Sign up with GoogleIf the US government is so amazingly efficient that that they can plan and execute an enormous cover-up like imploding the WTC towers, why wouldn’t they just fake the discovery of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq? Or why wouldn’t they suppress the photos of US soldiers mistreating Iraqis? Surely this would’ve saved them a lot of pain and embarrassment. Perhaps they didn’t do this because they’re not that organised after all?
-
Ask a question and get free supportUnlock new privileges and see hidden discussionsWin prizes and earn reputation
-
Question of the day ~ How often do you braai?
-
Afristay giveaway.Win a 2-night stay for two people at an establishment of your choice with R1,000 in spending money. Enter here.
A Coincidence Theorists Guide to 911
- Thread starter LoneGunman
- Start date
If the US government is so amazingly efficient that that they can plan and execute an enormous cover-up like imploding the WTC towers
To all intents a cover-up would involve only a few people - only a few people are required to pull off 9/11. Then - discredit all legitimate sources - bury anything official in red-tape - and generally put out their version of events, aka, all comment from people like Rumsfield, Cheney etc - these guys probably signed off on all the planning - and will make up any story as they go along. Same as they did with the invasion of Iraq... and you can't say this didn't happen. Rumsfield essentially substituted his report as the official one - anything official said Iraq does not have WMD's - but they went ahead anyway - based on spurious, substituted reports by Rumsfield. And the British Gov. did the same.
why wouldn’t they just fake the discovery of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq?
They have no need to do this (which would probably be found out.) 9/11 is not the same dynamic.
Or why wouldn’t they suppress the photos of US soldiers mistreating Iraqis? Surely this would’ve saved them a lot of pain and embarrassment. Perhaps they didn’t do this because they’re not that organised after all?
Would think a ton of photos/videos have been suppressed - the ones that escape are the ones you see.
To all intents a cover-up would involve only a few people - only a few people are required to pull off 9/11. Then - discredit all legitimate sources - bury anything official in red-tape - and generally put out their version of events, aka, all comment from people like Rumsfield, Cheney etc - these guys probably signed off on all the planning - and will make up any story as they go along. Same as they did with the invasion of Iraq... and you can't say this didn't happen. Rumsfield essentially substituted his report as the official one - anything official said Iraq does not have WMD's - but they went ahead anyway - based on spurious, substituted reports by Rumsfield. And the British Gov. did the same.
why wouldn’t they just fake the discovery of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq?
They have no need to do this (which would probably be found out.) 9/11 is not the same dynamic.
Or why wouldn’t they suppress the photos of US soldiers mistreating Iraqis? Surely this would’ve saved them a lot of pain and embarrassment. Perhaps they didn’t do this because they’re not that organised after all?
Would think a ton of photos/videos have been suppressed - the ones that escape are the ones you see.
Claymore
Executive Member
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Messages
- 8,340
What I find interesting is that the conspiracy theorists find holes in the official version of events at 9/11. They postulate that the US government plotted 9/11 in order to bring about certain far-reaching objectives. Yet the planners somehow managed to correctly get everything right for all these long-range objectives, involving years of time, various countries, predicting what many people (military, political and civilian) would do, and what would happen all in a very uncertain world, yet they SCREWED UP on a few small details on how the buildings collapsed and suchlike?
Does that sound realistic? Seriously?
Does that sound realistic? Seriously?
LoneGunman
Expert Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2003
- Messages
- 4,552
Claymore - they didnt screw it up. Folks like yourself, and a large quantity of others, firmly believe that the laws of physics, architecture, metallurgy, and engineering all coincidentally happened to 'pause' and change their properties on 911.
Just for a few hours..
All that was needed was for the shaky story to hold good long enough to justify the next steps that were planned - the US Gov (and all Governments) know full well the public's attention span isn't very long.
How much evidence showing at least a deliberate massive complicity, a conscious foreknowledge, and hundreds upon hundreds of 'coincidences' all making up the 'official story of 911' - need to be piled up before you start to see that you've been lied to?
Next off, its not just 'the conspiracy theorists' who find holes. Average people who look closely at the evidence, find the holes. Cops, firemen and 911 survivors find the holes, ditto the families of those killed on 911, Physics professors find the holes. People who DONT WANT TO FIND THE HOLES..find the holes in the official story.
how many regular folk have to be yelling at you and others that there's no THEORY involved, when hard evidence shows clearly that the facts of the matter, do NOT support the official 'theory'..
Just for a few hours..
All that was needed was for the shaky story to hold good long enough to justify the next steps that were planned - the US Gov (and all Governments) know full well the public's attention span isn't very long.
How much evidence showing at least a deliberate massive complicity, a conscious foreknowledge, and hundreds upon hundreds of 'coincidences' all making up the 'official story of 911' - need to be piled up before you start to see that you've been lied to?
Next off, its not just 'the conspiracy theorists' who find holes. Average people who look closely at the evidence, find the holes. Cops, firemen and 911 survivors find the holes, ditto the families of those killed on 911, Physics professors find the holes. People who DONT WANT TO FIND THE HOLES..find the holes in the official story.
how many regular folk have to be yelling at you and others that there's no THEORY involved, when hard evidence shows clearly that the facts of the matter, do NOT support the official 'theory'..
Last edited:
To backup what LGM says, is simply to take into consideration what we see in these forums after some of the lengthy posts he has made on the topic :-
"Wow, I really can't be bothered to read all that, but yeah, cool and all that"
That, in a nutshell, is what "the powers that be" rely on.
It has so blatantly been illustrated right here on this forum.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not having a go at anyone here - we're all busy, have many worries on our minds and not all of us are in a position to go searching for data - but it does clearly prove the point that LGM is pointing out, that so few people ever truly investigate what they are told, prefering the convenience of just believing the small "news bytes" they are fed.
That is why we need people who are in a position to do this for us, why every government absolutely requires not only effective opposition, but also inpartial watchdog organisations to keep them in check.
But, as the old adage says, "Who watches the watchmen ?"
"Wow, I really can't be bothered to read all that, but yeah, cool and all that"
That, in a nutshell, is what "the powers that be" rely on.
