The Extremist

A Simple Summary of the Problem with the 9/11 Story

It's a mystery to me how the mere mention of questions about the official mythology of 9/11 can get you labeled a RWNJ or worse. The inexplicable collapse of WTC building 7 should be raising a lot of questions. The questions never seem to make it to CNN, FOX, CBS, ABC, MSNBC or any of the supposed guardians of truth in public information. Why is that?

Sir Isaac Wouldn't Buy This

Whether the pitcher hits the stone, or the stone hits the pitcher, it is bad for the pitcher. — Sancho Panza in "The Man of La Mancha"

Despite a knee-jerk mistrust of any official story and an often self-destructive inclination to question authority, at first I accepted without question our government’s explanation of the wreck of the Twin Towers. Eventually, however, my trust in physics aligned with my mistrust of politicians to cast doubt on the official story.

The 18th century mathematician, Sir Isaac Newton, explained much about the world. His ideas have been so thoroughly tested that we now call them “Newton’s Laws.” At sizes above the subatomic and at speeds below that of light, those laws offer immutable, easily applied rules for predicting and analyzing the physical world. Since I’m about to dip you lightly into the bubbling vat of high school physics, you’ll be pleased to know there are only three laws of motion. I’ll paraphrase a couple of them for you here.

Law One:  Moving stuff keeps moving until some force stops it.

Law Two tells the force depends on the mass of the stuff and how fast we want to stop it.

Law Three:  Every force creates an equal and opposite force.

The third is most important to us here. Sancho Panza summarized it nicely in his remark about the pitcher. The collision of a stone and a pitcher produces a force that acts equally but in opposite directions on the two colliding objects. Stones being tougher than pitchers tend to survive larger forces.

The laws are the same for all moving objects. Any high school physics student can calculate the forces that affect colliding stones and pitchers, bugs and windshields, or airliners and skyscrapers. All he needs to know is the weight of both items and their relative speed.

Of course, it’s skyscrapers and airplanes that interest us here. In my customary fashion, I will oversimplify the tragic, historic event for you using figures I found on the excellently researched website of Dr. Morgan Reynolds, www.nomoregames.net.

Dr. Reynolds tells us the Twin Towers weighed something like 500,000 tons and a Boeing 767 weighs around 140 tons. The weight of the plane was .028% of that of the building. There is no great precision necessary in numbers this large. A few hundred tons one way or the other won’t change the ratio much.

Equally important is that the plane was made of soft, light aluminum while the building was made of hard, heavy steel and concrete. The pitcher and the stone. For an example of just how fragile airplanes are, by the way, I recommend some of Dr. Reynolds’ photos of airplane damage caused by collisions with birds.

Skyscrapers and airliners are big objects to try to wrap your mind around. The scale is hard to grasp. To better understand the situation I had to reduce it to more familiar objects while maintaining comparable ratios of mass. 

By a lucky coincidence the ratio of the weight of a fully loaded Hummer and a six-pack of cold beer in aluminum cans is not unlike that of our plane and building example. There is also a happy similarity in their construction, aluminum v. steel. A frosty sixer of Bud tallboys is about .069% of the weight of a Hummer. The higher ratio gives us a margin of error. It’s as if the plane were over twice as heavy as it really was and allows us to use the entire six-pack, which I always recommend.

Imagine now, as unlikely as it may seem, that I suspend a perfectly good six-pack above a highway at the grille height of the Hummer. Let’s even imagine that the cans are filled with jet fuel instead of beer. Let’s also put an Arab who has never driven before in the Hummer bearing down on the six-pack at 500 miles an hour. (Do not try this with your Hummer.)

If we believe the official explanation of the collapse of the World Trade Center, the following is what we would have to believe would happen next to our Hummer.

The Hummer hits the six-pack, which, according to Newton’s third law is exactly the same as the six-pack hitting the Hummer. The jet fuel ignites in a spectacular fireball which engulfs the Hummer and burns furiously but not long. The six-pack passes through the grille, the motor, the firewall, and the seats and shoots out through the back door. All traces of the six-pack vanish. No sign of aluminum is found anywhere on the grille or inside the Hummer. Nor are there any pieces of beer can on the road around the point of impact. Even the pull tabs are gone.

