About Me

Name:On the Right
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Search

Search

Blog Roll

Phone Calls From Hijacked Planes On 9/11

Posted by On the Right on Monday, July 31, 2006 6:34:43 PM
According to information I have obtained about phone call made from the planes was not quite what you might think.  You [ajhil] write that there were 16 calls made of those 13 were from flight 93.

American Flight 11 had two reported calls

United Flight 175 two reported call

American Flight 77 one reported call [Barbara Olson]

United Flight 93 at least 10 passengers and two crew [phone calls 9/11 report] another source states "at least 13 passengers made over 30 cell phone calls . . . some repeated"

Some numbers someplaces are different but on United 93, it seems that those 13 passengers made something like 30 calls.

Do you [disbelievers] contend that the calls were all faked only some faked or what.  Or do you say that the calls were not made or what?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

I Don't Want To Get Sucked Into This

Posted by On the Right on Monday, July 31, 2006 3:46:49 PM

The posts I have were [as can be seen] from other debunking places.  So does the conspiracy  theory have the planes being hijacked [or flown how, by who?] to the target & crashed into buildings that  some feel were planted with {for the Trade Center} explosives [when & how & where & who] now all these people are out there & all of them in on this plot never leaked aything?  If plane was not flight 77 than where did that plane [or was it missle] go because whoever had to get the DNA so it could be matched up.  They had to either kill all the people or make them vanish to where or how?  I'm doing what I said I would not let happen-get sucked in.  

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Yes It Did

Posted by On the Right on Sunday, July 30, 2006 10:13:25 PM

Did a Plane Hit the Pentagon?