It has so blatantly been illustrated right here on this forum.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not having a go at anyone here - we're all busy, have many worries on our minds and not all of us are in a position to go searching for data - but it does clearly prove the point that LGM is pointing out, that so few people ever truly investigate what they are told, prefering the convenience of just believing the small "news bytes" they are fed.
That is why we need people who are in a position to do this for us, why every government absolutely requires not only effective opposition, but also inpartial watchdog organisations to keep them in check.
But, as the old adage says, "Who watches the watchmen ?"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7772696530684663669&q=Loose+Change+2nd+Edition
^^ one hour long conspiracy 9 11 show or whatever... this is a cap killer.
^^ one hour long conspiracy 9 11 show or whatever... this is a cap killer.
LoneGunman
Expert Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2003
- Messages
- 4,552
re the 'one hour long conspiracy 9 11 show' :}
That's 'Loose Change - Second Edition' - its really worth seeing, because its a fast, short intro to the massive quantities of evidence supporting an alt view of 911 - and each of the facts mentioned in it, is backed up by info residing in the public record.
For an even more 'data-intensive' and more academic approach - the filmed public lecture by Mike Ruppert, making the case for conspiracy, using published newspaper reports, is also worth it
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8797525979024486145&q=9/11+ruppert
That's 'Loose Change - Second Edition' - its really worth seeing, because its a fast, short intro to the massive quantities of evidence supporting an alt view of 911 - and each of the facts mentioned in it, is backed up by info residing in the public record.
For an even more 'data-intensive' and more academic approach - the filmed public lecture by Mike Ruppert, making the case for conspiracy, using published newspaper reports, is also worth it
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8797525979024486145&q=9/11+ruppert
Claymore
Executive Member
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Messages
- 8,340
LoneGunman said:
Actually, quite a bit was learnt in 9/11 - nothing on quite that scale has ever happened before.
However, if it had been planned, why was it planned to leave these questions open?
(Incidentally, there are far more qualified people who agree with the official explanation - are they *all* being paid off?)
And what were the next steps? Afghanistan and Iraq? Surely, if this had all been planned, the "fake hijackers" would have been Afghans or Iraqis, not Saudi Arabians? Damn near everyone is dubious of US motives in the Iraq invasion - if it had been planned, would it not have made sense to have the "hijackers" Iraqi, with a clear link to the Iraqi government?
You say that 9/11 was a deliberately planned trigger in order to prime the US into allowing invasion of the Middle East (is that the theory?). Now fill in the gaps - who did what, when, and why.
LoneGunman
Expert Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2003
- Messages
- 4,552
re "Actually, quite a bit was learnt in 9/11 - nothing on quite that scale has ever happened before."
No. You misunderstand. NO building in the history of architecture, or engineering, before - or since - behaved like THREE buildings did, on that day.
Its not 'gee a new dynamic that fits into what we already know' - the behaviour of the buildings were and are completely anomalous to thoroughly known and trusted engineering behaviour.
Buildings have burned for 18 hours longer than WTC, and not displayed the sudden symetrical collapse patterns that THREE buildings displayed on 911.
(And saying 'well a plane hit two of them' - doesnt mean anything - then what made the third building - WTC 7 - which wasn't hit at all - display the exact same physical collapse characteristics? 'sympathy'? )
Buildings don't detonate like dynamite does, in 'sympathetic detonation' - and they don't all collapse into their own exact footprint, falling in a completely symetrical way.
That's too many uses of 'well gosh um there's a first time for everything' for the story to stand up.
Added to this, the deliberate and highly suspicious rapid removal of the steel, seemingly to thwart investigation by concerned experts at the time, worried and disturbed at this impossible building behaviour - adds suspicion to the validity of 'no, we havent examined the physical evidence, to find out what properties the steel itself show occurred, but here's our theory, trust us'. I've posted links to justifiably outraged Engineers - part of the NY fire departments own 'fire engineering' magazine, yelling about this totally unacceptable and unscientific removal of the steel.. So its not crazies who were saying 'something is wrong here' at the time, its learned experts who were saying 'what happened on 911 is impossible - and we have to examine the rubble and steel to find out what really happened'.
See my point?
As for 'And what were the next steps' - watch 'the truth and lies of 911' for detailed verifiable explanation of the neocons plans for 'Eurasia' and their publically released plans and intentions, as detailed I think a way back in this thread, by first Zbigniew Brezinski in his book The Grand Chessboard, and then by the neocon group 'Project for a new american century'..(many of its members are now part of the Bush White House..
Simply put, the US they stated, HAS to move into and control the supply of oil, if the US is to survive. They also stated, a year before 911, that this would be almost impossible to sell to the US public, barring - and I quote more or less 'some catastrophic intervention from outside the US, like a new Pearl Harbour'.
911 gave them their needed 'new Pearl harbour' excuse, to step from one to another country in the oil rich regions, and to begin to secure the oil that the US needs.. and also the equally useful bogeyman of 'Al Qeada' and the response - the 'war on terror'..
Again, watch the 3 part BBC doccie ('power of nightmares') to see the origins of Al Qeada, which was created, trained and financed by the CIA to bog the Soviets down in Afghanistan. And there's a link someplace in thread, pointing to the mysteriously killed Robin Cook's own words in the UK Guardian, mentioning that 'al qeada' (which means 'the database') was the CIA term to describe their own file list of fighters they were using against the Soviets. The doccie also covers the fact that a lot of supposed 'al qeada' activity, is actually just nation states own intelligence services doing deliberate 'own goals' to allow for the wounded/attacked States to react in the way they want to. And that's mixed in with 'real' al qeada activity..
Things don't just 'happen' - much as the official story would like it to seem.
(There was a major Israeli spy ring in the process of being rounded up as 911 happened, (do a search on the DEA report dealing with 'the Israeli Art Students' - and there's some suspicion that the Israeli's themselves were tailing the hijackers and watching the process. As detailed earlier, Mossad warned the US repeatedly, so I'm not suggesting that Israel itself had anything to do with it. However the 5 Israeli's arrested on 911 for suspicious behaviour, has yet to be explained..)