The Hummer careens forward in a billowing cloud of smoke for about another half hour then suddenly disintegrates into a pile of nuts, bolts and smoldering dust that you could hide under a beach umbrella. No piece of the wreckage is larger than a door knob.

Officials find the Arab’s undamaged driver’s license on top of the pile.

Do you think Newton would buy this story? 

Something you Won't Often See from CNN, Common Sense

An unexpectedly smart opinion on CNN, not that of the company's management, of course.

By  Roland S. Martin
CNN contributor

Roland S. Martin is a CNN contributor and a talk-show host for WVON-AM in Chicago.

(CNN) -- Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani was declared the winner of Tuesday's Republican presidential debate in South Carolina, largely for his smack down of Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who suggested that America's foreign policy contributed to the destruction on September 11, 2001.

Paul, who is more of a libertarian than a Republican, was trying to offer some perspective on the pitfalls of an interventionist policy by the American government in the affairs of the Middle East and other countries.

"Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years," he said.

That set Giuliani off.  >>>>>>READ THE REST...

They Hate Our Freedom

Ron Paul’s speaking the unspeakable truth to power occasions this update of a column I wrote in 2004.

“It’s as simple as that. It’s good versus evil, and freedom is under attack.”
                    President George Bush, February 16, 2002

I consider myself a freedom buff. I talk about it a lot. I tell myself, and those I want to shock, that I’d like to die fighting for it. I love the eloquent praise of liberty in the writings of the Founders.

Since the attacks on 9/11 there’s been a dramatic decline in freedom here in the U.S.  At the same time our president continually declares a love of freedom that has clearly overwhelmed any love he has for credibility or truth. It certainly overwhelms any love or respect he may have for the freedom of his fellow citizens.

Mr. Bush has taken up the cause of freedom like a knight on a holy quest. If we take him at his word, freedom is at the heart of everything he does. Because of our freedom we were attacked. Our vengeful counterattacks have freedom names: “Operation Enduring Freedom” and “Operation Iraqi Freedom.” George II unfurls the banner of freedom and wraps himself in it as if it were a monarch’s cloak of authority.

Mr. Bush’s fight for freedom in the world is the justification for dramatic reduction of freedom at home. Our armed forces are spreading freedom and cluster bombs among penniless peasants in third world countries thousands of miles away, while the USA Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security work to eliminate it in the United States.

Only hours after the 9/11 attack, Mr. Bush latched on to freedom as the trump ace that would top any objection to a massive power grab. For Mr. Bush, a mindless hatred of freedom is the only possible motive for terrorist attack.

On September 11, he said, “Freedom itself was attacked this morning by a faceless coward, and freedom will be defended.” Later that day he said, “…our way of life, our very freedom came under attack… America was attacked because we are the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world.” Mr. Bush had the terrorists' motives all figured out even before the FBI or CIA had figured out who they were.

To Mr. Bush the world is a charmingly simple place. In a July 11, 2002 speech, he offered this handy syllogism: “What we stand for is freedom, and they hate freedom. And therefore, they hate us.”

Simple, eh? On September 5, 2002 he declared “The more we value freedom, the more they hate us.” If only the world were as simple as the president’s mind.

Well, OK, let’s say that hatred of freedom is the great driving force behind terrorism. Why then, don’t all these freedom haters blow things up and wreck buildings in countries that enjoy even more freedom than America does?

Perhaps you don’t think there are such countries. But there are many. The Wall Street Journal and The Heritage Foundation rank countries around the world every year using an “economic freedom index.” In 2007, three countries ranked higher than the U.S. in economic freedom, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Australia. None of these countries has suffered any great incidence of terrorism.

There are other interesting freedom indexes as well. For instance, an outfit called Reporters without Frontiers has an index of international press freedom. The top five countries for press freedom in 2007 were Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and the Netherlands. None of those countries ranked very high in terrorist attacks. The top three had none at all. The U.S. ranked 43rd, by the way, behind Costa Rica, Italy and Macedonia, on the free press index.