French Conspiracy Theorist Claims It Did Not
In 2002, French conspiracy theorist Thierry Meyssan wrote a book suggesting that a cruise missile instead of a plane hit the Pentagon on September 11, and the planes that hit the World Trade Center towers had not been hijacked but were piloted by remote control. Mr. Meyssan believes both attacks were masterminded not by al Qaeda, but "from inside the American state apparatus." (9/11: The Big Lie, p. 139.)
Mr. Meyssan's claims suffer from numerous obvious flaws.
With regard to the Pentagon attacks, Mr. Meyssan ignores or dismisses the facts that:
  • many eyewitnesses saw a plane crash into the Pentagon
  • the passenger and crew remains from American Airlines flight 77 were recovered at the Pentagon crash site
  • eyewitness reports and photographs show plane debris at the Pentagon crash site
  • passengers on American Airlines flight 77 made phone calls, reporting their aircraft had been hijacked
  • senior Al Qaeda leaders have admitted they conducted the September 11 attacks.
With regard to the World Trade Center attacks, Mr. Meyssan ignores or dismisses the facts that:
  • Boeing commercial aircraft can not be remotely controlled
  • passengers on both flights that attacked the World Trade Center made phone calls, reporting that their aircraft had been hijacked
  • senior Al Qaeda leaders have admitted they conducted the September 11 attacks.
Mr. Meyssan's book, L'Effroyable Imposture [The Horrifying Fraud] is available in 19 languages -- French, English, Spanish, German, Russian, Italian, Greek, Turkish, Persian, Arabic, Korean, Greek, Portugese, Romanian, Czech, Estonian, Croatian, Albanian, Serbian -- and is being translated into four more -- Chinese, Slovenian, Japanese, and Dutch. The book was published in English as 9/11: The Big Lie.
The book was severely criticized in the French press as soon as it appeared. The French newspaper Liberation called the book "The Frightening Confidence Trick ... a tissue of wild and irresponsible allegations, entirely without foundation." Nevertheless, the book was an instant bestseller in France, selling more than 200,000 copies.
The Pentagon Attack
Numerous Eyewitness Accounts
Mr. Meyssan suggests that a cruise missile with a depleted uranium warhead, not a plane, struck the Pentagon on September 11. But he never traveled to the United States to conduct research or interviewed any of the many eyewitnesses to the attack on the Pentagon. He ignores or dismisses the many eyewitness accounts -- some of which specifically identified the plane as having American Airlines markings, as a Boeing 757, and as a plane with passengers onboard, visible through windows. On May 16, 2006, the Pentagon released videotape footage showing the plane hitting the Pentagon. Excerpts from some of the eyewitness accounts are included at the end of this document.
Passenger and Crew Remains Recovered at Pentagon Crash Site
In addition to the numerous eyewitness accounts, the remains of the passengers and crew onboard American Airlines flight 77 were recovered from the Pentagon crash site. A team of more than 100 forensic specialists and others identified 184 of the 189 people who died in the Pentagon attack (125 from the Pentagon and 64 onboard American Airlines flight 77). All but one of the passengers onboard American Airlines flight 77 was positively identified as a match with DNA samples provided by the families of the crash victims. These positive forensic identifications provide irrefutable proof that American Airlines flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon on September 11. In addition, rescue and recovery personnel at the Pentagon reported seeing the bodies of airline passengers. The September 14, 2001 edition of USA Today reported, "When [Army Sergeant Mark] Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped in their seats."
Plane Debris Found at Pentagon Crash Site
People who went to the Pentagon crash site reported seeing parts of an airplane, including the nose cone, landing gear, an airplane tire, the fuselage, an intact cockpit seat, and the tail number of the airplane, as reported in an e-mail to a conspiracy theory website that debunks the conspiracy theory claims. The e-mail also contains photographs of airplane landing gear, tires, and fuselage fragments, which were taken at the Pentagon crash site. Moreover, the black boxes for American Airlines flight 77 were found at the Pentagon crash site.
Passengers Report Hijackings
Mr. Meyssan's book also ignores the fact that several passengers from American Airlines flight 77 made phone calls reporting that their plane had been hijacked.
At 9:12 am, approximately 10 minutes after the American Airlines flight 77 had been hijacked, passenger Renee May called her mother, Nancy May, to report that the plane had been hijacked and that the passengers had been herded to the back of the plane.
Minutes later, passenger Barbara Olson called her husband Ted Olson, the solicitor general of the United States, also reporting that the flight had been hijacked, and that the hijackers had knives and box cutters.
Al Qaeda Admits it Conducted September 11 Attacks
Finally, high-ranking al Qaeda members involved in the September 11 attacks, including Osama bin Laden, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and Ramzi bin al Shibh, have openly acknowledged that they planned and executed the attacks. As Khalid Sheikh Mohammed told Al Jazeera reporter Yosri Fouda in April 2002, with reference to the September 11 attacks, "I am the head of the al Qaeda military committee and Ramzi is the coordinator of the Holy Tuesday operation. And, yes, we did it." (Yosri Fouda and Nick Fielding, Masterminds of Terror, p. 38.)
