Decoding Egypt: Inside Tyrants' Minds

Decoding Egypt: Inside Tyrants' Minds

By Nael M. Shama
First Published: August 13, 2008

During his recent visit to South Africa, President Hosni Mubarak was asked about Egypt’s stance toward the International Criminal Court’s indictment against Sudanese President Omar Al-Beshir for war crimes. Mubarak affirmed his country’s support of Sudan and solemnly added that “it is not appropriate to take a President to court.”

What can one, in the sincerest quest for fairness and objectivity, learn from the statement other than Mubarak’s belief that, unlike ordinary people, presidents are above the law, even if they are charged with atrocious war crimes?

Power corrupts souls, and minds too. To justify imperialism and enjoy complete impunity for its wrongdoings, the imperialist discourse has gone to great lengths to paint a distorted portrait of the indigenous populations of colonized lands. It alleges that the “subject races” belong to inferior species, are less sophisticated, incapable of functioning independently, and innately inimical to reason and knowledge, hence entitled to less rights and privileges.
Whether used consciously or not, many tyrants — loosely defined as unjust or oppressive rules — resort to the same justification to perpetuate their rules and abort means of accountability. To them, people are irrational, ignorant, prone to emotional fluctuations, and they beseech domination.

Mubarak’s statement, therefore, stems less out of casual sympathy for a fellow member of the “Club of Despot” than out of a powerful belief that presidents are indeed elevated in status and should remain unassailable.

The psychological impact of the practice of absolute power for a long period of time is mostly overwhelming. Noam Chomsky argues that it is easy for most people to construct patterns of justifications for almost anything they choose to do; even murderers and rapists instinctively believe that they are doing the right thing. If this is generally true, then it is surely a much easier job for leaders of undemocratic societies, who are usually surrounded with, and influenced by, scores of hypocrite and fake sycophants. As a result, most tyrants become partially enclosed in a bubble of self-delusion, where they ardently engage in a process of self-promotion and adamantly obstruct the access of unfavorable information.

The longevity of authoritarian regimes and their feverish attempts to survive often lead to their exclusion as well. The exclusive reliance on trusted individuals, the corrupt networks that grow in the regime’s secluded womb and the fortifications erected to protect the regime pave the way for a hazy sense of reality and addiction to illusions. Over time, thus, narcissistic dictators fall prey to a single-minded mode of thinking, which substantially depends on futile optimism, an exaggerated self-confidence and suicidal wishful thinking. As one scholar pointed out, the “narcissistic leader prefers the sparkle and glamour of well-orchestrated illusions to the tedium and method of real accomplishments.”

One particular symptom of that self-centered mental process is the deep-seated belief of many tyrants that they embody the state. According to this view, the discussion of the private interests of the leader is, in essence, relevant to the national interest. When, in 1944, the 24-year-old King Farouk heard the phrase “the will of the people” from the Wafdist politician Abdel-Salam Fahmy Gomaa, he retorted: “My good Pasha, the will of the people emanates from my will,” a naïve conviction he dearly paid for eight years later.

The personification of the nation endured the demise of royalty. Sadat’s delusions of grandeur were behind his repeated usage of the possessive pronoun “my” in reference to the Egyptian people, army, constitution, etc.

This personalization reveals an inner-conviction of being the king who is God’s shadow on earth, the feudalist who owns the land and people, the Pharaoh who is equated with God. The structure of Egyptian politics did not change much after Sadat; hence there is good reason to believe that Mubarak, after 27 years at the helm of the state, follows the same calculation.

A typical consequence of such a distorted mindset is the equation between personal criticism and disloyalty. The exalted self-perception leads tyrants to believe that their actions merit praise and appreciation only; critique reflects either ignorance or treachery. Saddam Hussein was notorious for liquidating aides who had criticized his policies or suggested alternative approaches; other less-paranoid leaders find imprisonment or exile a reasonable punishment.

There are certainly exceptions among tyrants, the type of exceptions however that consolidate the rule, not refute it. A quick look at the psychological profiles of Third World leaders — Egypt included — provides sufficient evidence.

Nael M. Shama, PhD, is a political researcher and freelance writer based in Cairo.

Italian 911 documentary (in English!)