Even the UN, an organization that loves big government, ranked its members in a Freedom Index in the early 1990s. Ten nations stood higher than the United States on the Freedom Index. Among them are Sweden, the Netherlands, Austria, Finland, Germany, Denmark, Canada, and Switzerland. These nations have had few international terrorist attacks and none has had nearly as many attacks against its citizens as has the United States.

Admittedly the UN’s freedom rankings are probably biased toward the idea that big government means freedom, but the point is that if freedom were what the terrorists hate so much, there are plenty of places that are more free than America for them to attack. Many of those places are closer and more convenient as well. Yet, America is the Great Satan, not Finland, or Canada.

If terrorism isn’t much of a threat to most free nations.  What then, is inflaming suicidal Muslims to attack us? If freedom is what terrorists hate so much, they could pester local freedom lovers much more easily than traveling thousands of miles to attack a country that is, at least by UN standards, not even in the top ten.

I suspect there is some other reason America and the American government in particular has become the target of terrorists. A quick, lightly researched, admittedly unscientific look at the foreign policy of the other free countries as compared to that of the American government might shed a little light.

For instance, my research has revealed that the government of Switzerland has never dropped bombs anywhere. No Dutch or Norwegian warship ever shot down an Iranian airliner. Nor could I find any reports of bombings, invasions, police actions, or liberations undertaken by the governments of Finland, Sweden, Denmark, or Austria. The New Zealand government has no troops in Saudi Arabia. Nor do any of the other top ten free nations.

None of those other free nations has ever bombed anyone to preserve the freedom of those being bombed. None of those countries meddles much in the affairs of Muslim countries. None of those other free counties gives support to the Arabs’ greatest enemy, Israel.

None of the other free countries has embargoed an Arab country for ten years and contributed to the death of half a million Arab children.

The number of Arabs killed by soldiers and agents of the other free countries of the world when compared to the number killed by American armed forces is almost undetectable.

Yet with all that freedom for the freedom haters to choose from, terrorists attack freedom in the United States.

They must really hate our freedom.

 

Rudy Giuliani v. Ron Paul, and Reality

John Nichols at no less a liberal stronghold than The Nation on the Paul/Giuliani dust up.

Rudy Giuliani made clear in Tuesday night's Republican presidential debate that he is not ready to let the facts get in the way of his approach to foreign policy.

The most heated moment in the debate, which aired live on the conservative Fox News network, came when .... READ THE WHOLE THING>>>

Three out of Four

That's how many Americans now believe the U.S. Government was involved in the 911 attacks. Do conspiracy theorists now finally outnumber conspirators?

An explosion of disbelief - fresh doubts over 9/11

The New Boss

Tweedle-dee Dee - he's on his hands and his knees
Saying, "Throw me somethin', Mister, please."
"What's good for you is good for me,"
Says Tweedle-dee Dum to Tweedle-dee Dee  ─ Bob Dylan

The Tweedledee party just won control of Congress while the Tweedledums still have their man in the Oval Office. I suppose, as an opponent of the fraudulent War on Terror and a great fan of the Constitution, I should be gratified. Many Tweedledee supporters are pleased as punch and seem to think some important changes will come of their newfound power. But I suspect that while the beneficiaries of the War on Terror scam will probably change, the shabby nature of the undertaking will remain the same and the damage it has done to American freedom will go unrepaired. 

Since the events of 2001, the ruling Tweedledums have played havoc with what remains of the US Constitution. If any good came of the Constitution’s further destruction, it was a sudden, uncharacteristic reverence for the document by the Tweedledees. In control of Congress they are now in a position to act on their new respect for the Constitution. Somehow, I doubt they will.

Some obvious choices for at least a partial restoration of our lost rights would be a thorough criminal investigation of the events of 9/11, the repeal of the USA Patriot Act, and the repeal of the many recent laws allowing the secret lockup of the innocent, illegal eavesdropping, surveillance, and torture. A repeal of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 alone would restore much of the effectiveness of the now forgotten Bill of Rights.