Mr. Meyssan provides no explanation for what he believes happened to American Airlines flight 77. If the plane did not crash into the Pentagon, as he claims, where did the plane and all its passengers go? He has no explanation for this question.
Thus, there are:
  • numerous eyewitness accounts of an American Airlines passenger plane crashing into the Pentagon
  • phone calls from passengers on American Airlines flight 77 reporting that it had been hijacked
  • eyewitness accounts of airplane parts and the bodies of airline passengers still strapped in their seats found at the Pentagon crash site, as well as photographs of airplane parts
  • the remains of bodies recovered at the Pentagon crash site positively identified as matching those of the passengers and crew on American Airlines flight 77
  • acknowledgements by high-ranking al Qaeda members that they carried out the September 11 attacks.
In light of these facts, there is no doubt that American Airlines flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon on September 11.
The World Trade Center Attacks
Mr. Meyssan also suggests that the two Boeing aircraft that crashed into the World Trade Center towers had not been hijacked, but were remotely controlled. He writes:
It was not necessary in fact to have any hijackers on board at all, as there was no taking of hostages: by hacking into the planes' computers before takeoff, it would have been possible to take over the aircraft in flight, thanks to the Global Hawk technology perfected by the Department of Defense. The Boeing would have been under remote control, like a drone -- a plane without a pilot. (9/11: The Big Lie, p. 34.)
Remotely Controlled Flight Not Possible
A Boeing Company official stated that Boeing has designed its commercial airplanes so that it is impossible to control them remotely. Elizabeth Verdiev, a spokesperson for Boeing, stated on June 16, 2005:
No Boeing commercial jet transport can be controlled from outside the airplane. No Boeing commercial jet transport can be "commanded" or have its flight controlled other than from within the flight deck by the pilots. Pilots can program the airplane to take off, fly to a destination and land automatically, but Boeing design philosophy keeps pilots in control and in the decision-making loop at all times.
Meyssan's claims about the World Trade Center attacks also ignores acknowledgements by high-ranking al Qaeda members that they carried out the September 11 attacks, and the fact that several passengers and crew from the two planes that crashed into the World Trade Center towers made phone calls describing how their flights had been hijacked.
Passengers Report Hijackings
American Airlines flight 11 crashed into the World Trade Center's north tower at 8:46 am. It had been hijacked at approximately 8:14 am. Flight attendants Betty Ong and Madeline "Amy" Sweeney made phone calls describing the hijacking. Betty Ong's call lasted about 25 minutes, the first four minutes of which were recorded (see footnote 29 of The 9-11 Commission Report).
At 8:19, Ong reported: "The cockpit is not answering, somebody's stabbed in business class -- and I think there's Mace -- that we can't breathe -- I don't know, I think we're getting hijacked." She then told of the stabbings of the two flight attendants.
... At 8:26, Ong reported that the plane was "flying erratically." A minute later, Flight 11 turned south. ...
Sweeney calmly reported on her line that the plane had been hijacked; a man in first class had his throast slashed; two flight attendants had been stabbed -- one was seriously hurt and was on oxygen while the other's wounds seemed minor ....
United Airlines flight 175 crashed into the World Trade Center's south tower at 9:03 am. It had been hijacked between 8:42 and 8:46 am. Passengers Peter Hanson, Brian David Sweeney, and an unidentified flight attendant made phone calls reporting that United Airlines flight 175 had been hijacked and recounting events onboard the plane.
At 8:52, in Easton, Connecticut, a man named Lee Hanson received a phone call from his son Peter, a passenger on United 175. His son told him, "I think they've taken over the cockpit -- An attendant has been stabbed -- and someone else up front may have been killed." ...
Also at 8:52, a male flight attendant called a United office in San Francisco .... The flight attendant reported that the flight had been hijacked, both pilots had been killed, a flight attendant had been stabbed, and the hijackers were probably flying the plane.
... At 8:59, Flight 175 passenger Brian David Sweeney ... called his mother, Louise Sweeney, told her the flight had been hijacked, and added that the passengers were thinking about storming the cockpit to take control of the plane away from the hijackers.
At 9:00, Lee Hanson received a second call from his son Peter:
"It's getting bad, Dad -- A stewardess was stabbed -- They seem to have knives and Mace -- They said they have a bomb -- ... The plane is making jerky movements -- I don't think the pilot is flying the plane -- I think we are going down -- Don't worry, Dad -- If it happens, it'll be very fast -- My God, my God."
The call ended abruptly. Lee Hanson heard a woman scream just before it cut off. He turned on a television, and in her home so did Louise Sweeney. Both of them saw the second aircraft hit the World Trade Center.
