Maturin42's Blog

Sunday, September 23, 2007

Seven CIA Veterans Challenge 9/11 Commission Report

Seven CIA veterans have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and have called for a new investigation.These seven stand out in the truth community because they are expert at evaluation of evidence. Everyone must make up his own mind, but when individuals of this caliber from the intelligence community speak out this forcefully, it behooves every citizen to take heed and to inform himself.

read more | digg story

Saturday, September 22, 2007

Why collapse the buildings?

A 9/11 Denier, with whom I have been exchanging forum entries, says that collapsing the buildings was unnecessary to the purposes if the plotters wanted to do a Pearl Harbor type event. This is my response.

Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 11:41 pm Post subject: Why collapse the buildings?
Islamists had been implicated in a previous attack on the WTC. Although the FBI had a double-agent inside and actually supplied the explosive used (they provided a real bomb instead of the fake bomb expected by their agent) the plotters actually detonated it and killed a lot of people. No war ensued. The planes hitting the buildings was a powerful symbol but if only a few hundred died, it probably would not have provided the "pearl harbor" effect - feelings of helpless rage and desire for revenge we all felt that day. Why were those evacuating from the South tower after the North tower was hit told to go back to their desks? Only by assuming that a high death toll was required to accomplish their aims does it make any sense. When the buildings fell it provided the powerful visual of a symbol of our world financial leadership crumbling - a threat felt by everyone. This was psychological warfare played on a grand scale

But the WTC was in private hands, and had been for 6 weeks.

How does $4.6 to 7 billion dollars sound to you as a motive? Actually, the motive is much more than that. Larry Silverstein, a dual citizen of the U. S. and Israel*, on the day he signed a 99 year lease on that property became liable for asbestoes cleanup costs of about $800 million. In addition to this, the estimate for the disassembly of the towers was $15 billion. On at least two occasions, the port authority's request for a permit for demolition of the towers had been denied due to risk to adjacent properties and the asbestos issue. They would have been required to unbuild the buildings from the top down.
The WTC was a big white elephant, uncompetitive in the real estate market and had never been in private hands until Mr. Silverstein purchased the lease from the Port Authority for a $124 million down payment, of which he only spent $15 million. He also had additional protection on the deal, in that if anything happened to the buildings, he would be released from any further obligations. He got his money back AND he held all the cards. He immediately insured the buildings against terrorist attacks specifically. He argued after the attacks that he should collect $7.1 billion because there were two separate attacks. The court agreed but the payout was set at $4.6 billion.

In short, the only way Silverstein would have ever expected to recoup his costs on the trade center was the way it actually happened. The liability hung over this deal like a dark cloud and it had to be known from the beginning. But when the 'terrorist attack' took place, Silverstein's worries were over. He made a huge financial killing on a very low 6 week investment, was released from any obligations under the original deal, was still free to rebuild on the spot, which immediately became the hottest real estate in town (he rebuilt bldg 7 almost immediately, although the tower site is still undeveloped)

Edit: This was added later, since I should have thought of it but didn't until discussing it with my wife later. She mentioned the motive of destruction of evidence. The aircraft wreckage was primarily inside the buildings. There is considerable controversy over those aircraft - were they under the control of pilots - hijackers - who had demonstrated very little skill in flying light aircraft. Since nothing was heard from the assigned pilots after the aircraft were seized the use of remote control to steer the planes into the WTC has to be considered. (See operation Northwoods for precedent). A seasoned airline pilot with thousands of hours in the same type aircraft attempted, along with some of his students, to repeat the flight profile into the WTC in a simulator. He was able to hit the tower one time out of ten. His students could not hit it at all. If the aircraft had been modified - or if drones were used from the beginning - destroying the buildings would have obliterated the evidence of the modified planes. If you are doing a false-flag operation pretending that it is a terrorist attack, then you can't afford to have investigators poring over the wreckage of the plane. As it turned out, the steel and other wreckage was disappeared quickly and the black boxes, initially reported as found, were reported as not recovered.
End of edit.

The winners:
Silverstein - $4.6 billion profit with no financial downside.

PNAC - A New Pearl Harbor - just what they wanted.

Administration - they got a convenient group to focus the desire for revenge upon - Islamists and a new kind of war - a perpetual campaign against a para-military tactic - terror.

Airlines - several billions in bailout funds from the taxpayers.

The Military Industrial Complex. - lots of war profits to come, new weapons systems and new contracts for a new kind of military. Teeth provided by the soldiers and airmen and tail provided by an endless parade of war profiteers like Halliburton

Republicans - a basis for a permanent republican majority - a War President for a couple of terms and probably two more after him.

