan were told the toxic air was safe to breathe in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. We have to objectively conclude that if our Joint Chiefs of Staff were willing to sacrifice our own citizens back in 1962 in the plot known as Operation Northwoods as a pretext to invade Cuba, our current government would sacrifice 3,000 of our people to justify their agenda to solidify superpower status as outlined by The Project For A New American Century's policy paper, Rebuilding America's Defenses, through an aggressive military strategy. This could only be supported out by an enraged, traumatized, fear-ridden public.

This week we've come a bit closer to viewing 9/11 as a gateway to understanding a pattern of events occurring over a span of many decades, designed to consolidate power and wealth in the hands of a tiny, ruthless ruling syndicate. We can look through this gateway and see the forces of empire, the source of the disease afflicting the planet for so long. This pathological power network has operated in extreme secrecy and has committed acts so heinous that the population would never suspect them. Let's fact it, Hitler himself said, the bigger the lie, the easier it is to fool the people.

This week we've also come a bit closer to the point where we must see 9/11 as a bridge. We must see the other side of that bridge as a place where we have an informed populace, a truthful media, a Congress that truly represents the people, and a world that works together in cooperation to utilize the best in enlightened thinking and scientific development that enhances and ennobles the life of every human being. It's up to all of us to collectively cross that bridge while the planet can still sustain us. Like never before, making the right transition into the future can only occur with a powerful vision. Is there really a choice?

Now for a look at what's next, you may be asking "what can I do?" The answer is -- continue to get informed and get active. Here's how:



• Review 911truth.org's activism page, "Now That You Know, What Can You Do? "
• View 911Revisited for free online by clicking here.

• See more educational video at www.911busters.com.

• Order books and documentaries on DVD by clicking here. (Be sure to read The New Pearl Harbor by David Ray Griffin.)

• Become a 9/11 truth e-activist. Send articles to folks on your email list. For new people an excellent path to help make sense of this information is at "Welcome Truth Seeker," and at the site www.911proof.com.

• If you're into blogging, please join our BloggerBrigade, which is a main component of our own 9/11 newswire. Read the description with our purpose at http://lists.riseup.net/www/info/bloggerbrigade, then send an email to [e-mail] to subscribe.

• We must all write letters-to-the-editor. We must all lobby the media for more coverage. Also, be part of our monthly grassroots action with Citizens Counter-Coup at http://3c.911truth.org where we're organizing the movement beyond the usual choir.
I must end by saying thank you to all the hard-working activists and researchers who have endured great sacrifice by devoting so many hours of their lives to expose the truth of 9/11 without any assurance of success. We've paved the way for the opening that occurred this week, making it possible for others like Charlie Sheen, Erica Jong and Ed Asner to come forward. And of course, thanks to Alex Jones for all he's done, and thanks to A.J. Hammer at CNN for opening the door. For all who have endured the media silence on 9/11 as we've reaped the consequences of the globalist plot, real progress may be on the horizon. For all who have been deprived of critical thinking and historical context and have only been able to view 9/11 through the lens of nationalistic outrage, we can only hope they'll apply themselves to viewing the mountain of evidence we've compiled and learning the facts. May truth prevail for the good of all.


********************
STANDARD DISCLAIMER FROM UQ.ORG: UnansweredQuestions.org does not necessarily endorse the views expressed in the above article. We present this in the interests of research -for the relevant information we believe it contains. We hope that the reader finds in it inspiration to work with us further, in helping to build bridges between our various investigative communities, towards a greater, common understanding of the unanswered questions which now lie before us.

[UCLA02]

22. But isn't it curious...

how the jets shooting out are the same from level to level as the collapse works its way down? The same windows are blown out on successive floors as the collapse happens. And not only single windows, but pairs of windows on multiple floors...

Gets curiouser and curiouser...

[mirandapriestly]

27. The "jets" were not from the collapsing floors

They only exist in a small area. If they were from a collapsing floor they would extend the length of the floor not just in one small area.
When a shaped charged detonates it emits a "jet of debris" as described below. I think that what you see in the picture looks more like this than a floor collapsing. Usually these "jets " do not correspond with the collapsing of a floor. It's the stream of material resembling a spraying hose that I am talking about.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaped_charge
The enormous pressure generated by the detonation of the explosive drives the liner contained within the hollow cavity inward to collapse upon its central axis. The resulting collision forms and projects a high-velocity jet of metal forward along the axis

[RoyGBiv]

10. Maybe you didn't understand ...

I was questioning the segment on Cleveland. Is that not clear? What do the above pictures have to do with the Cleveland segment?

