Podcast Show #6
Thursday, 10. September 2009
Peter Lance discusses his latest book Triple Cross: How Bin Laden’s Master Spy Penetrated the CIA, the Green Berets, and the FBI. He talks about how U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald tried to kill the new trade paperback version of his bestselling 9/11 expose, the importance of Ali Mohamed and the 9/11 Commission’s omission of the crucial facts involved, the US media’s deafening silence, the need for a real investigation into 9/11, and of course more.
Peter Lance is a five-time Emmy Award-winning investigative reporter and former correspondent for ABC News. He has covered hundreds of stories worldwide for 20/20, Nightline, and World News Tonight. Peter is the author of 1000 Years for Revenge, Cover Up, and the novel First Degree Burn. For more details visit his website: http://www.peterlance.com/
*Sibel’s Note- Bring in your comments and questions. Peter will be checking the site and your comments.
Here is our guest Peter Lance unplugged!
Sibel Edmonds Says:
Okay people. I am monitoring the downloads/Itune stats and I know you are listening. Please bring in your comments/feedback/questions.
Dennis Says:
Wow! A lot of meat cookin' in the pot today. Good stuff. Thank you all! Taken with research I have done over the years, it opens more avenues of thought for me.Keep up this good work!
Dennis
T Says:
I have a question for Peter. If it's proven that 9/11 was an inside job, how would the public react(considering everything that's going on right now)?
Anonymous Says:
Sibel and Peter: Great Job. Lance interview is superb!
Kingfisher Says:
@T,
Lance explicitly says at 57:39: “I am not an inside job theorist; I don’t believe that 9/11 was created.” He does however say that he believes the Bush administration allowed some event to happen, and there was clear warning something was going to happen.
Now, what is the difference between the two positions? While both are controversial and challenge the official line, I would say there is a significant difference between the two, and consider Lance’s to be a reasonable theory while the other to be more outlandish.
What really grinds my gears about inside job theories is that it dismisses that violent Salafi jihadists exist, completely overlooking the enormously real sea of resentment towards American policies which they find sanctuary in.
bh Says:
"What really grinds my gears about inside job theories is that it dismisses that violent Salafi jihadists exist…"
How's that?
Metemneurosis Says:
It's interesting that Mr. Lance notes Jamie Gorelick's role in letting an al-Qaeda connected guy go during her tenure under Clinton. She also sits on the board of Schlumberger which reportedly does a ton of business with oil companies in the Caspian Basin. It's something to wonder about at least. Ben-Veniste worked for the Mayer-Brown law firm which was dealing with a legal dispute between a Argentine company and either Chevron or Unocal over an oil deal with the Taliban.
T Says:
I'll extend my 9/11 question for a second.
If it was proven to be an inside job, I'm not sure what people would do. Like Tony Benn has said, keep people poor and ill-informed. And they're easier to control. The rich get richer and I don't. But on the other hand, I'm not homeless. And all polticians are the same. So there's no point in voting or fighting the system. So I'll just shut up and put up with it.
Now, there's proof that 9/11 was an inside job. The point here being blissful ignorance doesn't work anymore. What do you do then? What would Obama and Holder do? There's already been one 9/11 Comission that was a waste of time (IMO). Would they say, we'll convene another Commission to examine all the facts?
On various issues (Iraq, Afghanistan, single-payer and othes), the politicians are counting on keeeping the public distracted and apathetic. I'm so busy trying to not lose my job and be homeless (I've been both twice. So I know what it's like)who the hell's got time to protest anyway?
I'm not the perfect activist. But I try. Good for Sibel and some others for doing the same. And while ringing up your favorite talk host is one outlet, that's NOT going to solve the problems.
Just an opinion.
T Says:
A few quotes from the book "Parting with Illusions" by Vladimir Pozner:
pg.225- It takes enormous courage to fight your own people , to accept being pilloried by those whose freedom and rights you are defending.
pg. 227- What happens to the people you are responsible for, the people you love, the people who are going to suffer because you chose to rock the boat?
The less secure a society, the more prone it is to crushing dissent.
Kingfisher Says:
@bh,
Let me rephrase that; saying that it was an ‘inside job’ dismisses that violent Salafi jihadists (AQ) committed the attacks of 9/11. The effect is that these people do not exist; when in fact they do indeed exist, and they have clearly articulated reasons for their actions. I consider such a notion as absurd as the notion that “they hate us for our freedom”.
@T,
Your quote by Tony Benn is wrong. You do not keep people poor and ill-informed to control them, at least not these days at least. To control them you keep them fat and comfortable through debt-financed consumption, and entertained.
Anonymous Says:
There is no doubt violent jihad extremists exist. The "inside job" is not inconsistent with violent Jihadists. That is not the problem .
In my reading of and listening too all the different sources I can get to, there is a 'cut-off' that happens all the way down the different lines of information exposure where the 'control' meets alternative information streams it dosn't want noted. Peter Lance mentions several, where information does not get carried onto 'proper' conclusion. It outrages him, as it does us all. Where strategically placed admin operatives with serious conflicts of interest step in between questions facts and proper answers. Or answers that would conclude differently to that required . A barrier is created between evidence not wanted, and its record. It gets stopped.
But no-one can do anything about it.
The commission is riddled with it. They even had minders set on Zelikows clock actually controlling questions. NIST the same.The structures of answers and parameters of enquiry. Watching Rumsfield and his Generals answer questions in public the same. Guliani etc etc. Round and round. The real questions do not get answers. Mostly they don't even get asked. What are they hiding??
And those who are in that firing line of delivering the responses in many cases are reported to get raises and promotions. That kind of thing.
The two scenarios are real. Able danger. The violent known extremists of all stripes in the data bases. The plots. Real hard stuff. Killers. But so too are the dust analysis results. the molten steel, the explosive detonations the control security and crime scene removal of evidence. the put options. The free fall. The explosive eruption at onset . So too the with-held audios from first responders. The connections between the nanothermate R&D and NIST. the anomalies exposed pointing to major chicanery at the pentagon. the Mineta testimony. Norad blaming FAA like children. The media blackouts of wtc7. All these point toward the violent explosive destruction of WTC that cannot reasonably be attributed to Al Qaeda. So there is a big blank space between the 'known known' facts gained by Peter Lance and those lines of enquiry, and the 'known knowns' of destructive demolition which by now are well understood by too many very bright and knowledgeable people to be funked off as wild loonyville.
The question is, how were the two situations met? Who arranges this kind of thing. Peter Lance was talking about the lost chances that he uncovered in his deep research exposing a whole world of names places – history . He has identified one or two of the middle 'cut-off 'operators that direct progress, that control . But who controls THEM.
In your truth commission, along with all the names Peter and yourselves mention, David Ray Griffin, Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, Richard Gage.
remo
Anonymous Says:
Why did CIA officials protect two al Qaeda operatives who were linked to Cole plotters? Does that sound like an agency truly committed to preventing al Qaeda terrorist attacks? Tenet blamed poor cable trafficking/watchlisting procedures for the withholding. James Bamford refuted this notion when he reported that FBI agents assigned to Alec Station (Rossini and Miller) were ordered to withhold the information. The first chief of Alec Station (Michael Scheuer) blamed the withholding on the FBI's poor computer system. His excuse doesn't account for the fact that the information was shared in August of '01. AFAIK, the poor computer system wasn't suddenly upgraded in August.
Why haven't we heard a public word from either chief of Bin Laden units (Rod Middleton of the FBI UBLU and Rich B. of Alec Station)? If 9/11 was truly an intelligence failure then why was Rich B. promoted to chief of the reopened Kabul station in 12/01? Does that make any sense considering Rich B. was in charge of Alec Station while al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar were wandering around the US?
Is it not more plausible to think Ali Mohamed was protected by a government agency than to believe he fooled multiple intelligence/military agencies?
bh Says:
@ kf
"…saying that it was an ‘inside job’ dismisses that violent Salafi jihadists (AQ) committed the attacks of 9/11. The effect is that these people do not exist… "
With all due respect, I fail to see what one has to do with the other, much less how they are necessarily mutually exclusive. And, respectfully, you have offered no support for that supposition.
How does 9/11 being an "inside job" rule out the involvement of jihadist terrorists… or have any bearing on their existence?
Zica Says:
Greetings. Thanks for the interesting audio. I'm going to listen again and check out Mr. Lance's website and BookTV video.
I just wanted to commemorate False Flag Day and agree with remo (well said!) and bh and their reasonable comments on this post.