TORRENT DOWNLOAD -- 12 part in HIGH QUALITY mp4: (243 mB)
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4368131/ZERO___An_Investigation_Into_9_11

On September 11th 2001 two airplanes piloted by terrorists hit the twin towers causing them to both collapse. Is this the whole story?

April 28th, 2008

ZERO: An Investigation into 9/11, has one central thesis - that the official version of the events surrounding the attacks on 9/11 can not be true. This brand new feature documentary from Italian production company Telemaco explores the latest scientific evidence and reveals dramatic new witness testimony, which directly conflicts with the US Government's account.

Featuring presentations from intellectual heavy weights; Gore Vidal, and Noble Prize winner Dario Fo, the film challenges assumptions surrounding the attacks. In the words of the Italian daily newspaper, Il Corriere de da Sera, "What results is a sequence of contradictions, gaps, and omissions of stunning gravity."

The importance of this film can not be overstated. If its thesis is correct, the justification for going to war in Iraq is built on a series of outrageous lies.

For two hours the voices of Nobel Prize winner, Dario Fo, Lella Costa, Gore Vidal and Moni Ovadia link images and testimonies attacking the official version, melting it all down to a joke for suckers.
-La Repubblica

The bomb at the Festa del Cinema is called Zero. An incendiary documentary. The rhythm is breathtaking. The filmmakers entertain and inform with the same dramatic force.

-Il Messaggerro

NTSC DVD Video NTSC Region Free $19.95 (€ 13.57)

BRUSSELS, European Parliament, 26th February 2008.

Mark Dermul reporting.

On Tuesday 26^th February, Europarlementarian Guilietto Chiesa invited his colleagues and the press to attend the screening and debate of the Italian-produced documentary named ‘ZERO, an investigation into the events of 9/11’. Object of the screening was to create political awareness of the faulty official investigation into the events by the 9/11 Commission.

Besides Mr Chiesa, the panel consisted of Japanese parlementarian Fujita, Dr David Ray Griffin, film distributor Tim Sparke & the director and producers of the film.

After his opening statements, Mr Chiesa welcomed his guest speakers, including the producers, director and distributor of the documentary. Mr Chiesa pointed out that he was unable to find any distributor in his native country of Italy and was happy to find a company in the UK, led by Mr Tim Sparke, to handle worldwide distribution of this important film. ‘It is important to realize,’ he emphasized ‘that the movie was made thanks to contribution and donations of hundreds of citizens who feel a new investigation is more than warranted.’ No less than 450 people worked on this documentary on a voluntary basis. They never received any kind of payment. Their reward is the movie itself, which they feel is an instrument to create awareness and a means to provoke a political debate in Europe

Since the movie projector didn’t work, Mr Chiesa invited the public to ask questions until the technical problems were solved and we could start watching the movie

Question: ‘Why did you make this film?’

Chiesa: ‘It is obvious that we are now cast in an infinite war, based on lies. And as long as there is no new and independent investigation, we will never have security. There are too many lies for the official narrative to be true. Our film is an instrument to request the re-opening of the 9/11 investigation.’

Question: ‘How do you propose to reopen the investigation?’

Chiesa: ‘The film is the primary instrument to get the debate going. It is a collection of discoveries, by many respected researches from around the globe (the film features, among others, Gore Vidal, Sibel Edmonds, Dario Fo, David Ray Griffin, Dr Steven Jones, Dr Kevin Ryan, Webster Tarpley, Barbara Honegger, FAA-controllers, USAF pilots, military commanders, physicists – ed. note). But they are still questions. The movie doesn’t provide the answers. It only lays bare the questions that remain, that were left unanswered by the official investigation and need to be answered by the US government.’

Question: ‘Mr Fujita, how did you become involved?’

Fujita: ‘I work for several Japanese NGO’s and one of those people showed me some videos and books. At first I couldn’t believe it. So I saw Loose Change and read Dr Griffin’s books. And last year a good friend of mine who has a very high position at the German national bank told me about the put options that were placed on American Airlines and United Airlines. I believed him. And reading Dr Griffin’s book, looking at his reputation, I have every reason to believe him. That’s when I realised that every truth finding effort has to be continued. So I gave a presentation in the Japanese parliament (which is extensively covered on YouTube – ed. note). But I feel the truthers find their information mostly by internet. The truth should not only go by internet. It should now go political! Networking is very important. We must all work together.’