OnEdit: See, this is what bothers me about all of this, and the nagging itch in the back of my head about that documentary. Someone who has already admitted part of the argument makes sense or is at least something to ponder criticizes a certain part of the argument, and the rebuttal, if we may call it that, focuses on something else entirely. Or, faced with a clear flaw in logic, the response is to ask a "well how do you explain this" question that does not address the flaw in logic. Ironically, this is the same game the government is accused of playing, avoiding the actual evidence and explaining away (or simply ignoring) logical and evidenciary flaws.

I'm not going to be dragged into a big ol' thing about this. I fully accept that the official story of 9/11 is filled with gaping holes, and the government's extreme secrecy and curious behavior regarding evidence that, if their story is true, could be released and clear it all up rather nicely. Yes, something smells bad about the whole thing.

But, that does not mean any wild theory based on innuendo, rumor, unsubstantiated reports, etc. that doesn't agree with the government story is then naturally true. Both verions of events could be, and probably are, wrong in many details. The problem is we don't know, and our knowing is not helped by speculation not supported by anything substantial, particularly when other hard evidence directly counters it.

[sce56]

16. Ok but the thing is that we ALL of us need to keep on hammering away at

the OFFICIAL story as it appears to me that it is the real CONSPIRACY THEORY hiding the truth behind that day! And all of the other things those people behind the curtains have been doing for a very long long long time as I heard one line of thought say the business of the US Government is WAR. Read the online book by a two time CMOH Awarded Gen Smedly Butler.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=SUNA%2CSUNA%...

[RoyGBiv]

20. Yes, certainly ...

Hammer away at it, but do so intelligently and carefully, not with wild speculation presented as fact.

FWIW, I've read Butler's book several times and have researched the events around it in great detail while preparing my own paper on those events and events similar to them. I'm fully cognizant of what people under the authority of government are capable of doing.

[theobscure]

11. I tend to agree with you about the highly speculative nature...

of the Loose Change videos. That's why I don't recommend them to people as an introduction to 9/11 truth.

We should be careful, however, to not discard any kind of anomalies completely. They may at some point connect with something else that we discover. I agree, however, that throwing such things out there on their own is too speculative and baseless.

One such anomaly that I think may some day mean something is the early media reports that a plane went down near the Indiana/Kentucky border. On it's own, right now, it certainly is not a point worth dwelling on; but it's certainly conceivable it may become a relevant point, perhaps even essential to getting at the truth.

[RoyGBiv]

14. I certainly agree with that ...

The fact that the story even exists about the Flight 93 landing in Cleveland is nothing something that should be discared completely. It *is* curious. My problem with what the video did with this factoid, which from your comments I think you understand, is that they ran with it in directions it didn't go. And my larger point with that is that if we accept all the nonsense that is clearly nonsense, our ability to ask genuine questions and find genuine answers is degraded.

I didn't know about this tidbit at all, and for that reason I'm glad I watched the videos; it was the only thing new to me. I just wish it hadn't gotten so weird for no good reason.

As an aside, I have a technical problem with the Loose Change video that doesn't have anything to do with the content. I really wish they'd found a better narrator. That person's voice started to get on my nerves after awhile, particularly when he lapsed into "hip" speak.

[Woody Box]

24. The Cleveland section is excellent

Dylan Avery perfectly visualized the "Cleveland Airport Mystery",

http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=323

which proves that the emergency landing of a mysterious airliner at Cleveland was covered by the nearly simultaneous landing of Delta 1989. This is supported by many, many sources, news reports, eyewitnesses, etc. Avery is on safe ground here because the importance of the article is recognized by Mike Ruppert, A.K. Dewdney, the british journalists Ian Henshall and Rowland Morgan, as well as countless independent researchers. None of the core statements of the article has been disproved.