911 itself, just as all the current and future steps that are going to happen, have a solid context from which they emerge - but to the average person, who does not know the background, yeah, its much easier to assume that '911 just happened'.
Earlier in this thread, I detailed the official warnings by many many countries, to the US - yet the US Gov maintains, in popular media anyway, that 'there were no warnings'. This alone should indicate that 911 was at very least 'allowed to happen' and at worst, that the US Gov themselves, helped things along, in order to allow the 'justifiable' move to control the massively oil rich regions of Eurasia, amidst the howls of anguish and horror from their own citizens - to whom 911 'just happened'.
No. You misunderstand. NO building in the history of architecture, or engineering, before - or since - behaved like THREE buildings did, on that day.
Its not 'gee a new dynamic that fits into what we already know' - the behaviour of the buildings were and are completely anomalous to thoroughly known and trusted engineering behaviour.
Buildings have burned for 18 hours longer than WTC, and not displayed the sudden symetrical collapse patterns that THREE buildings displayed on 911.
(And saying 'well a plane hit two of them' - doesnt mean anything - then what made the third building - WTC 7 - which wasn't hit at all - display the exact same physical collapse characteristics? 'sympathy'?
)Buildings don't detonate like dynamite does, in 'sympathetic detonation' - and they don't all collapse into their own exact footprint, falling in a completely symetrical way.
That's too many uses of 'well gosh um there's a first time for everything' for the story to stand up.
Added to this, the deliberate and highly suspicious rapid removal of the steel, seemingly to thwart investigation by concerned experts at the time, worried and disturbed at this impossible building behaviour - adds suspicion to the validity of 'no, we havent examined the physical evidence, to find out what properties the steel itself show occurred, but here's our theory, trust us'. I've posted links to justifiably outraged Engineers - part of the NY fire departments own 'fire engineering' magazine, yelling about this totally unacceptable and unscientific removal of the steel.. So its not crazies who were saying 'something is wrong here' at the time, its learned experts who were saying 'what happened on 911 is impossible - and we have to examine the rubble and steel to find out what really happened'.
See my point?
As for 'And what were the next steps' - watch 'the truth and lies of 911' for detailed verifiable explanation of the neocons plans for 'Eurasia' and their publically released plans and intentions, as detailed I think a way back in this thread, by first Zbigniew Brezinski in his book The Grand Chessboard, and then by the neocon group 'Project for a new american century'..(many of its members are now part of the Bush White House..
Simply put, the US they stated, HAS to move into and control the supply of oil, if the US is to survive. They also stated, a year before 911, that this would be almost impossible to sell to the US public, barring - and I quote more or less 'some catastrophic intervention from outside the US, like a new Pearl Harbour'.
911 gave them their needed 'new Pearl harbour' excuse, to step from one to another country in the oil rich regions, and to begin to secure the oil that the US needs.. and also the equally useful bogeyman of 'Al Qeada' and the response - the 'war on terror'..
Again, watch the 3 part BBC doccie ('power of nightmares') to see the origins of Al Qeada, which was created, trained and financed by the CIA to bog the Soviets down in Afghanistan. And there's a link someplace in thread, pointing to the mysteriously killed Robin Cook's own words in the UK Guardian, mentioning that 'al qeada' (which means 'the database') was the CIA term to describe their own file list of fighters they were using against the Soviets. The doccie also covers the fact that a lot of supposed 'al qeada' activity, is actually just nation states own intelligence services doing deliberate 'own goals' to allow for the wounded/attacked States to react in the way they want to. And that's mixed in with 'real' al qeada activity..
Things don't just 'happen' - much as the official story would like it to seem.
(There was a major Israeli spy ring in the process of being rounded up as 911 happened, (do a search on the DEA report dealing with 'the Israeli Art Students' - and there's some suspicion that the Israeli's themselves were tailing the hijackers and watching the process. As detailed earlier, Mossad warned the US repeatedly, so I'm not suggesting that Israel itself had anything to do with it. However the 5 Israeli's arrested on 911 for suspicious behaviour, has yet to be explained..)
911 itself, just as all the current and future steps that are going to happen, have a solid context from which they emerge - but to the average person, who does not know the background, yeah, its much easier to assume that '911 just happened'.
Earlier in this thread, I detailed the official warnings by many many countries, to the US - yet the US Gov maintains, in popular media anyway, that 'there were no warnings'. This alone should indicate that 911 was at very least 'allowed to happen' and at worst, that the US Gov themselves, helped things along, in order to allow the 'justifiable' move to control the massively oil rich regions of Eurasia, amidst the howls of anguish and horror from their own citizens - to whom 911 'just happened'.
Last edited:
Claymore
Executive Member
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Messages
- 8,340
LoneGunman said:
There's a good reason for that: WTC1 and WTC2 were not built like other skyscrapers. Go check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center - you will see that the buildings were composed of a central core, clad only in partitioning, with a light shell. They were unusually light compared to other buildings, and terribly vulnerable to anything that could damage the hollow core (and the hollow core permitted burning fuel to travel all the way to the bottom). Nice design, that.
You're quoting the whole "New Pearl Harbor" thing - the book written by a *theologian*?
I guess this all explains the much lower oil prices the US is enjoying!
By the way, you keep mentioning this Steven Jones. I note that he is just about alone in all this - none of the various expert groups in the engineering field agree with him, and neither do *any* of his colleagues at Brigham Young. You also forgot to mention that he is not a structural engineer, has no engineering qualifications, and has no structural engineering experience whatsoever. One of his publications is on the topic of Christ visiting America.
I was looking for the original "New Rome" document - know it's out there - read it years ago... and buried on a irretrievable disc here somewhere... anyway - happened to come across this and couldn't resist posting it... and really the best source for 'legitimate, original documents" is cryptome.org - this doc found using the search "new america" - came from here: http://cryptome.org/mil-911-study.htm
->
Polygraph Exam Results
PPS PACIFIC POLYGRAPH SERVICES LTD.
John Weller, President
302 1290 HORNBY STREET
VANCOUVER B.C.