Nate Says:
Bh–
There definitely are some out there that–based on their conclusions regarding U.S. involvement–believe any security threats from disgruntled anti-American radicals (or even the radicals themselves) are entirely non-existent. I think that's what KingPHisher's getting at. I agree with him that such claims are clueless–just as clueless/nutty I would say as those who say Israel would never do anything to harm the United States' best interests.
Such individuals hurt the cause of everyone sharing the objective of getting the truth about 9/11, etc. by insisting (either through ignorance or irrationality) that all accept conclusive theories completely unreasonable and illogical to objective and otherwise well/better-informed individuals.
Eric Pottenger Says:
Regarding Peter's comments about former NY Times reporter Judith Miller:
She is indefensible and, regarding her imprisonment, it looks as if she took one for the team. Fine by me. Everybody got what they wanted. The world gets to blame Bush/Cheney for the problem of empire. Patrick Fitzgerald gets to further his career. Judith Miller gets to look like a responsible journalist. It all reads like a bestseller.
Doesn't it make sense to you that someone of Patrick Fitzgerald's resume would handle the Libby case, and that he would be publicly lauded for his efforts. Plenty of damning information could see the light of day if certain maneuvers aren't handled properly, and by the right people. Right? You tell me.
Only let us never forget that Judith Miller was John Rendon's reliable media contact for the false Iraqi WMD reports, a story which was pointed to by Cheney himself as solid proof and a selling point in the war.
Ask yourself: just what type of 'character assurances' must one maintain to be one of John Rendon's reliable media sources? Someone that deserves the title of a "good journalist"? I'm not sure I'm smart enough to figure out how this kind of thing works. I'm prone to unhealthy speculation, it seems. I get pretty emotional when it comes to mass slaughter; my intellect takes leave.
Anonymous Says:
Gotta hand it to Brad Friedman of the Brad Blog:
On September 5, his article, "FBI Whistleblower: Hastert, Burton, Blunt, Other Members of Congress 'Bribed, Blackmailed' " was printed at Huffingtop Post;
On September 7, the article was re-printed on the first page at http://www.911truth.org/
By the way, my sympathies to everyone who experienced a personal tragedy as a result of 9/11.
Regards,
"Tom Joad"
Greg Bacon Says:
Why of course, I believe the '9/11 Commission' report!! Everyone knows that our government wouldn't lie to us to protect their own asses.
Why just listening to Condi Rice alone testify should of shut down any doubts!!
And I know for sure that the senior execs at the CIA, the NSA and the Pentagon's Chief of Staff, Richard Myers were just a bunch of bumbling, clueless bureaucrats who couldn't figure out how to bypass the North American Air Defense (NORAD) that is charged with tracking and if necessary, shooting down hijacked airliners, but that 19 Ayyyrabs, being directed by a ailing Muslim in a cave 12,000 miles away, could!!
Yes, I belive all of that and for me being a 'Good Doo-be,' Santa Claus is going to fill my stocking this Christmas!!!
Kingfisher Says:
"How does 9/11 being an "inside job" rule out the involvement of jihadist terrorists… or have any bearing on their existence?"
What don't you understand about the concept of an 'inside job'? By its very nature it dismisses that AQ was responsible, and suggests that sinister domestic forces were instead responsible.
Anonymous Says:
On 9/11/09
The question was asked, where do we go from here? Cultural conditioning was obvious from the amount of detail presented by Peter Lance. Within the scientific method that is what is required for litigation or scientific proof. Our educational systems select for skilled technicians, but leave the decision making 'to others'. Courage such as Sibel reflects is good. Passion is good, but let's consider another aspect needed.
Here is the problem: Jamie Gorelick, her link to Robert Zoellick, and Israel consistently reappear in all of these discussions, but because of the security surrounding the top down Elite, facts are difficult to come by. How can that be penetrated?
A physicist could use algorithms to mathematically reveal the data. Where does calculus come from? The human mind. Where did the remote viewing program originate? The human mind. Why are remote viewers needed when such powerful algorithms and computers exist? The human mind. Where are the blank spaces in the remote viewers field of vision, because surely they could identify their handlers if they chose to do so?
To bring the allegory home, let me discuss an off topic illustration. I was able to walk into the office of the lead investigator for hydrogen/solar power on a campus of 39,000 people, with no security clearance, to the person the geopolitical elite consult for real time data. What did I learn? This was a young person in his mid-twenties working 18 hour days, absorbed with scientific literature, and applied experiments. He had 5 friends of whom he was the second most skeptical about effecting real change among the Elite.
Now I would like to bring it back to Sibel's original home in Iran. In the 70's I traveled to Tehran among hippies. It was common knowledge then on the street that Grumman was trading both with the Soviets and the U.S., using Tehran as its base. How many remember this? In the Peter Lance interview, a reference was made to Ali Mohammed working for Northrup/Grumman and that he had to obtain security clearance in order to get in the gate. That security clearance included Israeli clearance as part owner of Northrup/Grumman.
Here is the applied moral. What Ali Mohammed did as evidenced by his obtaining Top Secret material even at a low level position according to Mike Sheehan, can be done by any one of us. Do we wish to preserve democracy minus its corporate abuses? Then each of us can learn to penetrate to the key 'institutional memory' of an organization, the people that the Elite parasitize for their world dominion, and turn them to Truth. It's as simple as that, and it does require the courage of Sibel, and the wisdom to know when you are still a toadlet, and when you are ready to become effective.
Simon
Sibel Edmonds Says:
Here is Raimondo's piece on the topic (today's AntiWar.com):
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009/09/10/911-our-truth-and-theirs/
Valid points re: burial of 'Israel Angle.' Done with the same o same o 'antisemitism' tactic…
Zica Says:
I liked Raimondo's piece, but his coverage of those that "are, indeed, nuts" is not, IMO, very representative of the insane, but an ironic smear of many sane individuals, common and credentialed.
I agree with his supposition of nuts being out there, but not with the details of it. In other words, of course, there are those that are either purposefully or ignorantly or stupidly promoting theories which are easy to point at and say "See! This is why we shouldn't question the official story." It's just that his examples of those are mashing together (as some here have done) no-plane-at-the-pentagon and other ideas with evidence of WTC explosives. The video he sites for explosives is pretty old and doesn't represent the significant developments which have taken place this year.
I see that small bit of irony in his piece: noting anti-Semitism as a cover for not investigating any Israel connections while, at the same time, using smear tactics to discount CD without any serious arguments against the current evidence of unexploded nano-thermite found in dust samples.
(BTW, this isn't a pet theory, and I'm not self-aggrandizing, and it's not about me, and yes, can argue with me… etc. etc. Please, no more tired smears.)
Red Dawn 09 Says:
Hey Sibel,
I wanted you to know that im one of the ones that are trying to push your story to the top of the stack. Every time i post anything close to the "Real" news i seem to get my account baned. As of late i had posted on abovetopsecret. They baned my I.P. Address for giveing people your website address. It seems that people are not allowed to talk about you or your deposition. So i have 2 questions.
1. May i post your site address on the webpage i had to create.
2. May i leave my web site address on your blogs so that we can spread the "real" truth. Thank you so much for your strength and dedication to helpping others and i will continue to try to spead the word.
Red Dawn 09
Anonymous Says:
I was wondering if former Bush Chief of Staff, Andrew Card, may have been involved in less than honorable behavior. This evening 09-11-09 he may announce a run for Ted Kennedys' seat in Massachusetts. All I know is that he is a big supporter of AIPAC as per this quote found in Nation Master.com.."The friendship between Israel and the United States is a great asset to our country. And AIPAC is a great advocate for this vital relationship." White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card.
Kingfisher Says:
@Zica,
There are plenty of Truther websites to discuss controlled demolition and nano-thermite theories, why do you need another one here? I seem to recall you flipping out and leaving (yet your back?) the last time this came up, and at how Sibel said she didn’t want to associate with the Truther movement. And here you are again trolling for validation.