Avery has chosen an approach slightly different to the article. Instead of leaving the identity of the mysterious airliner open, he takes the "Flight 93 landed at Cleveland" message as starting point and subsequently uses the term "Flight 93" instead of "Flight X". This is okay from a didactic point of view, because it is the perfect counterpiece to the empty hole at Shanksville. And Avery drops a subtle hint that something weird was going on with this "Flight 93" - exactly how you describe it here:

Is he suggesting that all the passengers from all the flights were herded together into one plane and taken to a NASA research facility in Cleveland? Based on the opening segment, which recounts a suggested plot in the 60's that would have done something like this as and then blown up another plane near Cuba, which would be used as a pretext for military action, it seems so. But, the numbers don't add up at all.

Why, please, don't the numbers add up? "Between 198 and 243" is on the same level as "around 200".

The Cleveland section is excellent. I couldn't have done it better.

[savemefromdumbya]

25. how would you know that Fl 93 had 44 passengers or 200 passengers or none?

you don't know what is and what isn't true

[YouthInAsia]

12. the point re. the "plane" that hit the pentagon is what really got me.

The fact that the engine they (the goverment) displayed was too small to be a big airliner was enough for me.

[theobscure]

13. isn't it bizarre how quickly they move these threads out of the..

main forums? I'm new here; but I found it astounding. It's as if they are so terrified that if the threads stay in the main discussion area, they, or other people reading the main forum, might feel compelled to actually look into the matter and be forced to deal with things they don't want to deal with. How sad for our democracy and for our future.

[RoyGBiv]

15. It's not bizarre ...

You can be forgiven for thinking that because you're new here. I'd probably think the same thing. The problem with these threads is that the often get very contentious and spawn massive, multiple other threads that go absolutely nowhere and end up as flame wars when they remain in GD. IOW, they served no good purpose because it was nearly impossible actually to have an intelligent discussion about it.

[mirandapriestly]

17. uh huh....nt

[theobscure]

18. I appreciate your explanation but...

I'm not sure that I can buy it completely. I see plenty of subjects in the general discussion with multiple, simultaneous threads. The only threads I've ever seen moved out of the general discussion forum deal with 9/11. I also see plenty of contentious debates in the main forums go on unhindered.

I still find it suspicious and troubling. But, it's the moderators forum. They can do what they want.


After all, it's Democratic Underground, as I've recently realized; not Democracy Underground.

[RoyGBiv]

19. If you have concerns ...

I suggest e-mail the admins. They're quite personable and willing to answer reasonably asked questions.

The point is that at one time, GD could quickly turn into a 9/11 forum for days on end with a smattering of other, more current topics, and you couldn't wade through anything to get at any substance. As for "Democracy" in DU, this solution was, I think, pretty much what most active members wanted at the time, at least from what I saw.

I'll just part with one thought. If the subject of, say, McKinney, is still spawning massive flame wars in multiple threads on a daily basis 4 years from now and hasn't been given its own forum, I'll understand your suspicion.

[theobscure]

21. I'll defer to your longevity here as far as forum procedure....

It's interesting to learn though that the issue of 9/11 truth was hashed through so extensively for four years in the main forum and nearly everyone seems to have come down on the side of buying the official story. What information were they looking at? The same that is available now?

I ask out of naivety. You see I had an uneasiness about how 9/11 went down from the start particularly in regard to the way the buildings fell and then how quickly the government was able to provide names and pictures of the "hijackers". However, I was having and continued to have some preoccupying personal issues and also did not have internet access for awhile.

I didn't spend any time connecting dots and exploring my suspicions any further until recently. When I did, it didn't take long to have my eyes opened. So I guess I'm wondering now if the exposure of the official story as a lie is being hampered by the well being poisoned by different, more wildly speculative or outlandish information in the past or if most people, no matter how long they are exposed to the reality, simply will not or cannot bring themselves to believe it.

[mirandapriestly]

23. Actually, I believe most on DU are fairly suspicious of 9-11

and tolerant of speculation as to what happened. There are a FEW who raise a ruckus and I'll leave it to you to imagine why.;) On a more hopeful note, at one time election fraud brought the same kind of divisiveness and now, I don't think anybody on DU would call anybody a "kook" for mentioning the stolen election(s). It's accepted that they were. Strangely, I remember when the administrators were going to get rid of the election fraud forum and people were very upset about that (including myself), but I think they were able to get highly recommended posts into the greatest which you can't do from this forum. They wanted there own forum. Interestingly, on the few occasions when a good 911 thread lasts in GD, it will get an enormous amounts of recs. Ya gotta wonder.