V6Z 2G4, CANADA
TELEPHONE: (604) 669 5945
FACSCIMILE: (604) 682 6738
27 June 2002
PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
Mr. Timothy S. McNiven,
114 Grand Avenue, No. 202,
BELLINGHAM, WA
98225 1465
Dear Sir:
You attended my office on 27 June 02 and were identified as Timothy Stuart McNiven, Date of Birth 1 Nov 53, Social Security Number 537-56-87[41]. The purpose of the visit was for you to take a polygraph examination in order to support the fact that you were a member of a group assembled as part of the C Battery, 2/81st Field Artillery US Army stationed on Strassburg Kaserine, Idar Oberstein, West Germany for the purpose of developing defensive strategies against attacks by hijacked aircraft. The discussions covered the possibility of aircraft being taken over by dissidents and used to attack important buildings in the United States of America.
You signed an agreement to undergo the polygraph examination. A copy of the agreement is attached.
After discussion it was agreed that the following were to be relevant questions.
1. Regarding the study that took place when you were a member of C Battery 2/81st FA in Idar Oberstein, West Germany in the 1970's. Do you intend to answer truthfully each question?
A. Yes
2. Did that study take place?
A. Yes.
3. Did you discuss aircraft hijacking?
A. Yes.
4. Did you discuss the possibility of hijacked aircraft destroying buildings?
A. Yes.
T.S. McNiven. 27 Jun 02 Page. 2.
Three charts were produced in respect to the above questions and other questions relevant to the technique. Your physiological responses recorded on the charts to Questions 1, 2, 3 and 4 were those expected from someone who was not attempting to deceive the examiner. I believe you were being truthful when you answered the questions as shown.
The polygraph charts are on file at my office and available for review by any competent authority.
_____
Information Poygraph Exam Based On
Briefly 25 years ago I was stationed on Strassberg Keserne in Idar Oberstein, Rhienland Pfatz, W. Germany assigned to C Battery, 2/81st FA, US Army. Here I took part in a Military Group for the purpose of "defending against" a developed attack scenario of hijacking airliners and crashing them into buildings to get around our air defence system.
For this letter I have selected facts from the records for the purpose of confirming that the records exist, they are in no sequence or order but they will suffice for the purpose of identifing the existence of these 25 year old records. These facts are from group conversations following the creation of the concept of hijacking airliners.
When asked the question, what kind of plane would be best to hijack? My choice was Boeing because it had the one lock/one key fleet; information I acquired from living in Everett, WA and having brothers who worked there. Lt. Teague on another day asked what could be done about it (?) I suggested asking Boeing to change their lock system.
When asked what kind of weapons could be used (?) I said a plastic handled box knife to get it through a metal detector; then Sgt Middleton said that you could get weapons on a plane through the luggage area (he knew someone who worked on a ground crew at an airport) he was then questioned separate like others whose ideas the groups leaders wanted more information on.
When asked what type of political climate the country would be in when the attack happens(?) we came up with hamstringing ; that is when one political party sets up the incoming administration with a disaster to happen.
When asked who might do this (?) another member said a name which I made an agreement to allow him to say in public first; but I can say that it was not George Bush neither President Bush who was President on Nov. 9, 1989 or George Bush who is President now.
4. One of the people from the group had done calculations and had came up with a time frame for a 100 story building to collapse after being hit by an airliner, it was between 1 and 2 hours the exact minutes I can't remember. Later when he was questioned by Military higher ups about a building's engineers disputing his calculations; he said, that unlike him they had to say that to keep their job.
5. The Military's calculations were what the warnings to NYC were based on.
One person from the group said that the US Government should contact NYC and have it tell the firefighters and police officers to not try and go up 80 floors in a building to try and put out the fire because the building would collapse before they could get there.
The records also include a person from the group who considered himself a religious person being a Priest in his Religion; made an International plea begging the US Government to tell New York City to not send those people to their unnecessary death.
When asked what an International plea of begging was (?) he explained that religious people can not twist anyone's arm to do anything, all they can do is beg a government to intercede and prevent a calamity.
_____
Personal Account and Invitation
Since September 2001 I have been trying to get the information on this 25+ year old US Military Study Group into the public's knowledge but have only met with censorship from the US media.
The security lapses that were used on 9/11 reads like a checklist from this Military Study: the Democratic and Republican Political Parties could have began implementing the security upgrades that were recogmended by their own Congressional Commissioned Study in response to the hijacking and bombings following the 1974 [1973] Eygptian Israeli War, 25 [nearly 30] years ago.
Mr. Weller is a US Army-trained and -certified Military Polygraph Examiner and the exam I was given is the same one used by the US Government.
And the one American who has the backbone to accept my 1 year challenge to set up a polygraph with the examiner of their choice is Mr. Ted Nugent. I am going to his Tacoma,WA concert Aug. 29th and confront him with this information and the challenge to set up for me to take in New York City another polygraph exam with representatives of the NYC Fire Department, Police Department and surviving family members of those who died on 9/11 so that they will know beyond a shadow of a doubt that this US Congressional Commissioned Military Study Group took place and that the security upgrades that the Democratic and Republican Political Parties say they developed after 9/11 were actually developed 25 years ago.
--
->
Polygraph Exam Results
PPS PACIFIC POLYGRAPH SERVICES LTD.
John Weller, President
302 1290 HORNBY STREET
VANCOUVER B.C.
V6Z 2G4, CANADA
TELEPHONE: (604) 669 5945
FACSCIMILE: (604) 682 6738
27 June 2002
PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
Mr. Timothy S. McNiven,
114 Grand Avenue, No. 202,
BELLINGHAM, WA
98225 1465
Dear Sir:
You attended my office on 27 June 02 and were identified as Timothy Stuart McNiven, Date of Birth 1 Nov 53, Social Security Number 537-56-87[41]. The purpose of the visit was for you to take a polygraph examination in order to support the fact that you were a member of a group assembled as part of the C Battery, 2/81st Field Artillery US Army stationed on Strassburg Kaserine, Idar Oberstein, West Germany for the purpose of developing defensive strategies against attacks by hijacked aircraft. The discussions covered the possibility of aircraft being taken over by dissidents and used to attack important buildings in the United States of America.