Eric Pottenger Says:
@kingfisher
Maybe Zica discusses controlled demolition because the comments section of this particular piece has been discussing 9/11, the 9/11 Commission, al-Qaeda, terror, false-flag terror, LIHOP, MIHOP…and that these issues are fresh for discussion, if for no other reason than the HOLY SPIRIT hasn't descended down from lofty heights, providing an inmistakable TRUTH for all of us to agree upon.
just because YOU want to close the discussion, limit the questions, tell us what to think (repeatedly)…this does not make an official 9/11 "truth"…especially being that we can all agree upon one salient feature of the event: it was not properly investigated. and yet that investigation, for many people, constitutes the basis for perception.
zica wrote: this isn't a pet theory, and I'm not self-aggrandizing, and it's not about me, and yes, (you) can argue with me… etc. etc. Please, no more tired smears.
you respond: I seem to recall you flipping out and leaving (yet your back?) the last time this came up, and at how Sibel said she didn’t want to associate with the Truther movement. And here you are again trolling for validation.
just who is "trolling for validation" here? I suppose that depends upon whether you are in earnest in your approach to the issues.
you seem to offer a deterministic, overly emotional approach to the issue, that much is clear. in another comment, you bully your point about how "inside job" is completely inconsistent with jihadist extremists…and yet where is the irrefutable logic of this argument. you provide none.
provide some, please.
if Sibel doesn't "want to associate with the Truth movement," I would be curious what Sibel's response is to this characterization might be. Sibel: please weigh in. I personally don't see the "truther" presence on this site as being overly deterministic, not like the presence of that one individual (Kingfisher) that cannot answer the questions (about 9/11) which he was asked.
please, expand further upon your theories as to how the presence radical Islamic extremists cancels out, a priori, government involvement in 9/11.
Kingfisher Says:
"please, expand further upon your theories as to how the presence radical Islamic extremists cancels out, a priori, government involvement in 9/11."
@Eric,
I didn't say that, you are putting words in my mouth(post?). What I said was: "‘inside job’ dismisses that violent Salafi jihadists (AQ) committed the attacks of 9/11"
An ‘inside job’ has internal, domestic, forces and actors; it does not have external-foreign forces or actors, if it did, it would not be internal-‘inside job’.
"Government involvement" AND Salafi Jihadists would would be congruent with Lance's "let something happen" style theory; not an inside job theory. Why? Because it includes external forces (the Salafi Jihadists).
Comments I previously referred to:
http://123realchange.blogspot.com/2009/07/podcast-show-1.html
Sibel Edmonds Says:
Greetings.
Since the topic is 9/11, 9/11 Commission, I don't mind people presenting their views and various theories/hypothesis. As long as it's done respectfully…
I don't know much about the theories involving demolition/termite/etc. I I do not subscribe to that line of activism, and I don't claim to know much about that side…BUT, I can say the same thing for the BS put out by agenda-driven establishment watcher 9/11 Commission…Those of you who believe in 9/11 Commission's credibility can bring in your view and share it in a a civil manner.
As long as the line of argument doesn't get into propaganda feel free to share it here.
So much cover up, so many lies, so many unanswered questions…
Is there a real need for a 'REAL' investigation? DEFINITELY.
Anonymous Says:
Here is a copy of Carl Camerons series of reports. http://100777.com/usa/israeli_spyring
Sibel Edmonds Says:
Last Anon: Many thanks. You read my mind-I was planning to search it this evening.
On another topic: has anyone watched this ABC segment with this new FBI informant whistleblower? I didn't, but read the transcript quickly this morning. I don't know it sounds a bit fishy. The timing: why is he coming forward now; after 8 years? Did you find him credible? I'd like to get your take…So far I don't have any opinion…
Zica Says:
@KF
Yes, I did flip out and leave and I apologize for that. I also asked if it would be ok for me to come back and was welcomed.
I wasn't bringing up CD as my main point, which was the irony of smearing people and ideas (rather than offering serious arguments) in the context of complaining about the anti-Semitism fear/effect on journalism (in the Raimondo piece). I made the specific point because I have been swayed by the CD argument, the best example of which I provided as a link above (refereed science). Have you read it?
We're in this together.
@Sibel
Thanks for clarifying your position on these comments.
And thanks, EP, for your comments.
Anonymous Says:
the 'inside job/jihadist' discussion is semantic.
'Inside job' seems more or less a covering title that allows for whoever the players were OTHER THAN the commission report conspirators. It does not preclude or exclude alliances in a free-flow 'use of' unwitting /witting participants from any stream out there, internal and external. There have obviously been many different elements from many countries put together to complete the conspiracy, and crime at this level crosses all boundaries.
As a working title, it allows for the towers and wtc7 being brought down by who/what-ever OTHER than the dean-zelikow NIST misdirection.
Given the lack of knowing where any truth commission would end up, a general cover all title is ok at this stage? If Government involvement AND Jihadists is proven, then that is an inside job.
remo
mcthorogood Says:
Demonstrating to reopen the 9-11 investigation by chanting that "9-11 was an inside job," may be self defeating. The MSM challenges this supposition with the straw man argument: who would believe that the government would intentionally murder its own people?
After listening to Peter Lance, it is probably true that we were pwned. It's easy to see how AQ could have had intel to attack during disaster exercises; ditto for the terror attacks in Britain.
T Says:
Here's a break from the 9/11 thread.
With "alleged" corruption and no transparency everywhere you look (Sibel's case, 2 wars, the CIA/torture), how do you cope with it all?
As for me, I only watch regular TV if I have to. Otherwise, the accurate news I'm getting is mostly online and overseas. What does that say when you have to go abroad to find out what's happening locally? Why am I paying the TV half of my cable subscription?
Anonymous Says:
Re: The Raimondo article
Why does the FBI suddenly become credible when they are commenting on possible Israeli foreknowledge? It's not like the FBI has ever leveled with the public about the conduct of their agents and officials. For example, FBI personnel (ITOS) obstructed al Qaeda investigations.
I'm not saying the Cameron stories aren't worthy of investigation. I am noting that Raimondo is selectively deciding to trust the FBI on one particular aspect of 9/11.
Same goes for possible Saudi and Pakistani involvement. The government claims al Qaeda is an independent terrorist outfit opposed to the US and the Saudi government. If this is true then why did US intelligence act so strangely? Why did Scheuer claim that the Saudis protected Bin Laden before 9/11? Why did Trento write that al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar were GID agents? Why did Palast report that FBI agents were ordered to back off Saudi linked terrorist groups?
When do US officials tell the truth and stop hiding behind possible foreign trails?
Kingfisher Says:
@Sibel,
Re: informant
Didn’t Mike German work CT in south Florida around the time this guy is talking about? If I recall he is part of your group; he probably could give you the low down on this guy. I know he was involved in the Miami case with the Haitian kids who wanted to play Jihad. So I don’t doubt he was an informant. I have a hard time believing that he could penetrate Mohammad Atta’s cell though.
Edit_Mommies Says:
Let me get this straight. In the deepest recesses of legislation.. A group of "FBI people" are being held captive,.. separated from their powers of remediation.
Deeply depressed, America's "people" responsibly compile a multilayer retrieval queue in search of those held in captivity.
Strange behaviors begin taking shape under the weight of this new multilayer retrieval queue. Normal occasions are no longer "normal". My own behavior is now being deeply affected by my surroundings. For instance, my observance of a White Station Wagon intensely magnifies the innate herding instincts of our North American Sheep Dog. Yellow SUV's.., floods of emotion linking the Chupacabra with the gravity of matching Fallopian Tubes. Careful indecision heightens my sense of "Civic Duty". From the mouth of the multilayer retrieval queue, comparable diplomatic solutions wash the Earth. The water does search,.. co-opting the counterparts suggestion that restoration proves "FBI people" the availability of component super powers. Where as no greater distance proves the availability of too much of anything besides unproven legislation.
and you want to sell a book titled, "Satan".
Sibel Edmonds Says:
King Fisher: My main question- Why is he coming out now; the timing?
Mike German: not a member of NSWBC. Too close to DOJ-FBI…
Also, remember the allegations in Able Danger saga re: Atta.
Then, the alleged Israeli connection & Atta.
Too many things,pieces, and somehow they just don't add up. Smoke & mirrors?
JCarb Says:
Sibel, I believe that Mike German now works for the ACLU. I seem to recall seeing him being interview on Freedom Watch.
After listening to the prior 2 interviews with Mr. Lance, and with Mr. Trento, all that was popping in my head was how many people in elected office, or in appointed office are being subjected to blackmail, or are serving interests other than their people in their districts. You pointed this out during your testimony in the Schmitt case.
If this is the status of the country, that we are people in positions of authority, who are subject to blackmail, well, I think it speaks for itself.
Excellent work!!!
Mizgîn Says:
As I started listening to this interview, I realized I had heard Peter Lance before when he was interviewed a couple of months ago by George Knapp on Coast to Coast. I looked at Lance's website and saw that he has links to that interview, for which I'm glad because I fell asleep during it when they ran the crappy commercials. So now I can listen to the whole thing without the crappy commercials.
I'm also glad you posted this right before 11 September, Sibel, because I compared the information from this podcast to the official mythology that was reinforced today in the MSM. It's still amazing to me that people still venerate that mythology, when there is an opportunity to penetrate more closely to the truth through the work of people like Peter Lance.