Question: ‘But what can we, regular citizens who go about their daily lives, trying to make a living for them and their families, what can we do?’

Griffin: ‘As in any movement, the 9/11 Truth Movement is a minority movement. We must continue to use our networks to make this minority into a majority. We have the upper hand to find the truth, for we have the conscience of the people. And I know that’s not an easy feat. I have now written six books on the subject, which is getting good reviews – go check it on Amazon. I had a good reputation as an author before as well and now I’ve just written my sixth book on the subject. But I have yet to get a review in any mainstream publication.’

Question: ‘Do you, in your new book, take the same stance, saying that 9/11 was an inside job?’

Griffin: ‘My new book is called 9/11 Contradictions. In this book I do not take any position, actually. Reporters have hidden in the past saying either the books were too technical and they’re not engineers, so they couldn’t comment on the book. In other cases they felt the official story was the only story they could report about, for the risk of being labelled a conspiracy theorist or even worse, getting fired. But with my new book, reporters will not be able to hide behind these excuses. These are only contradictions that they can verify and ask questions about.’

Question: ‘What kind of contradictions?’

Griffin: ‘Well, one very important one is the alleged Barbara Olsen phone call. Ted Olsen at the time claimed he had been called by his wife twice on 9/11, thus establishing the fact that American Airlines 77 was in fact hijacked by men with Middle Eastern looks. First he claimed it was a cell phone call. Later he changed his story to seatback phone. But when a German journalist got Boeing to confirm that on this type of flight there were no seatback phones, Olsen changed his story back to call phone. Now, you might think ‘oh, so he got it right the first time’, but… At the Moussaoui trial an FBI-report showed that there was never any connection between Barbara Olsen and her husband. No cell phone calls were ever made from that flight (Dr Griffin gave three more examples, contradiction with regards to the whereabouts of General Meyers, the highest ranking military officer on 9/11, the timeline of Dick Cheney’s activities and the question about why the Pentagon was not evacuated when the Doomsday plane, shown on CNN, was actually in the air over Washington – ed. note)

Question: ‘Many people, even today, are still baffled about WTC-7. When can we expect NIST to publish its final report on this collapse?’

Griffin: ‘NIST has delayed the publication time after time. In 2004 they said it would be released in 2005, in 2005 they said it would be released in 2006 and so on. Now we are expecting the report in August 2008, but I feel we may yet get another delay until at least the end of November, after the current administration has – hopefully – left office.’

At this point, people start joking about the fact that the US-government has probably sabotaged the screening of the documentary, since the projector cannot be fixed. We change rooms a few minutes later and the screening of the film begins.

The documentary is probably the most important film made so far on 9/11 as it is very accessible; it is obviously created for ‘9/11 newbies’. If you want to get a crash course into the 9/11 event and the failures of the commission’s investigation, this is the movie you need to see. Some of the highlights for me were the interviews with an FAA-air controller who explained how the hijacking procedures were changed on 1^st June 2001, slowing down response, only to be changed back on 12^th September 2001. And the very important discovery that the CCTV-images that were released by the FBI of Atta and his companion boarding Flight AA11 in Boston were actually taken by a CCTV at the airport in Portland, where they took a plane to arrive in Boston! It has also a lot of footage that I had never seen before, including videos taken at the Pentagon shortly after the attack. A must see and clearly a labour of love. Impressive.

After the film, after the several minute long applause finally died away, Chiesa re-opened the debate.

Question: ‘Why do we put op with this? Surely the United States are not all that powerful?’

Chiesa: ‘But they are. The fact that this group of about 300 people has only 6 Europarlementarians and 2 journalists among them shows that the US is controlling everything. They are all powerful. No politician in the European Parliament can ignore the power – or wrath! – of the US.’

(True to form, the Belgian media didn’t publish or broadcast any of this debate on this or the following day, even thought this debate took place inside the European Parliament – ed. note)

Tim Sparke: ‘But it’s up to you now, the general public. You have to help the politicians to by telling people about this film and talking to your local cinema’s and TV-stations. Get the word out. Only then can we create the momentum to get the debate to the political level.’

