Ten Years Of Murderous Nonsense

WTC6 was hollowed out. What did this?

Today marks the tenth anniversary of the last happy day of my life.

It was an ignorant sort of happy, but I remember it fondly nonetheless.

I may as well; tomorrow will mark ten years of murderous nonsense. The official story of 9/11 is impossible to believe, yet it is promoted more brazenly than any contemporary truth.

My effort to avoid the anniversary propaganda having failed, I started trying to mark the biggest, stupidest, 9/11-related lie I can find.

There are plenty of candidates for the honor.

WTC5 had multiple holes. What did this?

Some serious 9/11 researchers have been trying to compile a list of all the "holes" in the official story: the distortions, the omissions, the contradictions, the outright lies, and all the other bits and pieces of evidence which suggest that the real story behind 9/11 is not the one we have been told.

These people remind me of the Renaissance mathematicians who spent their whole lives trying to find all the prime numbers.

The mathematicians were working for the royal courts, in many cases, whereas the 9/11 researchers are working against the powers of our day.

But the fields of research are more or less equally infinite.

Being somewhat less ambitious, I started a list of the people who used to be, or used to be considered, investigative journalists, or at least honest dissident writers, but who have shown quite clearly that their primary interest in the truth about 9/11 is in bashing those who seek it.

What burned these cars?

My list would certainly have been finite, but I lacked the discipline required to keep adding to it.

At last I settled on a smaller task: finding the undisputed facts in the official story.

My list now contains the date, as well as the names and locations of some of the buildings which were damaged or destroyed on that day.

I do not see any possibility of adding to this list in the future.

And that's the state of play.

Jerome Hauer

What drilled huge holes in WTC5 and WTC6?

What burned hundreds of cars, some more than half a mile away from the WTC?

Why are such questions not allowed even at so-called '9/11 Truth' sites?

I could write at length about such matters, and if I were healthy I would probably do so. But I can't.

Instead I can only point out that the people who disseminated the official story of 9/11, the people who have fabricated new "research" to support it, and the people who mount vicious attacks on those of us who don't buy their murderous nonsense, are all -- by their own choice -- mortal enemies of everything that is true and just and righteous, and therefore of all humanity.

To comment on this post, please click here and join the Winter Patriot community.

An Astounding Discovery: More Evidence That The Official 9/11 Story Is Indefensible

In an article published by The Canadian, David Ray Griffin discusses New Evidence that the Official Story about 9/11 is Indefensible and why this new evidence has prompted him to revise his most recent book.

Early in 2007, Interlink Books published my Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory.
...

I was motivated to put out the Revised and Updated Edition primarily because of new information about the alleged phone calls from passengers on the flights to relatives, through which reports of hijackers on the airplanes reached the public.

In the first edition, I presented extensive evidence that reported cell phone calls from the airliners, including the approximately 10 reported cell phone calls from United 93 (which crashed in Pennsylvania), could not have occurred, because the cell phone technology at the time did not allow calls to be made from airliners flying at a high altitude (Flight 93 was at 34,300 to 40,700 feet when the calls were reportedly made). I argued not that the relatives of the passengers had lied about receiving the calls but that they had been duped -- by means of voice morphing, which is now perfected to the point that, advertisers brag, you can fool your spouse.

Even after my book appeared, Popular Mechanics continued to claim, on the basis of very weak evidence, that high-altitude cell phone calls were indeed possible (see the History Channel special, “9/11 Conspiracies: Fact or Fiction”). However, as I reported in the Revised and Updated Edition of my book, the FBI had in 2006 presented, as evidence in the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui (sometimes called “the 20th hijacker”), a report on phone calls from the four airliners. According to this report, there were only two cell phone calls from United 93, and they were made at 9:58, shortly before the plane crashed, when it was down to 5,000 feet. When the FBI had to present evidence in a court of law, therefore, it would not claim that any high-altitude cell phone calls had occurred. (These two low-altitude calls from Flight 93 were, according to the FBI report, the only two cell phone calls made from all four flights).

The most well known of the reported cell phone calls from Flight 93 were four calls that Deena Burnett reported receiving from her husband, Tom Burnett. She knew that he had used his cell phone, she reported on several TV shows and later in her book, because she saw his Caller ID number. However, as I reported, there are now devices, such as “FoneFaker,” that will produce the person’s Caller ID as well as his or her voice. Deena Burnett and the others, I believe, were not lying; they were duped.

The most famous of the reported calls from the flights supposedly came from Barbara Olson, the well-known commentator on CNN who was married to Ted Olson, who was then the US solicitor general. Olson reported that his wife had called him twice from American Airlines Flight 77, stating that hijackers with knives and boxcutters had taken over the plane. Besides providing evidence of hijackers, this call also provided the only evidence that Flight 77 was still aloft (it had disappeared from radar and there had been reports of an airliner crash nearby). Although Olson went back and forth on the question of whether his wife had used a cell phone or an onboard phone, he finally settled on the latter.

In the first edition, I challenged this claim on the basis of evidence from American Airlines that their Boeing 757 (which is what Flight 77 was) had no onboard phones. After publishing the book, however, I became worried, because of some new evidence, that that statement from American Airlines, made in 2004, had referred only to their 757s at that time -- that their 757s in 2001 may well have had onboard phones. So I published a retraction, saying that the claim was uncertain.