I also noticed that Pepe Escobar of Asia Times had a list of fifty questions he'd like answered about 11 September. He mentions the fact that we should all give up hope of expecting the "US corporate media and the ruling elites' political operatives to call for a true, in-depth investigation into the attacks on the US on September 11, 2001" because "whitewash has been the norm." I couldn't agree more.
Escobar also notes that Brzezinski admits that the War on Terror, Inc., since 11 September is a "mythical historical narrative."
Amazing.
Thanks for a great interview!
Zica Says:
Here's a Salon piece asking the other signatories (other than Van Jones) if they'd still sign, and listing some of their responses.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/09/11/truth_petition/
Saw Ralph Nader on there. Also Ray McGovern (former CIA analyst, co-founder, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity). Do you have any contact with him, Sibel?
Greg Bacon Says:
Maybe New Yorkers will vote for another 9/11 investigation, which should go onto the ballot for a November vote, but one that Mayor Bloomberg is trying to deep six.
Just because Bush and Cheney told a thousand or so lies to get us pumped out to invade Iraq doesn't mean they told lies about 9/11.
We should always believe what the president says, after all, if he does it, it isn't illegal, right?
Doug Canuck Says:
Hi Sibel , great interview with Mr. Lance.
I have been following your blog since it's inception and think it's great!!!
Kudos to you for carving out a niche on the WWW for explosive interviews and intelligent debate on crucial events of our times.
Anonymous said…
the 'inside job/jihadist' discussion is semantic..
I totally agree , apples and oranges , but both fruit.
@T..
Your comment about MSM made me think of the Georgian/Russian conflict a year ago. I watched it literally live on Russia Today and then compared it to the CNN coverage. The result was amazing. Now, knowing full well that both would have their biases , I checked a few other online sources and to me the choice was obvious . I called my provider and told them to take CNN off my Sat. package. Their response was humourous to say the least, "Do you want Fox News instead" they asked. Ummm , No thx. :p
@Sibel..
I understand your hesitantcy about discussing 911 in this comment section, but have to ask what you (and everyone else for that matter) think of the speculations made by Col.Donn de-grande-pre U.S.Army(Ret.) in a 1994 interview with Alex Jones.
Transcript can be read here..
http://www.prisonplanet.com/022904degrand.html
Keep up the good work Sibel.
Doug
T Says:
What do you think of Mile Ruppert and his "From the Wilderness" blog?
Red Dawn 09 Says:
Sibel,
I left a message yesterday asking if it would be ok to put your website address on my new website unansweredquestions.weebly.com and im not sure if you recived it. Please take a moment and leave an answer on one of my blog pages so i might make a Sibel Edmonds page on my site. The site is dedicated to informing those who do not know what is going on and hopefully helping more people come to realize that we are all in the same boat and need to stand together as "we the people" are ment to.
thank you very much for your time.
Red Dawn 09
Anonymous Says:
Oh, this is good.
Sibel's revelation – - that the CIA had an intimate relationship with Osama bin Laden and the Taliban up until 9/11 – - is being circulated by Charlie Sheen as part of a larger 9/11 statement. In Sheen's six-and-a-half minute video, Sibel is featured beginning at 2:59, and there is even an image of her from her August 8 deposition. As I write this message, the video has been viewed more than 286,000 times (that's comparable to some mainstream cable-news shows) on YouTube, and it has a rating of four-and-a-half stars out of 5. Sheen is popular (he is the highest paid actor on US television) and his voice is being heard by many, including Reuters and the Telegraph.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyKR2-A0KPU&feature=related
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS82124+11-Sep-2009+PRN20090911
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/6177194/Charlie-Sheen-urges-Barack-Obama-to-reopen-911-investigation-in-video-message.html
Regards,
"Tom Joad"
Doug Canuck Says:
Just wanted to correct the date on the above comment that I made @10:29 am.
The date of the interview with Col. Donn de-grande-pre was 2004.
Doug
Anonymous Says:
After yesterday's 9/11 Security Scare on the Potomac and reading Tom Ridge’s book “the Test of our Times” I see that Uncle Sammy, The DHS, and the Coasties are worthless Fork Ups, who cannot protect America any better now, then before 9-11. Each and every American is responsible for his or her own Protection and Safety, period. What's now cool is the conservatives are now talking about Secession and a Second American Revolution and I say "Viva La Revolution" And God Bless America. Shalom, Jaye
Anonymous Says:
I found my way here after watching Sibel's deposition on another website. What a credible witness and fascinating woman!
It appears to me that "ZOG" our Zionist Occupied Government has been suppressing all public knowledge of Sibel along with the truth about 9-11. Just observe how AIPAC had Fox disappear the Cameron piece on Israel spying on America. Poof. It didn't happen. Just observe how Sibel was disappeared via the assertion of State Secrets Privilege. Poof. It didn't happen. Little wonder that Congress isn't allowed to mention the Armenian Holocaust. Turkey now has it's own ZOG: http://www.jewishracism.com/JewishGenocide.htm
T Says:
Re: 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan and other issues, here's a few PTSD facts you may not know:
3 out of 10 people walking around (30% of the population) has some form of PTSD from trauma (physical, mental, emotional or rape).
When someone suffers some form of trauma, it permanantly affects you. If it's a little kid, it can actually alter their brain chemistry to a certain degree.
There are women vets who get this from combat or being raped while on duty. Also, there are some guys who also get raped. If vets really deserve all the support they can get, how come women are acknowledged. But NOBODY talks about the guys?
I know various people (mental health professionals, vets and others) who deal with this in some way. I've NEVER heard any of them say that torture works. When you hear some who swear it works, I feel like it's listening to your know-it-all brother-in law or something.
It works?
Absolutely.
Are you a vet?
No.
Are you a doctor or a therapist?
No.
Have you ever worked for any intelligence agency?
No.
Then how do you know it works?
I just know, damnit! Trust me.
Many of these people think torture is great. But they have no clue what waterboarding is.
Just a few thoughts.
Anonymous Says:
Sibel, I think the planes were remote controlled and that it was an inside job, but so what, we are here now and have to figure out if here, is where we want to be. And if here is not where we want to be, then how do we change? Shalom, Jaye
Kingfisher Says:
@Sibel,
Re: informant
Probably didn’t come forward before because he would have lost his gig, which he wanted to keep because he thought he could be useful, if not for financial reasons. I think he is no longer working as an informant. Maybe burnt some bridges with FBI? Maybe wants a book deal? While I appreciate this man’s service to our country; people who make their living as criminal informants are slippery.
Israeli connection & Atta – by that you mean the surveillance? Able Danger – Peter Lance says you are good friends with LTC Shaffer? He would be the ultimate in BF guests!
best,
KF
Sibel Edmonds Says:
King Fisher: "people who make their living as criminal informants are slippery" It's been my experience too; agreed.
"by that you mean the surveillance?" Yes
LTC: I know Tony fairly well; based on his case and past congressional activities. I never figured out that case. Weldon character ended up convoluting the whole thing…I don't trust Weldon.
Doug Canuck: If you mean 'providing the link to this site,' then, absolutely; please do so. However, as you can see from this site, I am not advertising other sites/people, and I do not sponsor any blog/site that chooses to report on my case/blog. It is very hard to vet people 'virtually,' thus I've remained 'solo.'Thank you for your support.
mcthorogood Says:
While all of us are products of the society that we live in, some of us chose to change society for better or worse. We often go through several stages developing our worldview.
Many of us are caught in the same daily grind without time for much else, especially since real wages have not kept up with the cost of living. The extra time after work is often spent in leisure activities, watching television or other trivial pursuits. I was an engineer immersed in my job. After 9-11, I ignored Dubya's advice to just go shopping and researched Wahhabism instead.
Waking up early in 2007, I donned my tin-foil hat and became a Ron Paul supporter. I was shocked at the corruption, the shadow government, and the various industrial complexes that curtail democracy within our government. Somewhere, along the way, the ideals of the American Revolution had been co-opted by corporate-personhood. I was mad as hell and I wasn't going take it any more. But, along the way I also learned about radical evangelism, politics of deviance, neoliberalism, social justice, climate change, and peak oil.
We must accept responsibility for the situation in the world today, and realize that change will not come from above, but from the people below. Just as the French rejected the birthright of kings in the eighteenth century, people outside the U.S. are rejecting neoliberalism in South America. Might we look to the people of Oaxaca, Mexico and Honduras as examples of "real change"?
Kingfisher Says:
@Sibel,
Weldon might have been on the right side re: Able Danger; but was on the wrong side on other things, and mixed up with some shady people. Not sure, either way he tainted the issue. How do you mean "I never figured out that case"?