Thus, passengers and crew members from both flights reported that they had been hijacked, that passengers and crew members had been killed or wounded, and that the planes were flying in an erratic or jerky fashion, as would be the case if they were being flown by first-time pilots, as both hijacker pilots were. There was no mention or indication of a mysterious "remote control" takeover of the planes.
In conclusion, Mr. Meyssan's book ignores obvious facts, makes sweeping, totally unfounded allegations, and employs spurious logic to try to explain away facts that he apparently finds inconvenient. As the French newspaper Liberation said, the book is "a tissue of wild and irresponsible allegations, entirely without foundation."
Eyewitness Accounts of Pentagon Attack
Following are some of the numerous eyewitness accounts of the Pentagon crash:
  • Richard Benedetto: "It was an American Airlines airplane, I could see it very clearly."
  • Omar Campo, a Salvadorean" "It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane. I was cutting grass and it came in screaming over my head."
  • Joseph Candelario: "I noticed a large aircraft flying low towards the White House. This aircraft then made a sharp turn and flew towards the Pentagon and seconds later crashed into it."
  • James Cissell: "I saw this plane coming in and it was low - and getting lower. ... Then I saw the faces of some of the passengers on board."
  • Dennis Clem: "There was a commercial airliner that said American Airliners over the side of it flying at just above treetop height at full speed headed for the Pentagon."
  • Michael Dobbs: "It was an American airlines airliner. I was looking out the window and saw it come right over the Navy annex at a slow angle."
  • Penny Elgas: "... the plane was directly over the cars in front of my car .... I remember recognizing it as an American Airlines plane -- I could see the windows and the color stripes."
  • Cheryl Hammond: "We saw the big American Airlines plane and started running."
  • Joe Harrington: "... one of my guys pointed to an American Airlines airplane 20 feet high over Washington Blvd."
  • Albert Hemphill: "The aircraft, look[ed] to be either a 757 or Airbus."
  • Terrance Kean: "I saw this very, very large passenger jet. It just plowed right into the side of the Pentagon."
  • William Lagasse: "It was close enough that I could see the windows and the blinds had been pulled down. I read American Airlines on it. ... I saw the aircraft above my head about 80 feet above the ground."
  • Robert Leonard: "I ... saw a large commercial aircraft aiming for the Pentagon."
  • Lincoln Liebner: "I saw this large American Airlines passenger jet coming in fast and low."
  • Elaine McCusker: "I saw a very low-flying American Airlines plane that seemed to be accelerating."
  • Mitch Mitchell: "I ... saw, coming straight down the road at us, a huge jet plane clearly with American Airlines written on it .... It crossed about 100 feet in front of us and at about 20 feet altitude and we watched it go in. It struck the Pentagon."
  • Terry Morin: "The plane had a silver body with red and blue stripes down the fuselage. I believed at the time that it belonged to American Airlines."
  • Christopher Munsey: "I couldn't believe what I was now seeing to my right: a silver, twin-engine American Airlines jetliner gliding almost noiselessly over the Navy Annex, fast, low and straight toward the Pentagon ...."
  • Vin Narayanan: "I looked up to my left and saw an American Airlines jet flying right at me. The jet roared over my head, clearing my car by about 25 feet."
  • John O'Keefe: "I don't know whether I saw or heard it first -- this silver plane; I immediately recognized it as an American Airlines jet ...."
  • Steve Riskus: "I was close enough (about 100 feet or so) that I could see the ‘American Airlines' logo on the tail as it headed towards the building .... I clearly saw the ‘AA' logo with the eagle in the middle."
  • James Ryan: "I see an American Airlines plane, silver plane, I could see AA on the tail. ... The plane was low enough that I could see the windows of the plane. I could see every detail of the plane. In my head I have ingrained forever this image of every detail of that plane. It was a silver plane, American Airlines plane, and I recognized it immediately as a passenger plane."
  • Joel Sucherman: "... looking straight ahead there was a jet, what looked to be an American Airlines jet, probably a 757, and it came screaming across the highway ... [and] hit the west side of the Pentagon."
  • Donald "Tim" Timmerman, a pilot: "I live on the 16th floor, overlooking the Pentagon ... and so I have quite a panorama. ... It was a Boeing 757, American Airlines, no question."
    Mike Walter: "I saw this plane, this jet, an American Airlines jet, coming. ... It went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon. I saw the big ‘AA' on the side."
  • Ian Wyatt: "I duck, I look up, it looks like a silver American Airlines, twin-engine plane and then boom."
Finally, The 9/11 Commission Report states that on September 11, air traffic controllers at Washington's Reagan National Airport instructed a C-130H cargo plane that had just taken off from the airport to try to follow the plane that had been spotted on radar as heading toward Washington. According to the report, "The C-130H pilot spotted it, identified it as a Boeing 757, attempted to follow its path, and at 9:39, seconds after impact, reported to the control tower: ‘looks like that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon, sir.'"
In sum, hundreds of people on nearby roads or in nearby buildings saw a large passenger plane hit the Pentagon and, as the above eyewitness testimonies demonstrate, numerous people specifically identified it as an American Airlines plane.