You signed an agreement to undergo the polygraph examination. A copy of the agreement is attached.
After discussion it was agreed that the following were to be relevant questions.
1. Regarding the study that took place when you were a member of C Battery 2/81st FA in Idar Oberstein, West Germany in the 1970's. Do you intend to answer truthfully each question?
A. Yes
2. Did that study take place?
A. Yes.
3. Did you discuss aircraft hijacking?
A. Yes.
4. Did you discuss the possibility of hijacked aircraft destroying buildings?
A. Yes.
T.S. McNiven. 27 Jun 02 Page. 2.
Three charts were produced in respect to the above questions and other questions relevant to the technique. Your physiological responses recorded on the charts to Questions 1, 2, 3 and 4 were those expected from someone who was not attempting to deceive the examiner. I believe you were being truthful when you answered the questions as shown.
The polygraph charts are on file at my office and available for review by any competent authority.
_____
Information Poygraph Exam Based On
Briefly 25 years ago I was stationed on Strassberg Keserne in Idar Oberstein, Rhienland Pfatz, W. Germany assigned to C Battery, 2/81st FA, US Army. Here I took part in a Military Group for the purpose of "defending against" a developed attack scenario of hijacking airliners and crashing them into buildings to get around our air defence system.
For this letter I have selected facts from the records for the purpose of confirming that the records exist, they are in no sequence or order but they will suffice for the purpose of identifing the existence of these 25 year old records. These facts are from group conversations following the creation of the concept of hijacking airliners.
When asked the question, what kind of plane would be best to hijack? My choice was Boeing because it had the one lock/one key fleet; information I acquired from living in Everett, WA and having brothers who worked there. Lt. Teague on another day asked what could be done about it (?) I suggested asking Boeing to change their lock system.
When asked what kind of weapons could be used (?) I said a plastic handled box knife to get it through a metal detector; then Sgt Middleton said that you could get weapons on a plane through the luggage area (he knew someone who worked on a ground crew at an airport) he was then questioned separate like others whose ideas the groups leaders wanted more information on.
When asked what type of political climate the country would be in when the attack happens(?) we came up with hamstringing ; that is when one political party sets up the incoming administration with a disaster to happen.
When asked who might do this (?) another member said a name which I made an agreement to allow him to say in public first; but I can say that it was not George Bush neither President Bush who was President on Nov. 9, 1989 or George Bush who is President now.
4. One of the people from the group had done calculations and had came up with a time frame for a 100 story building to collapse after being hit by an airliner, it was between 1 and 2 hours the exact minutes I can't remember. Later when he was questioned by Military higher ups about a building's engineers disputing his calculations; he said, that unlike him they had to say that to keep their job.
5. The Military's calculations were what the warnings to NYC were based on.
One person from the group said that the US Government should contact NYC and have it tell the firefighters and police officers to not try and go up 80 floors in a building to try and put out the fire because the building would collapse before they could get there.
The records also include a person from the group who considered himself a religious person being a Priest in his Religion; made an International plea begging the US Government to tell New York City to not send those people to their unnecessary death.
When asked what an International plea of begging was (?) he explained that religious people can not twist anyone's arm to do anything, all they can do is beg a government to intercede and prevent a calamity.
_____
Personal Account and Invitation
Since September 2001 I have been trying to get the information on this 25+ year old US Military Study Group into the public's knowledge but have only met with censorship from the US media.
The security lapses that were used on 9/11 reads like a checklist from this Military Study: the Democratic and Republican Political Parties could have began implementing the security upgrades that were recogmended by their own Congressional Commissioned Study in response to the hijacking and bombings following the 1974 [1973] Eygptian Israeli War, 25 [nearly 30] years ago.
Mr. Weller is a US Army-trained and -certified Military Polygraph Examiner and the exam I was given is the same one used by the US Government.
And the one American who has the backbone to accept my 1 year challenge to set up a polygraph with the examiner of their choice is Mr. Ted Nugent. I am going to his Tacoma,WA concert Aug. 29th and confront him with this information and the challenge to set up for me to take in New York City another polygraph exam with representatives of the NYC Fire Department, Police Department and surviving family members of those who died on 9/11 so that they will know beyond a shadow of a doubt that this US Congressional Commissioned Military Study Group took place and that the security upgrades that the Democratic and Republican Political Parties say they developed after 9/11 were actually developed 25 years ago.
--
LoneGunman
Expert Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2003
- Messages
- 4,552
Claymore, it doesnt really MATTER if the WTC buildings 'were built differently.' Their behaviour was EXACTLY the same. All the more evidence to demonstrate that something is not right with the official story.
THREE buildings collapsed symetrically, into their own footprints. THREE steel structured buildings. Two supposedly 'weakened' by fuel that WASNT THERE or available to burn at a high enough temperature. Never happened before, and never happened since.
As for them being 'lighter than other buildings' - they were designed to withstand the impact of a 100 ton airplane, the architect himself saying that the design was like a mosquito netting, any damage would be localised.
As for the central core, look at the actual plans as shown in that physics professors deconstruction - you'll notice, surprise surprise, that the official commission carefully left off some integral parts of the WTC design structure.
And again, THREE buildings collapsed. At freefall speeds. Supposedly 'naturally' .That is impossible. (read back in this thread for exact reasons)
If you wont take the careful and scientific analysis of a physics professor using very serious methadology and soon to be peer reviewed deconstruction of 'why the WTC could not have fallen in the manner the official story says' - then its obvious that your politics is standing in the way of your intellectual ability to alter your viewpoint, when confronted with sufficient evidence about a subject that clearly demonstrates your viewpoint is incorrect.
re 'You're quoting the whole "New Pearl Harbor" thing - the book written by a *theologian*'
No - I assume you're just pretending to be utterly and incredibly thick. Where do you think the theologian GOT that phrase?
Same place as me - and I'm quoting EXACTLY from the document created by the neocons themselves, in around 1997 - at the rightwing thinktank known as the 'Project for the New American Century'.. among whom were cheney, rumsfeld and paul wolfowitz.
lets spoonfeed you, as you seem to need it. www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
that's the document, go look for the phrase 'a new pearl harbour' - seeing as you couldnt be bothered to read this info that was pasted in this thread a page or two back, detailing exactly this. "What was needed for America to dominate much of humanity and the world's resources, it said, was "some catastrophic and catalysing event - like a new Pearl Harbor"."