Re: surveillance – IMHO it is the most pertinent matter of all these open questions/issues. Has the most solid base to build an investigation from. Chris Ketchum’s work is very convincing, and Bob Baer has confirmed the white van stories. Unfortunately, it is also the most prone to uninformed speculation.
The “benign theory” – that they stumbled across the hijackers while watching Hamas cells in the US, is the only best to go off of; but it absolutely warrants more looking into. Raising the specter of Hamas cells in the US, overlays with Agent Wright’s case. Hot or cold?
Doug Canuck Says:
Sibel..
If you mean 'providing the link to this site,' then, absolutely; please do so. However, as you can see from this site, I am not advertising other sites/people, and I do not sponsor any blog/site that chooses to report on my case/blog. It is very hard to vet people 'virtually,' thus I've remained 'solo.'Thank you for your support.
By hesitantcy , I meant , in respect to your wishes not to have 123 Real Change identified as a "Truther" site/blog.
and in effect , marginalized.
However , I hope you have time to go over that interview I posted , I think De-Grande-Pre says some very explosive things in it . ie: Isreal using mini nukes from the Negev at the onset of the Iraq war etc…
He seems so sincere and fearless in his comments and that could just be from his military background , I don't know, but with the claims he makes about sources and connections in high military circles , he may be worth talking to.
Doug
SanderO Says:
It is my belief that 911 was not the product of Al Qaeda since there is more than ample evidence that the towers came down from sort sort of explosives. I won't go into the reasons I believe this to be the case, but this implies that there was access to the very secure WTC 7 which housed the offices of the CIA, SEC etc. Explosives take time to set up and conceal so to pull this off means that someone in the security apparatus was compromised somehow.
If the towers fell from explosives then the story about the other two flights given by the 911 commission would be a lie. But each of these two flights don't make sense as being what the commission says regardless.
There has to be some sort of involvement with the least frightening being a massive cover up of incompetence by the DOD, NSA, FBI, CIA, FAA and so forth. How could so much of our national security state be out to lunch for so long?
The answer seems to be: it couldn't. Somehow someone was able to get the entire defense apparatus to "stand down" so the event could take place, that is the jets crashing into the 3 buildings. This doesn't sound like a LIHOP as much as a MIHOP.
We may not know who was behind this, but it appears that Cheney was the one who has taken charge of several things on that day: the anti terrorism exercises which disabled out defenses and the orders to shoot down a plane in PA. There is certainly no evidence of a crash out there.
If the towers 1,2 & 7 came down from explosives, it's likely that the pentagon was an explosion too with a fly by not an impact of a jetliner. There was confusion of eye witness about a second plane seen at the time flying away / over the pentagon and that might have been the only plane meant to "fake" an impact which was really an explosion.
This stuff sounds very complex and conspiratorial and would require very high level of control by a few in the national security state, who enlisted some zealots with the notion that we needed cover for a war, to get vital oil, to protect the MIC and the DOD from being dismantled if there was no threat.
It's very hard to determine. But it's not hard to envision exploiting Arabs and creating patsies to enact some jihad attack thinking they were striking at America, but were in fact being used as the one to create the excuse for war against Islam, the new enemy and a means to insure the flow of vital oil.
There's evidence that the spooks were recruiting and helping arabs in what would be another false flag operation. Most of these like the Reichstag fire are blamed on a polish dupe or patsy who may or may not have been involved in the actual event. Oswald claimed he was a patsy and may very well have been. Someone needs to be caught and blamed and he was tagged a loony communist. How convenient at the height of the cold war.
Slight of hand is how magicians get you to not see what they are doing.
911 was a slight of hand of sorts which represented such a numbing shock that people cannot even wrap their minds around the facts and what they imply.
Zica Says:
@SanderO:
You might want to take a look at journalof911studies.com, where some of the hodge-podge of stuff you mentioned is discussed with a scientific and evidence based vetting approach.
The Vol 26 – July 2009 article What Hit the Pentagon? clearly states arguments that "something else" hit the pentagon and then, argument by argument, comes to the conclusion that there is no compelling evidence for that.
I believe it's important to limit the spattering of theories to those that have evidence and are fact/science based. I'm including the stuff that's being vetted and presented by our trusted Mrs. Edmonds.
Otherwise, your whole message can be easily discounted. IMHO.
p.s. As I said before, I also think that serious arguments, not smears, should be presented, because they are much more productive.
Kingfisher Says:
@Zica,
You want to know why I don't think controlled demo should be discussed here? Witness SanderO's post.
You want your line of inquiry (CD-nanothermite) to be considered on the same level as Bamford’s or Peter Lance’s, or the matters related to Sibel? Now you know what it is like think someone discredits you and your work. Engage this guy in serious argument, try it right now. See if it is productive.
Or maybe better it could be done on one of the other zillions of truther websites that discuss these things?
Zica Says:
Hi, KF:
Actually, I was trying to engage SanderO (see my last comment). Still waiting for a response. I understand your concern and I'm trying to do my best to clarify that only the most evidence-based theories should be presented.
The nano-thermite paper I asked if you'd read is a peer reviewed paper in a scientific journal.
I'd never place myself at Bamford's, Lance's, or Sibel's level. I wish one of them would look into the nano-thermite evidence.
I'm offering these comments in the context of this blog post because I think this community can benefit. I'm sorry if you feel that you're not.
Please read the paper and offer a serious argument, instead of telling me to leave. Or ignore me, and excuse my leaving a thorn in your side. It's not my intention.
Anonymous Says:
fisherking.
Have you read the nanothermite paper? yes or no.
If yes, what makes the science in it, offering evidence of incendiary aids to the destruction, any less value than the science offered in the papers allowing for the 3 building 'collapses' at freefall speed, without them?
what part of the science in the nanothermite paper insults your intelligence so much that you disallow it so comprehensively.
If you havn't read it, please do.
This is central to the discussion.
remo
bh Says:
This might be more appropriate in the comments for a different post but I don't know which one. I found this VERY interesting show on HULU website tonight called Vanguard with Mariana Van Zeller about a US/Iranian proxy war being fought through the Kurdish ethnic group on all sides of the tri-country border region (Turkey, Iraq, Iran). Sorry, I don't remember the bb code to make this an active link. You will have to copy/paste unless someone else knows how to do that:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/91541/vanguard-america%E2%80%99s-secret-war-with-iran
Enjoy!
bh Says:
I caught a really good movie last night that I've been meaning to see for a while called Body of Lies with Leo DiCaprio and Russel Crowe
bh Says:
PS ~ The Vanguard show includes some interview excerpts with Bob Baer.
Kingfisher Says:
I looked at the paper. Even if I did agree with it, this place is absolutely not the venue for such a scientific inquiry/debate – just not conductive to it. I have found such a scientific discussion, and there is far from consensus on the matter:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4609230
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=153478
You'll be hard pressed to find anywhere that discusses such subjects intelligently than that website. I'm not a scientist and cannot get into the nuts and bolts of it, most people are not either. And at this stage in NT line of inquiry it is not worthwhile for the layreader to get into it.
Kingfisher Says:
@bh,
Imo the book Body of Lies is much better than the movie. David Ignatius is the author; he has a new novel out called The Increment that's real good.
One of my favorite spy flicks is Three Days of the Condor, classic.
bh Says:
PPS ~ The Vanguard documentary may be old news to some. For others it may provide yet another example (according to Bob Baer), and beyond what has been posted on this website and elsewhere, not to mention 200+ years of common knowledge "history", of US government forces, "dark and sinister" or otherwise, working hand in hand with terrorists. Yet again.
Zica Says:
Well, an honest Thank You to you, KF. I'm very impressed that you responded as you did.
I would like to make a couple remarks regarding your comments:
1) "You'll be hard pressed to find anywhere that discusses such subjects intelligently than that website."
Well, where is the published, refereed, response to this paper in any scientific journal? "Hard pressed to find" is currently very correct.
2) "Even if I did agree with it, this place is absolutely not the venue for such a scientific inquiry/debate – just not conductive to it."
But it is at least worth mentioning, right? Maybe worth asking some respected journalists to look into it further?
I am honestly impressed at your response. I am also honestly interested in the prospect that un-exploded nano-thermite has been found in the dust. We really do need the scientific community to step up on this conversation.
I'll continue to rail against demeaning disinfo and stupidity/ignorance towards this topic. I hope that you'll feel a bit less perturbed by my remarks in the future.