  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

This Is What Happened Part II

Posted by On the Right on Sunday, July 30, 2006 6:53:26 PM

9/11 Revealed?

New book repeats false conspiracy theories
World Trade Center
World Trade Center, September 11, 2001. (AP)
9/11 Revealed, published in August 2005, is the latest book putting forth bizarre conspiracy theories about the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.  Its two British authors, Ian Henshall and Rowland Morgan, give credence to a hodgepodge of sinister, unfounded allegations.
The book claims a drone Boeing 757, or a smaller plane painted in American Airlines colors, hit the Pentagon, but ignores the fact that forensic specialists identified the crew and passengers of American Airlines flight 77 from remains found in the Pentagon, proving irrefutably that the flight hit the Pentagon.
The book claims the World Trade Center (WTC) twin towers collapsed because they were pre-rigged with explosives but ignores an extraordinarily thorough, three-year investigation by the U.S. National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST).  NIST concluded the towers collapsed because the impact of the plane crashes severed and damaged support columns and dislodged fireproofing insulation from the steel floor trusses and support columns, which allowed the fires to weaken them to the point where they bowed, buckled, and failed.  It recently stated, in the WTC Towers Report (p. 12) on its Web site, that it found “no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition… .” 
The book suggests that the 47-story World Trade Center 7 building, which also collapsed on September 11, was intentionally demolished, citing a comment by the property owner that he had decided to “pull it.”  The property owner was referring to pulling a contingent of firefighters out of the building in order to save lives because it appeared unstable.
The book repeats long-standing rumors of insider trading based on alleged advance warnings of the attack.  It ignores the conclusion in The 9/11 Commission Report that all trades that initially appeared suspicious were found to have innocuous causes, after an exhaustive investigation.
The book takes the bizarre position that the September 11 attacks were not real terrorist attacks and were somehow designed to “limit casualties.”  Apparently, the largest terrorist event in history was not large enough to convince the books’ authors that it was real.
The Attack on the Pentagon
Allegation:  9/11 Revealed suggests that American Airlines flight 77 was not hijacked and flown into the Pentagon but that, instead, “a drone Boeing 757 is used or a smaller, more manageable plane painted in American Airlines colors.”
Facts:  This theory ignores the fact that the passenger and crew remains from American Airlines flight 77 were recovered at the Pentagon crash site.  A team of more than 100 forensic specialists and others identified 184 of the 189 people who died in the Pentagon attack (125 from the Pentagon and 64 onboard American Airlines flight 77).  All but one of the passengers onboard American Airlines flight 77 was positively identified as a match with DNA samples provided by the families of the crash victims, as reported in the Washington Post on November 21, 2001.  This provides irrefutable proof that American Airlines flight 77, not a drone or other aircraft, crashed into the Pentagon on September 11. 
The Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers
Allegation:  9/11 Revealed suggests that the collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers occurred because not the terrorists flew airliners filled with jet fuel into them, but because the towers were “pre-rigged with explosives.” 
Facts:  The U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) conducted an extremely thorough, three-year investigation into what caused the WTC twin towers to collapse, as explained on NIST’s WTC Web site.  Some 200 staff reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than one thousand people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they collapsed.  Its conclusion is that the twin towers collapsed because the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns and dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, which meant that the subsequent fire, which reached 1000 degrees Celsius, weakened the floors and columns to the point where they bowed and buckled, causing the towers to collapse.
NIST’s Draft Summary Report stated (pp. 171-172):
The two aircraft hit the towers at high speed and did considerable damage to principal structural components: core columns, perimeter columns, and floors.  However, the towers withstood the impacts and would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged insulation and the subsequent multifloor fires.  …
In WTC 1, the fires weakened the core columns and caused the floors on the south side of the building to sag.  The floors pulled the heated south perimeter columns inward, reducing their capacity to support the building above.  Their neighboring columns quickly became overloaded as the south wall buckled.  The top section of the building titled to the south and began its descent.  …
In WTC 2, the core was damaged severely at the southeast corner ….  The steady burning fires on the east side of the building caused the floors there to sag.  The floors pulled the heated east perimeter columns inward, reducing their capacity to support the building above.  Their neighboring columns quickly became overloaded as the east wall buckled.  The top section of the building tilted to the east and to the south and began its descent.  …
The WTC towers would likely not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact and the extensive, multifloor fires if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.
In September 2005, NIST issued a clarification in its WTC Towers Report, stating:
NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001.  NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers.  Instead, photos and videos from several angles clearly showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward, until the dust clouds obscured the view.
Allegation: Other conspiracy theorists have claimed that the fact that the towers collapsed at near a "free fall" rate indicates that explosives were needed to cause this rapid a rate of collapse.
Facts: This allegation ignores the fact that the enormous weight of the top portions of the towers completely overwhelmed the carrying capacity of the floors beneath them, which is what caused the towers to collapse at very close to a "free fall" rate. NIST's Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers states:
The structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass .... The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that ....
Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall .... As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.
The falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it, much like the action of a piston, forcing material, such as smoke and debris, out the windows ....
The Collapse of World Trade Center 7
Allegation:  9/11 Revealed suggests that the 47-story World Trade Center 7 building, which collapsed at 5:20 pm on September 11, was intentionally demolished.  The primary piece of evidence for this is a comment that Mr. Larry Silverstein, who owned the World Trade Center complex, made on the September 2002 television documentary American Rebuilds.  Mr. Silverstein said:
I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire.  I said, you know, “We've had such terrible loss of life that the smartest thing to do is just pull it.”  And they made that decision to pull it and we watched the [World Trade Center 7] building collapse.
9/11 Revealed and other conspiracy theorists put forward the notion that Mr. Silverstein’s suggestion to “pull it” is slang for intentionally demolishing the WTC 7 building.
Facts:  On September 9, 2005, Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Silverstein Properties, issued the following statement on this issue:
Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conducted a thorough investigation of the collapse of all the World Trade Center buildings.  The FEMA report concluded that the collapse of Seven World Trade Center was a direct result of fires triggered by debris from the collapse of WTC Tower 1.
In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center.  The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires.  Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.
Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed.  No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.
As noted above, when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, “I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life.  Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.”  Mr. McQuillan has stated that by “it,” Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology has stated unequivocally, “NIST has seen so evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by bombs, missiles, or controlled demolition,” in its Collapse of WTC 7 report (p. 6).  NIST’s working hypothesis for the collapse of WTC 7 is that it was caused by the collapse of a critical column due to “fire and/or debris induced structural damage.”  There was substantial damage to WTC 7 when the nearby WTC 1 tower collapsed and fires began shortly afterwards.  Also, WTC 7 was a very unusual building because it was built over an existing Con-Edison power generation substation, which contained two large 6,000 gallon fuel tanks for the emergency generation of power.  The fuel from these tanks could have contributed to the intense heat that apparently weakened the supporting columns in WTC 7.
Insider Trading
Allegation:  9/11 Revealed repeats long-standing rumors of “insider trading [based] on advance warnings of the attack.”
Facts:  The 9/11 Commission examined this issue in detail, stating, in The 9/11 Commission Report (p. 499):
Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks.  Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation.  For example, the volume of put options – investments that pay off only when a stock drops in price – surged in the parent companies of United Airlines [UAL] on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10 – highly suspicious trading on its face.  Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11.  A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10.  Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades.  These examples typify the evidence examined by the investigation.  The SEC [Security and Exchange Commission] and the FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation], aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments.  These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous.
Absurd, Sinister Interpretations
9/11 Revealed often places the most absurd, sinister interpretations upon unremarkable occurrences in its effort to construct complex conspiracy theories.  For example, it states:
According to the Kean Commission [9/11 Commission] Report (p. 168), in March 2000, [Mohammed Atta] “emailed 31 different U.S. flight schools on behalf of a small group of men from various Arab countries studying in Germany who, while lacking prior training, were interested in learning to fly in the United States.”  Why would a terrorist openly approach flying schools in the USA this way?
The obvious answer, of course, is that Mohammed Atta was not afraid to openly approach flying schools in the United States because he presumably did not identify himself to them as a terrorist who wished to learn how to fly planes in order that he could crash one into the World Trade Center.  This rather simple explanation seemed to have not occurred to the authors of 9/11 Revealed.
Similarly, 9/11 Revealed gives credence (p. 177) to nonsensical statements such as the one made by “Internet activist” Brian Quig: “[when Flight 77] bypassed a straight-in shot at the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, only to hit an insignificant spot in the back of the Pentagon, I said to myself then, it is not a real terrorist attack.”
The authors of 9/11 Revealed apparently do not believe that the largest terrorist attack in history was large enough to demonstrate that it was real.  Instead, in their minds, the fact that the terrorists did not fly even larger Boeing 747 jumbo jets into the World Trade Center towers, or attack an hour or two later, when more people would have been at work, or hit the offices of the Secretary of Defense or the Joint Chiefs of Staff, means that the events of 9/11 were not real terrorist attacks, but were engineered in order to minimize the number of deaths.  9/11 Revealed states bizarrely, “the attacks … seem almost designed to limit casualties.”  One wonders how many more thousands of people would have had to die to convince the authors of 9/11 Revealed that the attacks were real.
In sum, 9/11 Revealed is a collection of unfounded conspiracy theories that bear no relationship to the tragic realities of September 11.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

