Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Nation barraged

The Nation's letters section published a strong rebuttal to Christopher Hayes' article by Scholars for 9/11 Truth. The other letters also were effective answers to those who pooh-pooh the probability of an "inside job."

It should immediately be noted that 9/11 critics do not agree on every point, and in fact I have some concerns about a few of the statements given in the Scholars' rebuttal. However, that does not diminish the fact that there are far too many outstanding anomalies for the official accounts to be credible.

Nation editors, who were barraged with mail concerning the Hayes article, acknowledged that nearly everyone agreed that much information is still lacking concerning the events of 9/11.

It's also significant that the Nation did not feel it was in a position to continue the 9/11 denial policy coming from suspicious elements of the left.

When Blogspot burps
BTW, I forgot to mention that a week or so ago, Blogspot went down while I was working on my blog and all the links were erased from this blog and the associated blogs. Some of these links were very likely disliked by the control freaks. I haven't revived them all yet.

Imagine that the control freaks want to get rid of a large number of web pages. Arrange a system burp, wiping out links everywhere. Restoring links takes work. Hence, entropy will reduce the restoration of many of these links. Also, many people will not have the original URL and will use Google or some search engine to find it -- BUT, it won't be there. Presto! Damning web page removed from easy access.

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

The Nation carries a 9/11 rebuttal

The Jan. 17 issue of the progressive magazine The Nation carried a substantial rebuttal of Christopher Hayes' attack on the 9/11 truth movement, I am told.
I plan to check it out soon.

Downing St 'comments' restored

I suppose it was another case of Yuletide follies, but the Jan. 11 post below is no longer operative. That is, the prime minister's website is relinked to TheyWorkforYou and the public comment option has been restored.

Hence, I have posted a comment on the transcript of the Jan. 17 question time concerning 9/11, including a link to kryptograff.blogspot.com on "9/11 collapse issues."

I don't really think that scads of people will be swayed by my comments or my "scientific reasoning." The hope is that enough people with expertise will get wind of the collapse issues and discomfit the high and the mighty.

Monday, January 22, 2007

Mondale redacted?

I happened to be checking the Washington Post for recent stories concerning 9/11 and came upon an Associated Press report of Jan. 19 about Jimmy Carter's veep, Walter Mondale, slamming Dick Cheney. Mondale specifically mentioned the alleged "Iraq connection to 9/11."

Yet, the story never showed up in my news alerts from Yahoo and Google.

I've often suspected that those alerts are being politically filtered.

Oh yeah, I also get blog-post alerts on 9/11. A lot of Screwloosechange alerts come through, but I've never seen this blog's 9/11 posts make it on the alert circuit.
Yeah, I know. Google has secret and ever-changing parameters. That may explain why Znewz1 is blanked out but how do they explain Mondale's speech getting lost. Nuther computer glitch, I guess.

I wonder if it had anything to do with the fact that Mondale was speaking at a meeting where Carter was the focus. Carter made a lot of people mad at him about his comments on the Israeli lobby's ability to censor the U.S. media.

Why are Dems happy with incomplete 9/11 report?

Congressional Democrats, such as Patrick Leahy, say they're satisfied with the Kean commission's 9/11 report. That's why, says Leahy, he has no intention of urging further investigation into 9/11 [see post below].

Now this is remarkable, considering that that report is incomplete.

The 2004 report never mentions the collapse of World Trade Center 7 hours after the collapses of the twin towers. Why? Well, as several top federal investigators have said, no credible explanation has been found for the collapse. The NIST is still working on it but, says the NIST's lead investiagtor, Shyam Sunder, the NIST just doesn't have a good handle on how it could have happened.

But, apparently the Kean panel knew what the outcome of any WTC7 probe would be, so the commissioners didn't feel it necessary to get into that matter.

Or maybe Leahy and other key lawmakers, along with 9/11 panelists, have agreed to a national security blackout on WTC7's collapse. It did house the CIA's New York station. And we know that a public TV web site deleted footage of trade center owner Larry Silverstein's remark that officials had decided to "pull" the building.

But even supposing Leahy is party to a national security blackout on that aspect of the events of 9/11, the Kean panel was also neglectful in the matter of collapse times.

The Kean panel report gives a collapse time of 10 seconds for WTC2. If you dropped a stone from the top of WTC2, it would take 9.2 seconds to reach the ground -- in a vacuum. That is, a collapse time of 10 seconds implies almost no structural resistance, which is consistent with the use of explosives.