"Two years ago a project set up by the men who now surround George W Bush said what America needed was "a new Pearl Harbor". Its published aims have, alarmingly, come true."
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/WarOnTerror/NewPearlHarbor.asp
And seeing as 'science' and 'engineering history' and the simple facts of known burning temperatures of both fuel, and the weakening points of steel don't seem to work - try these simple NON SCIENCE approaches:
Govt people like Mayor Willie Brown were warned not to fly to New York on 9/11. WHY?
The Joint Chiefs of Staff cancelled a meeting scheduled for 9/11 on 9/10.WHY?
Members of the Bin Laden family were flown out of the country that day when no one else was able to fly. WHY?
War games mirroring the attacks took place before and during 9/11. WHY?
NORAD stood down and did not pursue the planes. WHY?
The identities of all the hijackers were easily produced the next day, yet these guys could not be IDed, found, and stopped before 9/11. WHY?
'coincidence'?
Osama Bin Laden is a known CIA asset. FACT.
The PNAC documents authored by people such as **** Cheney outlined a list of countries to be invaded after a helpful Pearl Harbor type event occurred. Magically, the first 2 countries on this list have been invaded after 9/11. Iran, 3rd on the list, appears to be next. FACT.
Operation Northwoods shows that criminal elements in the govt have planned to carry out terror attacks to get the public behind war. FACT.
Someone placed stock puts on AA & UA a few days before 911 that were 1200% higher than normal and the SEC was investigating after 911. Nothing was ever heard about this. WHY?
Excuse my open mouthed astonishment, but how many layers of genuine fact, as well as applied science, do you need before you do the intellectual equivalent of getting your gluteus maximus up off the couch from in front of the TV while watch nascar and eating nachos?
THREE buildings collapsed symetrically, into their own footprints. THREE steel structured buildings. Two supposedly 'weakened' by fuel that WASNT THERE or available to burn at a high enough temperature. Never happened before, and never happened since.
As for them being 'lighter than other buildings' - they were designed to withstand the impact of a 100 ton airplane, the architect himself saying that the design was like a mosquito netting, any damage would be localised.
As for the central core, look at the actual plans as shown in that physics professors deconstruction - you'll notice, surprise surprise, that the official commission carefully left off some integral parts of the WTC design structure.
And again, THREE buildings collapsed. At freefall speeds. Supposedly 'naturally' .That is impossible. (read back in this thread for exact reasons)
If you wont take the careful and scientific analysis of a physics professor using very serious methadology and soon to be peer reviewed deconstruction of 'why the WTC could not have fallen in the manner the official story says' - then its obvious that your politics is standing in the way of your intellectual ability to alter your viewpoint, when confronted with sufficient evidence about a subject that clearly demonstrates your viewpoint is incorrect.
re 'You're quoting the whole "New Pearl Harbor" thing - the book written by a *theologian*'
No - I assume you're just pretending to be utterly and incredibly thick. Where do you think the theologian GOT that phrase?
Same place as me - and I'm quoting EXACTLY from the document created by the neocons themselves, in around 1997 - at the rightwing thinktank known as the 'Project for the New American Century'.. among whom were cheney, rumsfeld and paul wolfowitz.
lets spoonfeed you, as you seem to need it. www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
that's the document, go look for the phrase 'a new pearl harbour' - seeing as you couldnt be bothered to read this info that was pasted in this thread a page or two back, detailing exactly this. "What was needed for America to dominate much of humanity and the world's resources, it said, was "some catastrophic and catalysing event - like a new Pearl Harbor"."
"Two years ago a project set up by the men who now surround George W Bush said what America needed was "a new Pearl Harbor". Its published aims have, alarmingly, come true."
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/WarOnTerror/NewPearlHarbor.asp
And seeing as 'science' and 'engineering history' and the simple facts of known burning temperatures of both fuel, and the weakening points of steel don't seem to work - try these simple NON SCIENCE approaches:
Govt people like Mayor Willie Brown were warned not to fly to New York on 9/11. WHY?
The Joint Chiefs of Staff cancelled a meeting scheduled for 9/11 on 9/10.WHY?
Members of the Bin Laden family were flown out of the country that day when no one else was able to fly. WHY?
War games mirroring the attacks took place before and during 9/11. WHY?
NORAD stood down and did not pursue the planes. WHY?
The identities of all the hijackers were easily produced the next day, yet these guys could not be IDed, found, and stopped before 9/11. WHY?
'coincidence'?
Osama Bin Laden is a known CIA asset. FACT.
The PNAC documents authored by people such as **** Cheney outlined a list of countries to be invaded after a helpful Pearl Harbor type event occurred. Magically, the first 2 countries on this list have been invaded after 9/11. Iran, 3rd on the list, appears to be next. FACT.
Operation Northwoods shows that criminal elements in the govt have planned to carry out terror attacks to get the public behind war. FACT.
Someone placed stock puts on AA & UA a few days before 911 that were 1200% higher than normal and the SEC was investigating after 911. Nothing was ever heard about this. WHY?
Excuse my open mouthed astonishment, but how many layers of genuine fact, as well as applied science, do you need before you do the intellectual equivalent of getting your gluteus maximus up off the couch from in front of the TV while watch nascar and eating nachos?
Last edited:
Similarly, one would have to ask the conspiracy theorists on this forum to also not automatically believe as gospel every claim from conspiracy circles without further investigation. Let’s take the report about the collapse of the WTC towers from Prof Jones that has been mentioned in this thread. I want to point out that he doesn’t actually prove anything in his report and he readily admits that. He’s only proposing an alternative hypothesis to the official position. Note that the report is liberally sprinkled with statements like: “However, further analysis of this and additional photographs from the series is necessary before any firm conclusions can be drawn about this line of evidence”. So, to use this report as conclusive proof is, in my opinion, jumping the gun a bit.bb_matt said:
Reports by structural engineers that I’ve seen about this event, seem to indicate that it’s quite plausible that the collapse occurred as a result of the impact of the planes and the subsequent fires. For examples see: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html and http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/aibs_2002_wtc.pdf
A response to some of the claims made by conspiracy theorists about the collapse of the WTC towers can be found here: http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc__demolition_.html The main site contains other interesting bits of information about the 911 event itself.