That retraction, however, evoked new evidence, including a statement made by American Airlines in 2006 that their 757s in 2001 had had no onboard phones, so that anyone calling out from Flight 77 had needed to use a cell phone. Barbara Olson, therefore, could not have used a passenger-seat phone. That left open, of course, the possibility that Ted Olson was correct when he said that his wife had used her cell phone.

However, the evidence from the Moussaoui trial ruled out this possibility. In its report on AA 77, it listed one attempted call from Barbara Olson, which was “unconnected” and hence lasted “0 seconds.”

This was an astounding discovery. The FBI is part of the Department of Justice. And yet it had undercut the testimony of the DOJ’s former solicitor general, saying in effect that the two calls that he reported had never happened. The implication is that unless Ted Olson had, like Deena Burnett, been duped, he had lied. Although this should have produced front-page headlines, it has thus far not been reported by any mainstream publication.

The Revised and Updated Edition of “Debunking 9/11 Debunking” provides the documentation for these reports from American Airlines and the FBI, which pretty thoroughly undermine the idea that any of the reported calls were genuine: If the cell phone calls were faked, why should we believe that the reported calls from onboard phones were genuine?

This is the most relevant excerpt, but you can read the entire piece here.

This is what the mad bombers of the Mutual Assured Destruction era used to call "overkill". The official story was plenty indefensible already.

How many times must this dragon be slain?

You don't have to answer that.

Let's Get Physical: Technical Articles On 9/11 From A&E

If you visit Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth, and look at the list of Technical Articles on their sidebar, you will see some familiar names (I would hope), like David Ray Griffin, Steven E. Jones, Kevin Ryan, and Jim Hoffman. You'll also find links to some articles you may have already read, or at least heard of (I would hope), like "The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True", and "Revisiting 9/11/2001 -- Applying the Scientific Method" and "Lies about the WTC by NIST and Underwriters Laboratories" and "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?"

And you will see names of people and titles of articles you have never heard of (unless I'm way wrong). But if you are serious about such things as physics and engineering and evidence and truth, most of the items on this list will appeal to you (I would think).

In other words, all the following links are well worth clicking ... except the last two! ;-)

• Direct Evidence for Explosions: Flying Projectiles and Widespread Impact Damage
Dr. Crockett Grabbe

• Lies about the WTC by NIST and Underwriters Laboratories
Kevin Ryan - U.L. whistleblower - former Site Manager

• Physical Chemistry of Thermite, Thermate, Iron-Alum-Rich Microspheres at Demise of WTC 1 & 2
Jerry Lobdill 6/15/2007

• The Destruction of WTC 7
Vesa Raiskila

• The NIST WTC Investigation -- How Real Was The Simulation?
Eric Douglas, Architect

• Revisiting 9/11/2001 -- Applying the Scientific Method
Prof. Steven E. Jones, Ph.D., Physics

• DR. BAZANT - NIST's 911 FALL GUY
by Gordon Ross, ME [1], June 4, 2007*

• Open Letter to Purdue President France Córdova
Kevin Ryan, B.S. Chem.

• Jones vs. Robertson: A Physicist and a Structural Engineer Debate the Controlled Demolition of the World Trade Center
Gregg Roberts, Associate Editor, 911Research.com

• Another Structural Engineer Questions WTC Collapses
William Rice, P.E.

• Can Physics Rewrite History?
Chuck Thurston

• Reply to Protec's A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2 & 7 FROM AN EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT
Jim Hoffman

• NIST's World Trade Center FAQ: A Reply to the National Institute for Standards and Technology's Answers to Frequently Asked Questions
Jim Hoffman

• Building a Better Mirage NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century
Jim Hoffman

• The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True
David Ray Griffin

• Another reason the 9/11 fire-mediated collapse theory is wrong
Joseph Smith

• Popular Mechanics' Assault on 9/11 Truth
Jim Hoffman

• Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?
Dr. Steven E. Jones

• Proof That The Thermal and Gravitational Energy Available Were Insufficient to Melt Steel in the Twin Towers and 7 World Trade Center on 9/11/01
Terry Morrone

• Report on Weidlinger Simulation
Leaked WTC Blueprints contain 3D simulations from the Weidlinger report that contradict the NIST repoort of the Twin Tower's destruction

• Engineering News Record: The World Trade Center

• Bad Science: Keith Seffen And The WTC 'Collapse'
Winter Patriot blog 9/14/07

• UK Engineer: WTC 'Collapses' Were 'A Very Ordinary Thing'
Winter Patriot blog 9/11/07

I was making a joke; that's what I do. But seriously ...

It is indeed an honor.

David Ray Griffin Says 'The 9/11 Commission Report Is A National Disgrace' -- Is He Crazy?

David Ray Griffin also says of the 9/11 Commission:

It systematically excludes virtually every fact supporting the alternative theory. But given [Philip] Zelikow's role, this should be no surprise to us. Some people have also called it a whitewash. And it is. But this term assumes that the Commission should have investigated the White House: that is, various kinds of evidence suggesting that there was complicity by the White House. But given Zelikow's position, any investigation of the White House would have been carried out by, essentially, the White House itself. A more accurate way to put it was that as the White House's inside man on the commission, Zelikow was in position to make sure that the White House, along with the CIA, the FBI, the Pentagon and the Justice Department, was not investigated. Once we understand this, we will not be surprised by the Commission's Omissions.

Watch David Ray Griffin in these videos ...

... and tell me: Is he crazy?