Anonymous Says:
randi.forum on the dust sample study cracking good read . Opens the questions gate full wide. The further in we go, the bigger the picture.
remo
Kingfisher Says:
"Well, where is the published, refereed, response to this paper in any scientific journal? "Hard pressed to find" is currently very correct."
Lets not kid ourselves Bentham is a vanity press.
Even if I did support CD theory (I don't), I wouldn't task respected journalists to look into NT. Even among the CD crowd, there is reason not to buy NT, this guy makes some good arguments and is a CD'er himself:
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/niels-harrit-is-a-weasel/
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2009/08/05/steven-jones-is-literally-selling-his-nanothermite-story/
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2009/08/23/more-bad-science-surrounding-the-nano-thermite-red-herring/
Zica Says:
"Lets not kid ourselves Bentham is a vanity press."
Wouldn't that make it so much easier to publish a response? Go ahead and throw some money at them and see if you can get published there.
Zica Says:
Or you could trust willyloman.wordpress.com. Ha! Oh, that's right, you go for the smear tactics. I looked at the "weasel" piece. Real informative, KF. "Just look at him. He’s a weasel." I bet you get off on that kind of crap.
Anonymous Says:
http://loosechange911.com I too wonder about Bldg. 7, but the paper trail that Sibel,Peter Lance, and others are pursuing is more likely to lead to outing the criminals. Further, the subject they discuss is their area of expertise. Too often 9-11 CD becomes a verbal joust on other websites.
Simon
Kingfisher Says:
@Zica,
"Wouldn't that make it so much easier to publish a response?"
The point is that one shouldn't necessarily award legitimacy or importance just because something is "published" or "peer reviewed". Why? Because that status can be purchased or rented, and Bentham happens to one of the places you can do that.
I am sure there will be a response paper to the paper, probably by someone on randi.org, hopefully it will published in your journal.
Yes, willyloman's response is vitriolic; it is also from the CD community and a peer of the authors. Beneath his vitriol and in the comment section lay legitimate criticism. If I wanted to link to something to strictly smear you and NT, its not a very effective link. I am sure I could have found much more insulting and funnier stuff.
In a word they actually know the stuff they are talking about. And it is scientific debate, be it CD or CD friendly communities. Do you actually know stuff about thermatic materials? Because I know little, so does the general public and so do the people who come here. There are conversations and places where they are talking about this stuff, knowledgably too; and it is still an open debate there. Why do you need another place to talk about it here? We can’t do as good a job as they can.
You want to inform people about NT? Lock the case down first. Why aren't you currently pushing regular thermite, or thermobaric CD theories? Because it didnt pan out in the CD community, the theories got debunked, and now a new one is being tested in that phase.
And if you want to contribute to that effort, this just not the place to do it. Its a scientific debate NT supporters are in; they don't need cheerleaders or marketers, they need brain power. I am sure you can ask someone in that community how you can contribute. There is nothing that this site can do for you about that.
Anonymous Says:
Sibel, here is a news broadcast done by the France 24 network regarding the effort of individuals in NY trying to get a new investigation of 911. You are mentioned ; ) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkDzikztPiI
Mitesh Damania Says:
Nassim Taleb schools Congress on economics
http://www.askbutwhy.com/2009/09/nassim-taleb-schools-congress.html
Zica Says:
My main point on CD here is to ask that you stop taking cheap shots at the idea. I never brought up CD on this blog entry, I simply pointed out that the article Sibel referenced was smearing the idea as nuts, while complaining about the anti-semitism scare. And you consistently reference truthers, inside-jobbers, and CD-ers as crazy. I usually come to the defense of CD when it’s being smeared.
Instead of insisting that we can’t talk about it here, would you just admit that the idea has validity (even if we don’t know for sure if it’s true) and stop calling it crazy, so that we can move on?
BTW,
Here are some other worthless vanity publications by individuals who are researching CD. I guess it’s too bad for you they’re not vitriolic blogs…
(Referenced from Wikipedia Entry)
In 2008 and 2009, several Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice members published essays in science and engineering journals. In April 2008, a letter by members Steven E. Jones, Frank Legge, Kevin Ryan, Anthony Szamboti and James Gourley, was published in The Open Civil Engineering Journal.[95] In July 2008, an article by Ryan, Gourley and Jones was published in the Environmentalist.[96] In October 2008, an essay describing what the author considers fundamental errors in a Bažant and Verdure paper was published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics by member James R. Gourley.[97] And in April 2009, as reported by major Danish newspapers,[98] Danish chemist and STJ member Niels H. Harrit, of the University of Copenhagen, and eight other authors, some also STJ members, published a paper in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, titled, 'Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe'.[99] The paper concludes that chips consisting of unreacted and partially reacted super-thermite are present in the samples of the dust.
Rick Says:
Peter Lance's incompetence theory is tired and ignores the smoking gun of WTC7 and the near free-fall 'collapses' of 1 and 2.
AQ is an invention of Western intelligence an Arab League of patsies for our use.
Follow the money – 9/11 was to kick off a century of war profiteering.
John Medeiros Says:
@Kingfisher
You stated: “I'm not a scientist and cannot get into the nuts and bolts of it, most people are not either. And at this stage in NT line of inquiry it is not worthwhile for the layreader to get into it.”
I previously stated to you that I am an engineer and I asked you what your profession was and you never did answer my question. But you did announce your loyalty and allegiance as a BU Terrier. As an engineer, who analyzes data, I believe Zica has made valid points. For the lay reader, maybe you and Zica can declare your respective professions in making your assessments and conclusions.
Zica Says:
I am not a physicist or engineer. I'm a software programmer. So, I can't prove the papers to be right or wrong independently.
I do think that some of the concepts involved in CD are comprehensible to laypersons. For instance, NIST has admitted that Bldg 7 did free fall for two and a half seconds, which requires nothing to be in its way. To the degree that I can understand it, I'm swayed to the position that CD is a strong possibility.
I don't mind if CD isn't discussed here so much as I wish people wouldn't feel the need to smear the idea and the people who are interested in it. It's like some people need to insult others in order to feel better about themselves, when it's really unnecessary.
Riley Says:
At 49 mins, Mr. Collins recounts his time in Washington during the 9/11 Commission. He says he recalls Ben-Veniste asking Rumsfeld about when he ordered jets to scramble to protect the Pentagon. Rumsfeld repeated the question, and then was "assisted" by claiming their time was up.
I looked through the 9/11 commission's testimony archive:
http://www.9-11commission.gov/
As far as I can tell, this testimony does not appear in the transcript, nor in the video. On further investigation, I've noticed that some of the testimony from both Rice and Maneta was edited out (50 miles out, 30 miles out, etc.). If Collins' memory of the testimony is correct, this looks like another bit that's been erased from the historical record…
Anonymous Says:
disappearing transcripts. altered testimony? lost tapes? ripped up tapes. lost boxes. Anyone got a file on that?
remo
SanderO Says:
I am an NYS architect for over 35 years practicsing in NYC and I have seen a presentation of evidence of explosives in the WTC collapses. I was in NYC when the towers fell. However, my own knowledge of engineering leads me to conclude that fires did not bring the towers down. I have discussed this with other engineers who agree.
A&E for 911 Truth has compiled what looks like credible evidence to me which confirmed my own suspicions. I have examined their presentation and while I can't conclude that it was thermite or nano thermite, evidence of some sort of explosions unrelated to the air strikes is irrefutable in my mind.
I don't know anything about explosives and controlled demolition except conceptually how you undermine a structure to induce collapse.. I do know that the physics of a progressive "collapse" from structural failure caused by weakening from heat deformation are not what we saw. Impact overloading would not take the few seconds it did either and to have enough mass to crush through the structure, that mass must have integrity and not be turned to mostly dust. Dust won't crush 80 stories over over built steelwork.
Zica study your statics and you will understand.
There were several presentations on TV (PBS, History channel, National Geographic, even Pop Mechanics) which attempted to explain the collapses as a result of fire. They were eventually withdrawn (I believe) as it was demonstrated as essentially "voodoo" engineering. Since those two efforts no engineering has successfully modeled the collapse resulting from the strike and fire which ensued.
To this day no one has offered an official explanation of the collapse of WTC 7 other than to say it came down as a result of fire… a fire which took 8 hours to do its magic.
If the glove does not fit, you must acquit. I can't saw what or how the towers were exploded, how they explosives might have got there, but I am quite confident that burning jet fuel did not cause the towers to disintegrate.
I realize that this leads to the conclusions that we were lied to and that the conspiracy was more than 19 men with box cutters.
I suspect that conclusion is even more frightening than the one we were told.
I believe that there are sincere people who are interested in the truth about that day. Ms Edmonds is only one of them.