So it seems that the Kean panel's science advice was rather poor, whether it came from FEMA, NIST or the FBI. Later, we are told (but I can't find the citation), the NIST lengthened the time to 12 seconds. As I show at kryptograff.blogspot.com, even 12 seconds is good cause for profound suspicion.

But anyway, how is it that leading lawmakers are happy with a seriously deficient report?

One more thing: Much of the commission's narrative is based on the "testimony" of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who was grilled by CIA interrogators at a secret jail overseas. The commission was given redacted copies of statements and summaries but was not permitted to interview him nor pose specific questions to be asked by the CIA.

So this evidence is largely untestable and we cannot be sure of what Khalid really said, or meant, or in what context. Some of the statements attributed to him are quite suspect.

This is what some top Democrats are satisfied with?

Aren't they the same Democrats who decry the use of extra-judicial means against CIA captives? Who object that the Bush tribunals are intended to block an effective defense against secret evidence?

Sunday, January 21, 2007

Leahy lets a big sleeping dog lie

Sen. Patrick Leahy, a liberal Democrat, told a Vermont newspaper that he has no intention of urging a re-opening of the 9/11 investigation. Ditto, say Vermont's other federal lawmakers. Hooray! says Norman Chomsky. At least Leahy won't be draining enormous energy away from the liberal-left agenda!

The Burlington Free Press question came as it became apparent that Burlington voters will be asked whether they think their federal lawmakers should demand a new probe.

Leahy said that, though it's understandable that some would come up with their own theories of the events of 9/11, he's satisfied with the Kean commission investigation.

Leahy and politicos like him won't budge because they think that, in the main, the news media are under control on this matter. These politicians won't defy the Powers That Be. Nor do they respect the one-third or more of their constituents who believe -- based on some pretty good, old-fashioned American investigative reporting -- that the 9/11 report whitewashed a story of treason most foul.

However, 9/11 is one sleeping dog that won't be allowed to keep lying. We will keep pushing.

Sure it may be that Rep. Ron Paul's presidential bid is quixotic, but at least that Texas politician speaks candidly about a continuing 9/11 cover-up. These days, the people who deserve the most respect are the ones most likely to be cast out.

Another exception is British MP Michael Meacher, who raised a hue and cry for daring to say that Blair's war on Iraq was a consequence of a U.S. covert op to make 9/11 happen. He's now getting "the treatment" for defying the Big Lie.

BTW, I have come up with what I think are some pretty reliable numbers for the World Trade Center fall times and -- guess what? -- the government's story is found deficient.

See 9/11 collapse issues

Thursday, January 11, 2007

Muzzled by Downing Street?

In the past, Downing Street maintained an image of courteous liberalism by permitting the public to post comments about Tony Blair's statements.
However, the prime minister's web site has seemingly dropped its arrangement with TheyWorkforYou, which transcribes the statements of public servants and parliamentarians and which offers a public comment option, much like the comment option on this blog.
Oh well, it seems there'll be no more use of the PM's Question Time to contradict those who work for the public concerning serious problems with official 9/11 scenarios.
Something like this happened over the Christmas holiday season of a year ago, but the Downing Street site restored the public comment option and sent out an email saying there'd been some trouble with links.
This time, TheyWorkforYou pages show up on Downing Street links of a few months ago but not on January's or December's pages.
That's a bit odd. Because though when I went directly to the Downing Street site in December (on Christmas Day, as it happens), I couldn't find the public comment version of the PM's question time, when I operated via an official Downing Street email newsletter sent to me, the link took me to TheyWorkforYou and I promptly posted a comment. Curiously, the newsletter-linked web site was in appearance identical to the Downing Street site reached via Google.
I would like to have posted something to the effect that:

Scientists clash over 9/11
Two government weapons lab scientists are at opposite poles of a debate among scientists over whether official 9/11 collapse claims are credible.
See http://911science.blogspot.com

Thursday, January 04, 2007

Take note of Dennis Loo

Check out Dennis Loo's comment to the 'Softies' post below. [This corrects a bum reference I gave last night when I was a bit sleepy.]
He's a professor who has published a book on a case for the impeachment of Bush. And he was one of those academics who dug up the mathematical and other irregularities that show that Bush was soundly defeated in 2004.

See http://dennisloo.blogspot.com