It is clear from the examples shown that the progressive collapse of buildings has happened elsewhere, and as an aside, I find it hard to understand why Prof Jones would omit this very important fact from his report.
In particular, have a look at what Dr Asif Usmani, a structural engineer at the University of Edinburgh's School of Engineering and Electronics (last link above) has to say about the collapse of the WTC towers. His conclusion is as follows:
“The results of the analyses and the fact that the structure had sustained significant damage lead to a very strong case that the impact damage coupled with the subsequent fires were the only causes of collapse that rational minded people should need consider. The vertically downward collapse (which looks like a controlled demolition) is simply because once a large enough mass starts moving (accelerating because of gravity), it does not change direction unless met by a very large resisting force. The forces generated by a large moving mass are orders of magnitude larger than its weight (called dynamic amplification in engineering). Professor Bazant of Northwestern University (Illionois) explained this well in his paper soon after 9/11”.
The jury may still be out on what exactly caused the collapse of the WTC towers. As can be expected with an event of this nature, the experts have contradictory opinions. But, from what I can see, there seems to be relative consensus in the engineering fraternity that the collapse can be explained in scientific terms without having to introduce external factors (i.e. explosives).
So, until Prof Jones lines up a few structural engineers to support his theory, I will tend to disregard it.
LoneGunman
Expert Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2003
- Messages
- 4,552
quoting data from a site called '911 myths' clearly shows a desperation to grab at whatever appears to support the remaining shreds of a belief in the official story
as far as "once a large enough mass starts moving (accelerating because of gravity), it does not change direction unless met by a very large resisting force."
(photographic evidence shows that this DIDN'T happen on 911. A top section of one of the towers was clearly heading for outside of its footprint, and changed direction and mysteriously disintegrated in mid air to dust. This is on film and visible.
And trying to say that 'any building when collapsing, will fall naturally into its own footprint' - is utter nonsense. And to further suggest that THREE buildings 'happened' to do this, on one day, for reasons not fitting in with any known engineering explanation for this type of steel structure, is absurd, and pushing coincidence theory into the realms of intellectual masturbation.
A large top section of the building, heading towards falling beyond the footprint of the tower, mysteriously disintegrated into dust, in mid air, rather than following the above statement, and falling outside of the footprint in a solid - or even fragmented block.
-Prof Jones' clear scientific deconstruct showing that it was impossible, based on known temperatures of REMAINING burning jet fuel and known temperatures needed for steel-weakening, demonstrate quite precisely, that 'fire' could not and did cause the towers to collapse. And 'fire' - or 'fire weakened' steel, could not cause the perfectly symetrical collapse of THREE buildings, two of which were comprised of three separate segments.
Again, the 'fire-softened-steel' reason for catastrophic collapse of a steel structured building has NEVER happened before, or since - in the history of steel strcuture buildings. Any supposed quote suggesting it HAS, is simply a lie.
Prove me wrong. Show me evidence of a steel structure building that has
a) collapsed due to fire, AND also
b) collapsed into its own footprint.
without demolitions being involved.
And using logic - anyone saying 'well they werent hit by planes were they?' - I just point to building WTC 7, which collapsed the SAME WAY, which wasnt hit by any plane, and repeat - 'no steel building in the history of architecture, before or since 911 - has collapsed due to fire. This includes buildings that burned for 18 hours or more. You cant have your argument both ways. Fire didnt cause it, and if plane impact DID cause it - then explain WTC 7, which had no plane hit, but exhibited the same symetrical collapse. Case proven for serious anomaly.
For those of you not following the science mentioned above - ("once a large enough mass starts moving, it does not change direction unless met by a very large resisting force.") - both main WTC towers were comprised of three sections, each thoroughly reinforced. Once the collapse began from above, the upper section would indeed meet the 'resisting force' of the section, and spill sideways into the street. Something that was seen to begin occurring, before the top section, despite falling outside of the footprint, begin to oddly disintegrate in mid air. This can be seen on footage of the collapse.
If I had to choose between a physics professors quite mathematically precise, and thoroughly provable and persuasive deconstruction of the impossibility of the official story, using utterly known and precise scientific criteria:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
or assorted gathered non scientific 'quotes' from various experts, with no precise formulae showing their calculations to support their assumptions - then Professor Jones, from Brigham Young University wins, hands down.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
If you can't follow the science of his paper, then that's YOUR problem. He quite clearly proves at least - that the official story, is not possible, using checkable and verifiable formula and principles. If you dont want to argue on the science, then see above for the mentioned 'non science' facts, and explain those away
('Structural engineers' are not needed, when burning jet fuel itself can't reach the temperatures needed, to weaken or melt the steel involved. Duh
And to suggest it did - again, go back a few posts to the link to the firemans audio recordings, showing they
reached the 78th floor, and needed only two engines worth of hoses, and reported a lot of civilian casualties.
Therefore - the fire WASN'T the inferno that the official story suggests. Therefore - this can't explain or justify the steel 'softening' in heat. (What heat? Where? Firemen were right there. No excessive heat in the area.
Three neat collapses of buildings, perfectly into their own footprint.
as far as "once a large enough mass starts moving (accelerating because of gravity), it does not change direction unless met by a very large resisting force."
(photographic evidence shows that this DIDN'T happen on 911. A top section of one of the towers was clearly heading for outside of its footprint, and changed direction and mysteriously disintegrated in mid air to dust. This is on film and visible.
And trying to say that 'any building when collapsing, will fall naturally into its own footprint' - is utter nonsense. And to further suggest that THREE buildings 'happened' to do this, on one day, for reasons not fitting in with any known engineering explanation for this type of steel structure, is absurd, and pushing coincidence theory into the realms of intellectual masturbation.