While the Tweedledees are at the job of restoring American liberty, they might also consider repealing the Real ID Act, a law that will have us all numbered and tracked like barnyard animals starting sometime in 2007. And of course, doing away with the ever creepier Department of Homeland Security and its army of airport granny friskers would greatly revive American rights and dignity without appreciably increasing our risk of death by terrorism. It would also save billions in wasted taxpayer dollars, millions of hours of shoe removal and strip search time and who knows how many tons of discarded toothpaste, deodorant and KY jelly.

I doubt very much, however, that any of these ideas have occurred to the new majority in Congress. In fact, the new Speaker of the House designate, Nancy Pelosi, said nothing about the death of the Constitution or our lost rights at a press conference after the elections. Instead she immediately set off my BS alarm by telling me how honest the Tweedledees were going to be. I instinctively mistrust people who feel compelled to tell me how honest they are. Pelosi said: “Democrats intend to lead the most honest, the most open and the most ethical Congress in history.” Not that that would require any great level of honesty or candor. Does that mean we can expect the Clintons to return the stolen White House furniture in a gesture of Tweedledee integrity?

Pelosi went on to outline a “First Hundred Hours” plan. The plan had nothing to do with the restoration of the Constitution or ending the war in Iraq. Instead the Tweedledees plan to reform lobbying, implement some 9/11 commission recommendation, increase unemployment with a hike in the minimum wage and buy more votes from young and old alike with drug benefits and student loan interest rate cuts.

Many Americans viewed this election as a referendum on the war in Iraq; apparently Ms. Pelosi didn’t, saying only that she wants to work with Bush on a "new direction" on Iraq. A “new direction” in Iraq would imply that the whole murderous enterprise already has some identifiable destination. It would imply possibilities in Iraq that don’t involve the further humiliation of the most powerful army on the planet by malcontents with home made bombs and the further wholesale murder of Iraqi civilians by Iraqis and Americans alike. I can’t think of what that direction might be.

Now that the Tweedledees have some power they will do nothing to reduce the power of the government they control. Instead they will savor and hoard it to gain more in the next election. Our troops will remain in Iraq. Their blood and our freedom will be further sacrificed to unseat the Tweedledum president in 2008. Should that occur, as it very likely will, every potential Tweedledee president, including the ruthlessly ethical Hillary Clinton, has promised to expand the war on terror. And why not?  Nothing appeals to politicians more than massive government projects and what government project could possibly top a perpetual global war against an invisible enemy.

The lyric from the Who’s song We Don’t Get Fooled Again keeps repeating in my head: “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss…”

Related:
The Coming Sellout
Democrats Pull Out Method

Technorati Tags politics • election • War on Terror

9/11 Mysteries (Full Length, High Quality)

This is a brand new public domain 9/11 Truth documentary. It's a little long, but worth the time spent. Unlike official reports the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center complex doesn't require the suspension of the laws of physics.  It's excellent.  Pass this link on! World Trade Center WTC twin dowers controlled demoltion thermate thermite explosions 9/11 911 9-11 september 11 11th truth conspiracy theory theories theorist george bush dick cheney donald rumsfeld paul wolfowitz doctring PNAC project for a new american century NORAD FAA FBI CIA NSA cutter charges molton steel WTC7 building 7 larry silverstein pull it BYU physics professor steven jones loose change alex jones NIST pentagon flight 77 missile flight 93 shanksville PA lets let's roll put options gold emma e. booker elementary jersey girls

Jesse Has His Doubts

Former governor of Minnesota, Vietnam vet and actor Jesse Ventura went further than ever in detailing the reasons he doubts the official 9/11 story. He cites NORAD falling asleep at the switch, Operation Northwoods and the phoney Gulf of Tonkin attacks in talking about his suspicions.

They will never buy it in Omaha, though, where your hairstyle has as much to do with your credibility as your facts. MORE HERE>>>>>>>>

Technorati Tags 9/11 • terrorism

Bin Laden's CIA Pension

Bin Laden Niece Demands Access to His CIA Pension Plan

Technorati Tags War on Terror