SanderO Says:
I recently saw a presentation of a series of 10 interviews of eyewitness to the events at the pentagon on 911. Most were government employees, police, pentagon workers and so forth.
The take away from those interview is that there was a plane flying toward the pentagon, but it did not take the path we were told, that is it could not have knocked over the light poles given as evidence as the flight path before impact.
If these witnesses are to be believed something else happened. I don't know what. Airline Pilots for 911 truth claim it was impossible to manually execute such a tight turn descending thousands of feet and strike a fairly low building. However, the building is quite an enormous target so hitting it somewhere may not have "mattered".
There is also doubt about whether a pilot could manually fly a large jet and a curved path and strike such a narrow target executing a turn at such a high speed. This seems to indicate that it was done by autopilot whatever that implies.
The North Tower strike was more feasible as manually controlled flight as it was hit from as a target of a straight trajectory.
Anonymous Says:
I feel certain the Hijackers were on the planes but that the planes were remote controlled like our new Killer Drones at Creech, NV are. NASA remote controlled crashed an airliner at Edward's AFB in CA in the 1980s, so it has already been proven to be possible. Shalom, Jaye
Zica Says:
@SanderO
I've seen some of the AE911Truth materials. I think I can comprehend that the "hammer", used to smash the bottoms of the two towers, needs to be intact, at the very least.
There is this: NIST NCSTAR 1A: Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 – official report on what happened to Bld7. They have a computer model, but they aparently won't release the data used in it. You'd think a little transparency could quell some suspicions, right?
I still don't think Pentagon theories have any compelling evidence. Refer back to the article I mentioned at September 13, 2009 1:56 PM.
@Jaye:
Proof of concept isn't enough. Could be, but why focus on that?
Anonymous Says:
Because the second WTC plane went past tolerances and only a powerful transponder or more powerful computer can override the planes computer. But, what difference does that make? We are here now in 2009 and in a post 9-11 World and Patriot Act World, Semi police state and our military is weak from W.s lies and PTSD and overuse and the Feds are too busy spying on everybody (probably in this Room) in the country but the bad guys. If change is going to happen, now is probably a good time. Who knows? Do you Know? Shalom, Jaye
Anonymous Says:
having listened to NISTs shyam sunder present his report last year, around about the same time Barry Jennings, a KEY WTC7 independent witness to blasts IN the buildings, disappeared; and then later Sunders interview on noliesradio 24.8.08, the direction has been very easy to see. Fire induced progressive collapse.The "identification of a new phenomenon,Thermal expansion".com.tm
followed by denial of alternatives. of 'listen to the experts', [possibly those on randi forum turning Jones/Harrit nano-thermitic material red/gray chips into paint.] Again. It comes back to direction, perception management, and control. These statements are not accidental. The computer program graphic didn't show the progression as seen on live video because not even the pushers of this conspiracy have the imagination to fabricate that, let alone allow its architecture be independently scrutinized in fair and open court. Certainly the graphic didn't replicate the necessary hundreds of 'sequential' cold join failures' per millisecond required to bring wtc7 down free-fall WITHOUT explosives , but the graphic and the NIST paper will be popular mechanics/fox/911 commission truth. Maybe Arlen Spector can produce the magic bolt, because this same reality is what is at stake here. Who owns it. The protection of a massive crime. a construct pushing a 47 storied building jellyfication to dust in 6.5seconds due to 'office furnishings fire'.
The alternatives mandated for investigation by NIST were summarily dismissed as being [Sunder quote ]'not credible, not feasible..the issue of thermate in NIST judgement didn't even reach level of importance to do detailed study for reasons we could rule it out fairly easily for several reasons.one . in order for a thermate reaction to to take place there has to be materials and of course building materials have all of the things required for thermite or thermate and we looked at the amount of thermate to bring the building down you would have had to place about a 100lbs of thermate right in the proximity of the column and it would have to adhere to the column because thats what thermite actually does, is melt the steel so somebody has to keep pushing it so that thermite continues to be sticking to this vertical column so that until it collapses in order to get that amount of materials into the building and actually place it is unlikely to have actually happened."[sic]. Further "just because thermate exists in some dust particles does not necessarily translate into thermate being the cause of the buildings failure…theres no THEORY around it. Just observations. isolated observations". sunder allowed for thermate residue to be present, but not worth investigating.? What was it? left in a draw somewhere?
Also the molten steel :"in the rubble pile there certainly could have been melted steel".
At presentation the media were given Geraldo bullet point hand outs that stated
1. The collapse of WTC 7 is no longer a mystery.[thats handy to know]
2. WTC 7 collapsed as a result of office furnishings fire. and
3. It did not collapse as a result of explosives or diesel fuel fire.
really deep technical information for a well educated public.
sunder got one thing right though. It was 'thermal expansion' that brought down all the towers. whatever used on 911 in those buildings sure did "thermally expand". instantly violently and all over the place.
remo
SanderO Says:
The problem with these "theories" is that they come from quack scientists and could not stand peer review or a legal proceeding which would expose the fakes and demand actual evidence.
Fire and heat can weaken a steel frame and cause it to fail. However it would not be destroyed as was we saw on 911. It would sag and twist and most likely be asymmetrical and it would take much longer that the destruction we witnessed on 911.
Even if there were incredibly hot fires low enough to destroy the columns and the upper stories were to come crashing down, those fires would have to work on almost every column or enough of them in a symmetrical manner weakening them at the same instant for the top to come straight down.
But open fires are apparently not hot enough to have such a catastrophic impact on the steel of the core columns when the accerlant is office furniture and contents, not to mention the automatic sprinkler systems which release water to cool, of not extinguish fires.
jim Says:
Thanks for this interview – I recall reading somewhere that Mohamed boasted after his arrest that he'd be walking the streets in less than a month because of what he knew … & that he vanished from the system without a trace soon thereafter.
As to 9/11 itself, I don't know what happened & doubt I ever will: too much physical evidence was destroyed & far too much time elapsed before any real professional investigation began.
I think one angle that needs further scrutiny is the announcement the day before that the Pentagon had completely lost track of more than $1 trillion – on any other week of the century, that story would've dominated the news for days if not weeks. Less than 24 hours later it went down the Memory Hole. 9/11 also killed the Enron scandal just as it was about to expand into a massive criminal investigation (a lot of Enron evidence was stored at the WTC) – "hundreds" were soon to be indicted, including people within the Executive level of government. Sixteen people plead guilty in the Enron trials.
For what it's worth, my theory is that there was a connection between both these scandals & the ongoing link between Al-Quaeda, organized-crime & the CIA, who each had much to gain from either neglecting to prevent it or perpetrating it actively.
Anonymous Says:
quack science is exactly what thermal expansion/office furnishings fire IS until proved otherwise..
When has it ever faced 'legal proceeding' in fair open court? It has been peer reviewed openly and often and found wanting.Plenty of engineers and scientists 'peer' review. If they come out against it, they are quacks. conspiracy theorists. still changes nothing.
Zica Says:
Hey, KF:
I just read through (the currently seven pages of) the JREF thread you referenced.
I guess it’s not hard to believe that, in response to my honest approach to you, you directed me to that ad hominem barf.
For everyone else: If you do happen to go there, please read ALL of the comments.
KF, surely the scientific response(s) to the "vanity" pieces should be coming very soon, right?!
(I mean in the same "vanity" journals or in ANY refereed publication?!)
P.S. , remo, I thought "The Magic Bolt" analogy was funny. Was that your original idea?
Kingfisher Says:
Yes please go there and read ALL the comments, comment yourself, and feel free to stay there. Do you people really need ANOTHER place for this stuff?
Anonymous Says:
zica yep. thanks. Far as I know it is, unless claimed by Shyam Sunder or Arlen himself.
remo
thorsteinveblen Says:
I suspected this Peter Lance as an agent provacateur when I first heard him on http://expertwitnessradio.org … too much
detail to go into right now.. but suffice it to say that my suspicions of this guy being quite the spin doctor were confirmed when I was flipping around and heard him on right-wing batcrap-brains Drudge Show one Sunday night.. i forget waht the loser's name is who replaced Matt
Drudge– what utter dreck. There's lots of disinformation spewing forth on this topic.. stick to genuine guests.. hard to come up with a list for fear of leaving out some good ones, but David Ray Griffin comes to mind.. McGovern and Bamford were certainly top-notch… and how about that German INtelligence author, von Bulow (?) as well as former ONI Tom Henighan !
Doug Canuck Says:
@ Kingfisher…
I have to admit that in the last few days of reading posts here I was a bit miffed with your attitude towards others wishing to discuss the events of 911.