Guiliani - the "hero" who was warned that the towers were about to collapse but didn't warn his police or fire officials.

Big Oil - they get to execute Cheney's plan to divvy up Iraq assets.

Al Qaeda - new prestige in the world among those who already hate the U. S.

The insurance companies - Although they may look like losers they win because their premiums go up across the board for terrorism insurance, they will recoup the losses and then some.

And finally, Israel - what could be better than to have the world's only remaining superpower super pissed off at all the countries that surround you and threaten you? You are best buds with the baddest cat on the block and you no longer have to worry about Iraq, Syria, Iran, Egypt, or any Islamic country, and the Palestinians have lost any leverage they ever had with the U. S.

The losers:
The WTC victims

The passengers on the airliners

The firefighters and policemen

The victim's families

The rescue workers who are slowly choking to death due to deadly air at ground zero.

The entire population of the U. S. goes into post-traumatic shock

The constitution and Bill of Rights - the patriot act was ready to go before the attacks, not in reaction to it. The Congress was stampeded.

Islam - framed for something they did not do.

Human rights in general. The US ceased to be a beacon and example of a democratic society and became a torture state, a violator of the Geneva Convention, an adversary of the United Nations, and a practitioner of aggressive warfare against countries who did not attack us.

* In addition to Lucky Larry, several prominent members of the new Bush government were dual citizens. Philip Zelikow, Douglas Feith, Michael Chertoff, Richard Pearle, Dov Zakheim (controller of the Pentagon where on 10 Sept. 2001 $2.3 trillion of Pentagon funds had been reported as unaccounted for. The attack took out the accounting offices, out of which the investigation was being run)

If you can't conceive of people evil enough to plan and execute something like this, think back to something that happened in my lifetime - the German 'final solution'. If you can study the rise of Adolph Hitler, the Reichstag fire, the paranoia encouraged among the Germans for defense against their neighbors, the Enabling Act, which bypassed legislative authority and hastened the slide into a dictatorship, and not think of 9/11 and the Patriot act, you have a tighter rein on your thoughts than I.

I am not saying they are just like the Nazis. (Prescott Bush was one of Hitler's bankers and was implicated in the attempted coup against Roosevelt in 1933) I am saying that the parallels are there and that in pre-war America, Nazi sympathizers included the grandfather of Bush 43. The Neocons are largely deciples of Leo Strauss, mostly outspoken Zionists, and are believers in rule by elites and the ends justifying the means.

When I use the term Zionist, I refer not to "the Jews" or even the state of Israel. I am talking about American or dual citizens who place the interests of Israel above those of the United States. AIPAC is their lobby and they own a good chunk of the U. S. Congress, Republican and Democrat. Dick Cheney is a big supporter of AIPAC, and vice versa.
"A nation of sheep must beget a government of wolves"- Bertrand De Juvenal

Labels: , , , , ,

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

How Serious are the Democrats About Opposing Giuliani?

by Shelton F. Lankford

Rudy Giuliani is running on a platform of being the smart George W. Bush who was large and in charge on 9/11 in New York City. Why this should invoke anything other than condemnation and ridicule from thinking Americans is a mystery rivaling anything I have seen in popular culture. But Rudy is running on that platform, so let’s examine it for a few moments.

Rudy’s image that day is mostly based on the news footage of him walking rapidly through the devastated New York streets with an entourage of syncophants and hangers-on, clutching a dust-mask and barking orders. The reason he was doing that instead of taking up his post at the center of a communications network that coordinated city response to the attacks of that day, is because he had overruled most of the advice and counsel regarding the placement of his multi-million dollar Emergency Operations Center from which a response to a crisis of this nature could be directed. Most advice was to place it in Brooklyn, and experts warned that the World Trade Center, having once been a terrorist target, and literally the highest profile buldings in the city, likely would be again. But Rudy, heavily influenced by Jerome Hauer, his Director of Emergency Management, knew best, and so the EOC was placed on the 23rd floor of WTC Bldg. 7, after extensive modifications and reinforcements had been installed to provide environmental isolation and fortification against blast and other threats. This was the logical place for the Mayor to locate on the morning of the most serious attacks on American soil since the Civil War.

The Mayor never went there on 9/11, but instead set up a temporary command post at 75 Barkeley street - across West Street from Bldg. Seven. What did he know that kept him from going to his EOC? While the planes had damaged the tops of the towers and they were on fire, the possibility that they might collapse had to be considered remote, because nothing like that had ever happened. Building 7 was not damaged at that time. The Towers were designed to absorb such a blow and remain standing.