This Is What Happened

Posted by On the Right on Sunday, July 30, 2006 6:36:31 PM

As I said in the post to Kathleen Parker's column here is one post to my blog.  I will post another right after this.  BTW I don't want to get overly involved in the "our government did it" ideas.

From these posts you can see how I feel about who did the 9/11 attacks.




The Pentagon

Clouds of smoke billow out of the Pentagon.
Enlarge
Clouds of smoke billow out of the Pentagon.
Based primarily on photographic evidence, French journalist Thierry Meyssan, an early proponent of the idea that Flight 77 did not impact the Pentagon, suggested that a truck bomb or missile caused the damage. Other theories of what did crash at the site have ranged from military aircraft, such as the A-3 Skywarrior, to cruise missiles.
However, these statements are contradicted by the preponderance of eye-witness testimony at the scene reported an aircraft fitting the description of American Airlines Flight 77 crashing into the side of the building. [70]
In contrast, other researchers in the 9/11 Truth Movement, like Jim Hoffman, believe that Flight 77 did hit the Pentagon [71] [72] [73] [74],[75] [76] and suggest Meyssan’s theory is a distraction functioning to discredit other 9/11 conspiracy theories. Most of these researchers cite anomalies such as why the hijackers chose to hit the most unoccupied and yet most reinforced area of the building (rather than targeting high level officials), and how the plane managed to penetrate all US defenses.
The observations below are highlighted by groups like 911research.com who question the official account of the Pentagon attack:
Flight 77 flew in the direction of the DC area for approximately 40 minutes without interception.
  • 911research.wtc7.net claims this is unusual considering the Pentagon's close proximity to Andrews Air Force Base and the well-established standard operating procedures for intercepting aircraft which go off course or lose communication, [77] i.e., between September 2000 and June 2001, interceptors were scrambled 67 times. [78] Thus, 911research.wtc7.net suggests that routine interception procedures were not followed on September 11th. Officials state that only two airfields in the north sector of the U.S. had aircraft available for scramble: Otis Air National Guard Base in Cape Cod, Massachusetts, and Langley Air Force Base in Hampton, Virginia.
  • Meyssan claims that anti-missile batteries at the Pentagon should have intercepted Flight 77.[7]
  • The website  put forth a theory that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon because it considers photographic evidence of plane wreckage lying on the grounds of the Pentagon to be ambiguous. They claim that they cannot find burnt metal, human remains, passenger's luggage or seats.
  • As a response to this claim, 911research.wtc7.net points to similar crashes where the entire aircraft was converted to small, unrecognizable confetti-like debris. This crash is an example of such a case. Furthermore, some  do show aircraft debris.
  • Most of the photographic evidence of the plane was taken inside the building [79] by search teams and investigators. (Images)
    CNN released frame of the explosion at the Pentagon as captured by a surveillance camera.
    Enlarge
    CNN released frame of the explosion at the Pentagon as captured by a surveillance camera.
In March of 2002, the Associated Press published aa.
  • 911research.wtc7.net says that the resolution of the image is less than desirable to determine with any degree of accuracy what caused the explosion and the images were not released officially, but were leaked, and the incorrect time and date have added to the speculation. [80]
  • An article on earth-citizens.net with a 3D analysis of the scene shot by the cctv camera shows the trajectory of an alleged smoke trail in the images. The article claims that this means it is impossible for it to have been made by any kind of flying object, and further claim that this demonstrates these five frames have been doctored. [81]
The FBI confiscated a video from a nearby gas station attended by Jose Velasquez, and from the Sheraton Hotel roof. These videos have not yet been released. [82]
  • Many 9/11 researchers [83],[84],[85],[86],[87] including Kristen Breitweiser[88], member of theon, call for the release of all information regarding the crash and suggest that the withholding such information is government secrecy.[89] Two videos [90] of the crash were released on May 16th, 2006 by the Pentagon.
The Pentagon was struck in a section which was being renovated and reinforced in a project that was five days away from completion.[91]
  • Wedge 1, as the area is referred to, began renovation in 1998. A phased move-in of tenants began in February 2000, with the last tenant move-in completed February 6, 2003.
  • The aircraft struck the northern edge of Wedge 1, and some speculate this location to be indicative of insider involvement, noting it as a possible attempt to reduce casualties.


 to the outer wall of the Pentagon is thought by those supporting a theory that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon to be inconsistent with a large aircraft.
  • Others argue that given the reinforced strength of the building in comparison to the relative light weight material that made up the aircraft, considerable damage was made. The impact point did fit the dimensions of the 757 flight-deck and fuselage -- minus the jet engines, tail, and wings.[92]
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Constitution

Posted by On the Right on Saturday, July 22, 2006 8:04:25 PM
The U.S. Constitution refers to itself as "the supreme law of the land."  Today is it the Supreme Court, and not the Constitution which determines our basic law, sometimes based on non-constitutional [often even non-American] premises, such as international law. 

The Supreme Court cites "evolving notions of decency" in ruling on executions.  Judges say that some states can't constitutionally restrict marriage. 

What part of "we the people" don't they understand?  Hopefully with the two new judges that Bush appointed that will change.

We restrict marriage now.  You must be of age, unmarried, and the opposite sex.

Whatever position you take on gay marriage, a marriage license is not a constitutional right any more than is a drivers license.  They are privileges granted by the state-which defines the rules for its issuance.

Marriage [between man and woman] is not some plot to deny gays their rights.

Marriage [heterosexual] is in place in all nations because of an interest in a stable society that is a basis for the bringing up of children. 

No legislative body has ever voted to allow gay marriage. 

Voters in state after state have passed measures limiting marriage to a man and a woman.  Those who oppose a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman-on the grounds that it should be left up to the states-ignore the the fact that activist judges and mayors won't let it be left to the states.

If legislators want to pass or revise laws to allow the assignment of benefits between committed individuals, fine.