However, after a great deal of thought on the subject, I have come to agree with you. I don't think that discussing what happened on 911 has the makings of a constructive debate. On the other hand , discussing what is happening as a result of 911 is a conversation if think a jacuzzi full of frogs can get into.
A quote from Jenna Orkin over at Mike Rupperts blog..
http://mikeruppert.blogspot.com/2009/09/september-11.html
"Same old, same old, in other words. But instead of outrage, we succumb to the inevitable, at least for now. The frog is being boiled slowly. It might seem odd that he doesn't jump out for in fact, he does understand what's happening. He stays anyway because Hell is where your friends are and where, for the time being, they are determined to remain.
But don't be fooled. His strength does not ebb. It merely waits."
I'm wondering if anyone here has read Mike Rupperts book "Crossing the Rubicon". I highly suggest it! I have been following his work for the last 7 years and I am convinced he knows what he's talking about. He is , without a doubt , the most critical thinker I have ever read .
He's all but retired as an activist these days (for reasons too many to list) but you can read his bio on his blog if you like. His site is all but closed down for the same reasons , but the archives are still there. The reason I mention these things is I am of the belief that nothing in the U.S. political spectrum will change short of a military coup. You can expose their corruption , control over the media , usurping of the constitution , etc… I don't think they really care one bit. With all the cards they hold they can change a flush to a royal flush right before your eyes . You lose! I am of the opinion that my time is better spent thinking what their up to and what may come of it. Judging by how they are going about it, I don't expect anything good coming our way.
Doug Canuck Says:
September 11, 2009 6:07 PM
Blogger Sibel Edmonds said…
Greetings.
Since the topic is 9/11, 9/11 Commission, I don't mind people presenting their views and various theories/hypothesis. As long as it's done respectfully…
I don't know much about the theories involving demolition/termite/etc. I I do not subscribe to that line of activism, and I don't claim to know much about that side..
LOL , I'm not pickin' on you Sibel and I know it's a typo , but … I know for a fact termites didn't bring down the towers :p
Doug
SanderO Says:
The reason that that understanding what happened on 911 is so crucial is because 911 changed everything – that seems to be something all can agree on.
One can approach the meta analysis from the most general question cui bono? This correctly assumes that whomever WAS behind the events of that day they did what they did for some reason. They DID want things to change.
If those guilty were "jihadis" then we can see this as an attack, that is they fired the first shot in the "big war" which we then called the GWOT and engaged in an entire series of actions which followed on. – war in Afghanistan, Iraq, DeptHomelandSecurity, USAPatriotACT, and so forth. Who benefited from these measures?
The answer to that question is that the jihadis were not the main beneficiaries of their attacks, assuming that were behind them. Perhaps they didn't think it through, or didn't care about THOSE results. All they wanted was death and instability of the great satan.
However, it you ask cui bono? and recognize that the MIC and the national security state, not only were no spanked for incompetence on that day, but were given a HUGE mandate to engage in a never ending war to fight global terrorism. How cool! Not only was this a war, that unlike VN we could not lose, but it was one we could and would fight in any country including our own against non state actors. The GWOT has provided cover for attacks on sovereign nations for "resources" and positioning forward bases to project US military power around the world. Since it's likely that the USA cannot be vanquished in a war, ie have to "surrender" to another sovereign nation we "attack" be it Iraq, Iran, N Korea, or face an invasion of our soil, occupation lose of sovereignty to a foreign power our military can engage in profitable war (games), amassing more and more fire power over time as we secure more and more of the world, but destabilizing weaker nations of our choosing.
It's obvious that the public needs a reason to go to war, the be patriotic and sign up for the military and that would be a provocation. If we are attacked our people will want to respond. Hence the use of a false flag since the stated policy of the USA is non aggression. We defend our nation, we don't start wars. Even our military is called the department of defense.
911 was the reason given to strike Afghanistan which supposedly harbored AQ who had planned the 911 attack. If this is true, it was sufficient reason for most Americans and the rest of the world. But was it actually true? Where is the evidence that will be irrefutable?
Most now acknowledge that the attack of Iraq was a pack of lies, one of them being that Saddam Hussein had tangible links with and support of AQ. But a series of rationales and what amounted to lies were given. The result is 1,000,000 innocents dead, 4 million displaced, a series of huge forward bases in Iraq positioning the USA for a similar attack of Iran.
The link to AQ as the planners behind 911 has been asserted but no case has been made with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
But neither has one been made for anyone else. While many interests benefited from the attack understanding how anyone or all of these interests conspired to execute the attacks, the case has not been made.
Some of those who benefited:
DOD
national security state: CIA FBI, NSA, police. etc
MIC
private outsource security contractors
international contractors (Bechtel etc.)
Oil industry
the Media
Israeli Zionists
policy holder of the insurance of the WTC
holders of US debt for war (banks)
right wing of the political spectrum
others (you supply)
break more to follow….
SanderO Says:
When one considers this list, it becomes obvious that IF some of those interests on that list wanted to carry out the attack, it is entirely possible. That is a frightening thought and flies in the face of how we think about our society and those institutions.
It's also entirely conceivable that these interests have the power to cover their tracks, place signs pointing to some other actors to blame (false flag).
This is not a proof of complicity in the events. But if the evidence for the events of that day does not stand, does not support the 19 hijacker AQ conspiracy then what WAS the REAL conspiracy?
It is for this reason when independent forensic investigators expose the lies, omissions, contradictions, false science, contradictions of the 911 commission report, or even raise a reasonable doubt about their findings and conclusions of the official story that the list of the "cui bono" demands a closer look.
Many believe that none of these alone could / would do this. Some believe that their are non state groups with "global" agenda who have infiltrated the seats of power in our society and government with a non democratic agenda. These are groups such as the Council on Foreign Relations, The Trilateral Commission, The Bilderberg Group etc. And of course there are the "internationals bankers" a handful of uber wealthy families who control money/debt for the entire world such as the Rothchilds, Rockefellers and so forth.
We want to believe that we, the people, control our government. But there is increasing evidence that we may elect representatives, but they represent "special interests" which are counter to those of the people. It appears that money and power can be used to control the elected representatives as well as "ideology" that the market will solve all problems of society.
In the recent health care "debate" in the USA this can be seen playing out. Health care has been turned into a for profit business where the bottom line is wealth and not health. Those who benefit from the present system are in the minority and every poll shows this, yet the people's representatives deny the support for a government not for profit system. The bought and paid for, by the for profit industry are debating what to do, and have taken the democratic approach off the table in favor of the one that "capital" wants – a for profit model a free market model driven by profit.
This debate clearly shows that our government is not owned or controlled or represents the people. Elections are stolen and legally bought by wealthy individuals who have passed laws which equate money with free speech.
The truth behind 911 is not what we were told. But the truth may be something even more frightening.
Anonymous Says:
O nicely writ.
and in terms of SanderO, lets assure ourselves of ONE thing .
The truth IS ALREADY more frightening than that which we have been told .
theres no maybe about it.
This is where we start from.
already frightened.
Our heads already in orwells rat cage.
these dogs of war already let slip, albeit in different guises[the good guys]
and, in the truth of it, that was its intention……under that Dust cloud,the theatre had a makeover.
remo
n69n Says:
Jamie Gorelick was also a leader in lobbying for full immunity for the Telecoms!
She is BAD NEWS.
n69n Says:
i also question categorizing Judith Miller as a "journalist".
It seems to me that is just one of the hats she wears; she is an operative.
"Journalist" is just a cover for "catapulting the propaganda".
Anonymous Says:
Put together everything that is known about 9/11 and you get-
1. Angry Arab patsies taking the blame.
2. Mossad setting up the ownership, security, computers and explosives in the Trade Center.
3. Dick Cheney personally running the enabling drills from his FEMA bunker.
Look who gets a war fought by 'U.S.' against their neighboring enemies.
See who is looting our treasury at this moment.
An explanation for the Pennsylvania plane that wraps it up for me is that it was going to appear on schedule just after the second tower fell and expose bldg 7 to a direct hit while the world watched. Air Force personnel readily admit that it was shot down. That's why they waited all day to blow it up.
Thomas Paine Says:
Thank you Sibel, you are a true patriot.
Regarding 911, it is clear that Controlled Demolition was involved. We can’t afford to beat around the bush anymore like Peter Lance wants to do. We now must confront the evil that inside elements were clearly involved.
As Aaron Russo said in his Youtube interview: Nick Rockeller told him 11 months before 911 that it would be committed by the world banking elite as a step toward the New World Order.
Fascism is already here.