Here is Giuliani’s account, broadcast on 11 September, 2001 by ABC News:
"I--I went down to the scene and we set up headquarters at 75 Barkley Street, which was right there with the police commissioner, the fire commissioner, the head of emergency management, and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse. And it did collapse before we could actually get out of the building, so we were trapped in the building for 10, 15 minutes, and finally found an exit and got out, walked north, and took a lot of people with us."

This year, confronted by protestors at a public appearance in New York, his account is somewhat different. The protesters wanted to know why, if he was warned of the imminent collapse of the buildings, firefighters and police officers inside the buildings were not warned to evacuate. Rudy, forgetting that modern devices called cameras and recorders exist, replied, saying "I didn't realize the towers would collapse." He later added, "No one that I know of had any idea they would implode. That was a complete surprise." Notice that his denials take the form of “I didn’t realize...” instead of “I was not warned”.

As the man says - “Were you lying then or are you lying now?” I can think of a few reasons why he would be lying now. Foreknowledge of an event with no precedent in history bespeaks either extraordinary prescience, or insider knowledge. Since FEMA had the foresight to locate in New York the night before for a “drill” scheduled for Tuesday, is it unreasonable to believe that they would have coordinated with the Mayor? The evidence of the deliberate destruction of the WTC complex by controlled demolition is overwhelming (See for the particulars) and FEMA is a strong suspect as the one who pushed the buttons. Since it would have been bad form to blow up an important personage like the Mayor, his warning was most likely a courtesy - one insider to another. The warning did not originate from fire officials, some of whom were inside the building and died in the collapse, although it was noted that the temporary CP located inside the South tower mysteriously cleared out very shortly before the building exploded.

So the great leader of 9/11 is either an incompetent who used poor judgment or a liar and traitor to his own people about whom he had no thoughts at all when danger was upon them, or both. One would think that such a record would cause one to shrink from the public spotlight, but not Rudy.

In either case, it isn’t much of a recommendation for a candidate for President of the United States. It is much more of a reason to question him closely under oath in a court of law to determine if he should join Dick Cheney and others central to the false-flag attacks on America that day in the dock to show cause why the American people should not demand justice for their crimes.

The Democrats, while discomfited by the attacks on their front-runners by the Giuliani campaign, oddly avoid any mention of this bald-faced lie or the implications presented by it. You see, it involves opening a can of worms with 9/11 on the side, and according to the new rules of conduct apparently understood by everyone but written down nowhere, one does not mention 9/11 and insider knowledge in the same breath. It just is not done in polite political circles. This rivalry business must only go so far. So we must all voice our faith in the orthodoxy that Osama and the 19 caused 9/11 and anything else is just Conspiracy Theory. While this comes dangerously close to requiring a "religious test" for high office, something forbidden by Article VI, Section 3 of the Constitution, failure to declare for it is akin to professing atheism for a candidate. The harpies of Fox News and other lame-stream outlets would descend en masse upon your head should you break this rule, and the other candidates would join the chorus.

As long as our politics are confined to the narrow field described by two parties, both controlled by insiders, and committed to keeping things pretty much as they are, with the bulk of our wealth going to the M/I complex and corporate welfare and the crumbs being squabbled over by the rabble, thus it shall ever be. The river Denial runs deep through our land and our politics.

It's a sad fate for what used to be the beacon of freedom for the world.

Sunday, September 16, 2007

9/11 Explains The Impotence Of The Anti-war Movement

The anti-war movement has proven impotent to stop the war in Iraq despite the fact that the war was initiated on the basis of lies and deception. The anti-war movement stands helpless to prevent President Bush from attacking Iran or any other country that he might demonize for harboring a future 9/11 threat.

read more | digg story

Saturday, September 15, 2007

What can you learn from a Crappy movie?

Last evening, I surfed through the On-Demand channels and came across a Sci-Fi movie from about 1989 called "Millenium". It's a terrible movie about time travel and starts with a horrendous midair collision between two jumbo jets. They crashed, and littered the countryside with flaming debris, and Kris Kristofferson is the high-powered investigator dispatched from DC to head up an investigation that involves hundreds of people, all working diligently to collect every scrap of the aircraft and painstakingly reconstruct them in a couple of hangars near the crash sites.

That's how they used to do things. Even when two aircraft banged together in midair and came crashing to the ground, they went to work to learn all there was to learn about the cause. They wanted to nail it down in order to learn from it. What did we learn from 9/11's air crashes?