If they want to pass laws or constitutional amendments permitting gay marriage, that's ok too.  But let the people decide.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Myth Of The Tolerant Left

Posted by On the Right on Saturday, July 22, 2006 4:05:47 PM
A myth holds that the Left in America has stood for tolerance and freedom of speech, while forces [on the right] have persecuted them.  They usually tell us some of these forces were the House Un-American Activities Committee, Hollywood "blacklists," and McCarthyite "witch hunts."  People who believe the myth are surprised when, campus leftists shout down, harass and even attack conservative speakers.  Isn't this out of character for the Left?   
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Intellectual Morons

Posted by On the Right on Thursday, July 20, 2006 7:41:21 PM
Why do supposed smart people on the left argue that the U. S. government pulled off the 9-11 attacks, and are on the way to duplicating Nazi horrors?  How can Al Gore really believe that the internal combustion engine poses "a mortal threat to the security of every nation"? 

It's amazing how many Americans, particularly those among the liberal left [media, academic and political elites] fall for such ridiculous ideas.  The thing is their ideas become looked at as the truth.  Why are liberals such easy prey for stupid ideas?

How can people be so blinded to reality by the cause they serve that they spout bizarre, ridiculous and often dangerous ideas.  They don't care if an idea is good or bad, true or false-only whether it can serve their cause.

How can liberals believe things that are so stupid?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

America Is Unique

Posted by On the Right on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 5:07:59 PM
This post is an email I wrote to a VERY liberal family member.   This relates some important points that everyone should remember, America is unique among all the countries in the world.



The critics of America deny that there is anything unique about America, and they feel the idea that the American "model" is one that others should seek to follow is stupid/foolish etc..  By detailing past and present crimes of America, they hope to get apologies and reparations from Americans.  Some even justify murderous attacks against America on the grounds that what America does, and what she stands for, invite such attacks.
 
The outcome of America's "engagments" around the world is determined by America's will to prevail.  Americans need to believe they are on the side of good, they usually are.
 
America's enemies assert that America's influence has been, and still is "destructive and wicked." 
 
Criticism comes from multiculturalists-they allege racism (thruout our history) and the "oppression of minorities," from Western leftists who see America as a force for evil in the world, and the Islamic fundamentalists who view America as "decadent and morally degenerate." 
 
Critics of U.S. foreign policy judge it in a way they apply to no one else.  They attack America for promoting its self-interest while expecting other countries to protect their self-interest.  Why should America act in any other way?  You might-and I'm sure you will-mention U.S. backing for Latin American, Asian and Middle Eastern dictators, please note the U.S. eventually turned against these regimes, and aided in its ouster.
 
Now I have to mention an idea in foreign policy "the principle of the lesser evil."  This is something which I have tried to explain before, this idea means that we should not pursue a thing that seems good if it is likely to result in something worse.  Now a second part of this is that we are usually justified in "allying with a bad guy in order to oppose a regime that is even more terrible."  An example of this is in World War Two, the U.S. allied with Stalin-a very bad man-to defeat someone who was worse (and a greater threat at the time) Hitler.  The backing of some of these dictators were measures taken to fight the Cold War-if you accept that the Russians were the "evil empire." 
 
Now second;  understand situations change, and policies must be devised to deal with a particular situation at a given time.  It is foolish to hold the U.S. responsible for "inconsistently" changing its policy when the situation that justified the original policy has changed.  This will explain that by this reasoning the support of Saddam in the late 70s and early 80s was understandable when the greater threat came from Iran.  Also was the U.S. providing weapons in the 80s to the "mujahideen" (even if this group included Osama) in order to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan.  Then under new circumstances, Saddam and bin Laden became greater threats, and America shifted its focus.  This I have tried to explain to you over and over again.  How can anyone fault policymakers in the 70s and 80s for not possessing knowledge about Saddam and Osama that was not known till the 90s?
 
I will concede to the critics that America is not always in the right.  What the critics ignore is the other side.  The U.S. twice in the last century saved the world:  first from the Nazis then from the Soviet Union.  Now even though the U.S. does not have a serious military rival in the world today America has not acted in the manner of regimes in the past that have occupied this position. 
 
Even as America bombed the Taliban's hideouts, its planes dropped food to avert starvation of the Afghan civilians.  What other country does this? 
 
"Americans need to face the truth about themselves, no matter how pleasant it is."  Jeane Kirkpatrick.  Now if some group of Arabs, or Africans kill 10,000 of their own people, the world complains and then goes about its normal business.  We expect them to do these things.  Contrast this with what happens, if America, in a war, accidently bombs a school or hospital and kills civilians, there is an uproar and investigation.  What this shows is America's moral superiority. 
 
This moral superiority of America is denied by leftist intellectuals, American multiculturalists and (as we all know) Islamic fundamentalists.  These are the "blame America first" group.  The only group I want to get into now is the multiculturalists.  Their view is no culture is superior to any other culture, all cultures are basically equal, this is what's called "cultural relativism."  This appeals to American intellectuals because they don't like to approach other societies with the idea that their own way is always better.  This idea of cultural equality strikes them as much fairer.
 
By denying that there are universal standards of human rights, multiculturalista become apologists for tyranny.  The fact that most immigrants from around the world choose to come to the U.S., would be grounds enough-but I would have to into the entire Islamic fundamentalist argument abt America and it's low principles, but this is long enough.
 
America is the greatest, freest, and most decent society in existence. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Seems To Me The AMA Makes No Sense

Posted by On the Right on Monday, July 17, 2006 11:46:02 PM
Monday, July 17, 2006 8:47 p.m. EDT

So the AMA feels that it's a violation of "the ethical obligations of physicians" which prohibit involvment in a "legally authorized execution." 