A large top section of the building, heading towards falling beyond the footprint of the tower, mysteriously disintegrated into dust, in mid air, rather than following the above statement, and falling outside of the footprint in a solid - or even fragmented block.
-Prof Jones' clear scientific deconstruct showing that it was impossible, based on known temperatures of REMAINING burning jet fuel and known temperatures needed for steel-weakening, demonstrate quite precisely, that 'fire' could not and did cause the towers to collapse. And 'fire' - or 'fire weakened' steel, could not cause the perfectly symetrical collapse of THREE buildings, two of which were comprised of three separate segments.
Again, the 'fire-softened-steel' reason for catastrophic collapse of a steel structured building has NEVER happened before, or since - in the history of steel strcuture buildings. Any supposed quote suggesting it HAS, is simply a lie.
Prove me wrong. Show me evidence of a steel structure building that has
a) collapsed due to fire, AND also
b) collapsed into its own footprint.
without demolitions being involved.
And using logic - anyone saying 'well they werent hit by planes were they?' - I just point to building WTC 7, which collapsed the SAME WAY, which wasnt hit by any plane, and repeat - 'no steel building in the history of architecture, before or since 911 - has collapsed due to fire. This includes buildings that burned for 18 hours or more. You cant have your argument both ways. Fire didnt cause it, and if plane impact DID cause it - then explain WTC 7, which had no plane hit, but exhibited the same symetrical collapse. Case proven for serious anomaly.
For those of you not following the science mentioned above - ("once a large enough mass starts moving, it does not change direction unless met by a very large resisting force.") - both main WTC towers were comprised of three sections, each thoroughly reinforced. Once the collapse began from above, the upper section would indeed meet the 'resisting force' of the section, and spill sideways into the street. Something that was seen to begin occurring, before the top section, despite falling outside of the footprint, begin to oddly disintegrate in mid air. This can be seen on footage of the collapse.
If I had to choose between a physics professors quite mathematically precise, and thoroughly provable and persuasive deconstruction of the impossibility of the official story, using utterly known and precise scientific criteria:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
or assorted gathered non scientific 'quotes' from various experts, with no precise formulae showing their calculations to support their assumptions - then Professor Jones, from Brigham Young University wins, hands down.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
If you can't follow the science of his paper, then that's YOUR problem. He quite clearly proves at least - that the official story, is not possible, using checkable and verifiable formula and principles. If you dont want to argue on the science, then see above for the mentioned 'non science' facts, and explain those away
('Structural engineers' are not needed, when burning jet fuel itself can't reach the temperatures needed, to weaken or melt the steel involved. Duh
And to suggest it did - again, go back a few posts to the link to the firemans audio recordings, showing they
reached the 78th floor, and needed only two engines worth of hoses, and reported a lot of civilian casualties.
Therefore - the fire WASN'T the inferno that the official story suggests. Therefore - this can't explain or justify the steel 'softening' in heat. (What heat? Where? Firemen were right there. No excessive heat in the area.
Three neat collapses of buildings, perfectly into their own footprint.
Last edited:
LG are you a structural engineer?
Because if you're not then your throwing out of the arguments made by structural engineers shows your true purpose behind all that you've said on this topic. And that is not debate or reasoned discussion but "I'm right and anyone who doesn't agree with me is a idiotic crowd-following sheep."
So, are you a structural engineer? Or any kind of engineer?
Because if you're not then your throwing out of the arguments made by structural engineers shows your true purpose behind all that you've said on this topic. And that is not debate or reasoned discussion but "I'm right and anyone who doesn't agree with me is a idiotic crowd-following sheep."
So, are you a structural engineer? Or any kind of engineer?
LoneGunman
Expert Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2003
- Messages
- 4,552
icyrus - my point is 'it doesnt matter or need 'structural engineers' - IF you're talking about liquids (fuel) that can only reach X temperature, and steel that can only be affected at Y temperature.
If these criteria cant be reached in order to justify a collapse - it really doesnt matter if five million structural engineers and fifty dancing elephants and Albert Einstein come to the party - you know?
So I'm definitely not dismissing structural engineers - however - first step is to determine if the fuel can even REACH the ACTUAL temperatures that COULD be reached in the circumstances of 911..(to then 'explain' the collapsing)
It CAN'T.
And next, for the umpteenth time, refer back in this thread, to ENGINEERS themselves, specifically the ones running the NY fire departments own 'Fire Engineering News' - who pointed out that the official story WAS NOT POSSIBLE, given the above detail as I've described, and as Prof Jones has perfectly demonstrated.
The official story is like saying 'My petrol tank exploded because the sun got especially hot that day where I was parked, oh and two other cars also exploded, because the sun got really hot. Gosh, what an amazing coincidence. And anyone who suggests there was a kid with matches, well - they must be dreaming."
If these criteria cant be reached in order to justify a collapse - it really doesnt matter if five million structural engineers and fifty dancing elephants and Albert Einstein come to the party - you know?
So I'm definitely not dismissing structural engineers - however - first step is to determine if the fuel can even REACH the ACTUAL temperatures that COULD be reached in the circumstances of 911..(to then 'explain' the collapsing)
It CAN'T.
And next, for the umpteenth time, refer back in this thread, to ENGINEERS themselves, specifically the ones running the NY fire departments own 'Fire Engineering News' - who pointed out that the official story WAS NOT POSSIBLE, given the above detail as I've described, and as Prof Jones has perfectly demonstrated.
The official story is like saying 'My petrol tank exploded because the sun got especially hot that day where I was parked, oh and two other cars also exploded, because the sun got really hot. Gosh, what an amazing coincidence. And anyone who suggests there was a kid with matches, well - they must be dreaming."
Last edited:
Claymore
Executive Member
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Messages
- 8,340
icyrus said:
Exactly.
When it comes to Steven Jones, who does one believe? A single physics professor working completely theoretically, and without the support of any of his colleagues, or hundreds of experts in the field, like structural engineers, many working with the actual remains of the building, who are all in agreement and have compiled a massive set of documentation that satisfies virtually everyone in the field?
I know who I'd go with.
Repeating the same stuff over and over again at great length does not make it correct, LG.