Four airliners allegedly crashed that day. The NTSB "investigation" was subordinated to the FBI. After the Flight Data Recorders from New York were reported to have been found, they were mysteriously lost again. None of the wreckage was matched with maintenance records, or if it was it was kept secret, and no positive proof has been offered that the equipment that was associated with those flights was what was claimed. For years after 9/11 the tail numbers of the aircraft were carried on the books of the airlines involved. American Flight 11 was carried until 1/14/2002, on which date it was reported as destroyed. American Flt 77, (Pentagon) registration was cancelled 1/14/2002 for the same reason. United Flight 175, which hit the South tower was carried on the books until 9/28/2005 at which time it was listed just as "cancelled". United Flt. 93 carries the same date of deregistration but, like Flt 175, it also doesn't even list the aircraft as having been destroyed, just "cancelled".

Flight data recorders were reportedly retrieved from the Shanksville aircraft and the Pentagon aircraft, allegedly. The Pentagon aircraft FDR raw data was, apparently accidentally provided to Pilots for 9/11 truth by NTSB, I would guess under the assumption that, without the data frame, it would be useless to a bunch of lay-people. They underestimated the tenacity and ingenuity of the Pilots and they got help from a company that makes the FDR.

An analysis of the raw data supplied by NTSB shows that the aircraft in question could not have hit the Pentagon. It was still 273' above the ground in the last frame of data. Its position and altitude placed contact with the street lights and the Pentagon itself outside the realm of possibility for that aircraft, given its altitude and airspeed. It could not have maneuvered to strike any of the things it was alleged to have hit. In addition, the course, position, and heading information places it well to the West of the flight path required to match up with the impact damage to the light poles and the penetration trajectory of the building. Either NTSB provided false data or the account of the aircraft hitting the Pentagon is false.

In the case of Shanksville, the startling lack of aircraft wreckage, the very small crater with no evidence visible of an air crash, coupled with the absence of a normal investigation and attempt to reassemble the aircraft adds to the suspicion. The FDR data from Shanksville is in the possession of Pilots for 9/11 truth and is being analyzed at present. NTSB refuses to elaborate on either the Pentagon or Shanksville data. They say only that they provided a "work product" to the FBI and any comment will have to come from them.

The NTSB has an online listing of aviation accidents from the past ten years at
None of the 9/11 flights are listed in this database.

In addition to the unusual handling of the aircraft part of this horrendous and very pivotal day in history, the investigation into the behaviour of the World Trade Center buildings and the Pentagon is very puzzling. The debris was spirited away by FEMA in what can only be described as very strange treatment of a crime scene, particularly one which cannot be definitively said to be solved, since the government has yet to present their promised case against the alleged hijackers and Osama Bin Laden has not been charged with the crime.

But beyond the crime scene nature of the cleanup in New York, the buildings themselves exhibited very strange behavior for steel-framed skyscrapers. They disintegrated symmetrically, the towers from the top down, very suddenly, and Bldg 7 in a classic controlled demolition fashion. The official story says fire and impact damage from the aircraft caused it. It was the first such collapses in recorded history, despite the fact that other steel-framed hi-rise buildings had suffered much longer, hotter fires and remained standing. NIST was assigned to do a building performance report. They have yet to offer any explanation for Bldg 7, but instead of going to the forensic evidence from the wreckage for the towers, they relied on a computer simulation in which they could tinker with the parameters. Only when using parameters far outside the range of any reasonable estimate of the temperatures encountered by the steel could they induce anything approaching the collapse that was observed.

The fact that three buildings exhibited first-ever-in-history behavior, all belonging to the same leaseholder, all newly acquired property (July 2001), all heavily insured specifically against terrorist acts, and representing a windfall profit of billions ($4.5 b) to the owner, should, it would seem, raise some suspicions. This property But leaving aside the possible arson and mass murder, the implications for the construction industry are huge and would merit, it would seem, an exhaustive and very public investigation. Nothing of the sort occurred. As George Benton noted, the editor of Fire Engineering magazine called the investigation a "half-baked farce".

The WTC suffered a severe fire between the 9th and 16th floor, including the core columns, and it lasted over three hours, burned hotter, since it broke windows, unlike the 9/11 fires, yet it caused no serious structural damage and the trusses were still in use on 9/11.

My point is that in the days when government agencies like the FAA and NTSB existed to provide a public service, the response to untoward events was quite different than it is when the agencies exist to provide cover to a criminal enterprise masquerading as a government. It ought to make you think about the likely future of our republic.

Labels: ,