But its not an ethical violation to have physicians involve themselves in about four million abortions a year.  I realize that if doctors have religious or other problems they don't have to do abortions.  The AMA has no problem with doctors performing abortions [which will-I feel-end an
innocent life] but a "legally authorized execution" after trial and appeals that is a no-no for doctors.

American Medical Association President Dr. William G. Plested said Monday that medical professionals should not participate in executions of prisoner

"The American Medical Association is troubled by continuous refusal of many state courts and legislatures to acknowledge the ethical obligations of physicians, which strictly prohibit physician involvement in a legally authorized execution," he said in a statement. "The AMA's policy is clear and unambiguous - requiring physicians to participate in executions violates their oath to protect lives and erodes public confidence in the medical profession.

"A physician is a member of a profession dedicated to preserving life when there is hope of doing so. The use of a physician's clinical skill and judgment for purposes other than promoting an individual's health and welfare undermines a basic ethical foundation of medicine - first, do no harm.

"The guidelines in the AMA Code of Medical Ethics address physician participation in executions involving lethal injection. The ethical opinion explicitly prohibits selecting injection sites for executions by lethal injection, starting intravenous lines, prescribing, administering, or supervising the use of lethal drugs, monitoring vital signs, on site or remotely, and declaring death.

"As the voice of American medicine, the AMA urges all physicians to remain dedicated to our ethical obligations that prohibit involvement in capital punishment."

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

ALL The News That Fits They Print

Posted by On the Right on Monday, July 17, 2006 6:33:32 PM
After you read this article about Al Jazeera and how the NY Times seems to think that they offer "balanced" news in the mideast, you can see why the Times would publish National Security secrets that have been leaked to it.  Some that I know believe whatever this "paper of record" print.  They can give their opinion on the editorial page but the Times will slant the news article to fit their preconceived notions of how the story should read.


On Feb. 16, the New York Times ran a highly sympathetic profile of Al Jazeera, the Qatar-based media outlet that became well-known in the West by broadcasting taped statements by Osama bin Laden. (This article was also published in the Times-owned International Herald Tribune.)
Under a headline declaring that Al Jazeera produces "Balanced Coverage," the Times article is filled with flattering quotes on Al Jazeera's effort to supply "comprehensive and accurate" news coverage, its lack of "ideological aim," and noble goal to "bridge the gap" between East and West. An Al Jazeera spokesman argues that since the station is criticized by both the Pentagon and Arab regimes, this "is a sign that what we are doing is right." The Times article supports that view ? failing to cite any of the myriad examples of anti-Israel, anti-Semitic, and anti-Western material that characterize Al Jazeera coverage.
Consider:
? The Al Jazeera website has a special section on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, which amounts to a slick ideological assault against Israel and the facts. Among the countless examples: President Bush has given Ariel Sharon a "licence to kill" to eradicate "Palestinian nationalism," suicide terrorists are euphemized as "self-sacrificing fighters," and a review of "massacres" in the Arab-Israeli conflict contains only examples of Israeli acts, with no Arab acts mentioned. This is what the Times calls "balanced coverage"?
? Far from "neutral," Al Jazeera journalists actively supported anti-American forces in Iraq: In November, US Defense Secretary Rumsfeld announced evidence that Al-Jazeera and another Arab media outlet cooperated with Iraqi forces to witness and videotape attacks on American troops. Al Jazeera's presentation of Americans as barbaric, and Saddam Hussein's regime as heroic, were so outlandish that when Hussein was captured in a hole, an Egyptian government official said, "We discovered that all what the [Iraqi] information minister was saying was all lies... Now no one believes Al-Jazeera anymore."
No one except the New York Times, that is.
As journalist and commentator Tom Gross says, "This New York Times story is an example of how the paper, through the myth of 'objectivity,' subtly misleads its readers on Mideast issues on an almost daily basis." Al Jazeera, with 35 million daily viewers and plans to enter North American cable, is a growing force in propagating anti-Israel and anti-American lies under the guise of objective "news." New York Times readers, unfortunately, are left in the dark regarding this aspect of the "balanced" Arab media outlet.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Don't Let Them Put Anything Over On You

Posted by On the Right on Monday, July 17, 2006 1:49:04 PM

REVISIONIST POLITICS

The Reagan Myth
The Gipper's record is being distorted to make President Bush look bad.

BY FRED BARNES
Monday, July 17, 2006 12:01 a.m.

I was recently asked about President Bush's chances of a political resurgence. Might Mr. Bush be able to recover as strongly as President Reagan did from a slump in his second term in the 1980s? My response was, Reagan recovery? What Reagan recovery?

Though he continued his ultimately successful fight to win the Cold War, Reagan achieved nothing new--practically nothing--after the Iran-contra scandal broke in 1986. His presidency was crippled. The Republicans had lost the Senate. His nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court in 1987 was defeated, partly because of feeble White House support. His veto of a transportation bill was overridden.

The question was innocent enough, but it reflected a broader pattern of misrepresentation of Ronald Reagan's record in the White House that has become not only widespread but widely accepted. Reagan was, I believe, one of the greatest presidents of the 20th century, but many of the things that both liberals and conservatives now credit to his presidency simply never were. And there's a political purpose behind this Reagan revisionism. He is cited mostly to criticize Mr. Bush and congressional Rep