Question (from myself) : ‘In the aftermath of 9/11 and in the period leading up to the war in the Middle East, the Bush administration; President Bush, Condoleezza Rice and particularly Vice President Dick Cheney; have repeatedly lied to the American people and, by extension, to the world. The crimes they have committed are much worse than those in the Watergate scandal. So why are the American people not in an uproar? Why are these people still in power and not in jail? Is it a lack of political will?

Griffin: ‘Many people simply are misinformed and kept misinformed by the government and the mainstream media. As for political will, we live in a plutocracy, not a democracy.’

Chiesa: ‘For many people 9/11 is simply too controversial. There is a very strong psychological opposition to 9/11 truth. For most people, considering a conspiracy theory…’ ‘…other than the official theory, which is – obviously – also a conspiracy theory.’

Chiesa: ‘Yes, indeed – so considering another conspiracy theory about 9/11 is taboo. We must overcome this taboo and we must overcome this total lack of information. We must break this wall of silence. We must break free from the web and fight the mainstream media. This film is an instrument to do that. We need voices of different levels of society. We need not convince them that we are right. We need to convince them there is a problem that must be investigated… re-investigated. But you have to show them what happened. You cannot convince people by telling them about 9/11. They need to see it – hence the film.

At this moment, there is one person in the room who gives criticism on the film, claiming that the feels there are incorrect theories in the documentary. He feels the wing damage in the Pentagon is clearly visible and that Steven Jones’ claims about the thermite/thermate are not proven. He also claims that a response by jet fighters during the attack was in fact ordered. He gave no explanation as to where he got his information. He said he was a muslim and at the European Parliament as an independent, ready to defend himself against the reaction of the public who had started ‘boo’ing. One person’s behaviour was unbecoming in my opinion when she shouted ‘Who paid you?’ While I do not agree with the person’s assertions, I do respect his opinion. The director of the movie went on to explain that in the movie they were not able to show everything in detail (the movie would become too long) and that – again – it was an instrument to provoke action on the part of the viewer. A few more – and rather interesting questions and remarks – came from the audience and were addressed by the panel.

By now it was getting very late (partly because of the delay of the movie screening) and Mr Chiesa wanted to wrap up the event by making a closing statement.

Chiesa: ‘A new American commission is inconceivable. But a European commission is inconceivable too. We have no jurisdiction. The US-government would never allow it. It would have to be an international group of ‘Wise Men & Women’ such as previous heads of state, engineers, artists, scholars, first responders, survivors, witnesses and so forth. We realize we still have a long road ahead. But we can create change!’

Griffin: ‘I’ve always said that the truth will come out of friendly countries. If Iran or Korea were to tell us 9/11 was an inside job, we would not believe it. They’re just saying that, because they’re our enemies. But if Japan, Europe or even an individual European country would say ‘We have examined the evidence… The war on terror is a hoax!’, then the American press would no longer be able to ignore it. They would have to publish it and then the US-government would be forced to respond.’

Editor’s note: the text above is written from extensive notes taken during the debate, but it’s is inevitable incomplete. It’s the gist of the debate. Otherwise it would become too long. Also, it is not an exact word-for-word transcript, as the debate was not recorded (by me). It is the best representation I could give of the event, staying as close to the actual text as I could distill from my notes. Several videos will be made available soon, so you can see the whole of the debate. Until such time, I felt it important to share my impressions.

The distributor of the film, a UK-based company led by Mr Tim Sparke, has said that he will try to get it a theatrical release, but feels this may be very difficult indeed. He told the attendees at the European Parliament debate that they should contact their local cinema's and television stations to get them to order the film.

and just remind any disbelieving European of Operation Gladio and the hundreds killed in that CIA false-flag fiasco:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio

Video download (not avi mov qt mpg vob mpeg divx xvid, but) mp4. Play very well with VLC from videolan.org

http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4368131/ZERO___An_Investigation_Into_9_11

US NAVY - no privacy

Navy Hunks

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/navy_legacy_hr.asp?id=146

as of
October 29, 2008

The Navy Fact File contains descriptions of the roles and characteristics of Navy ships.

The make-up of a Carrier Strike Group (CSG)
The make-up of a Carrier Air Wing (CVW)
The make-up of an Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG)

Navy Personnel
Active Duty: 332,436

Officers: 51,477

Enlisted: 276,511

Midshipmen: 4,448
Ready Reserve: 123,159 [As of 08 Aug]

Selected Reserves: 68,136

Individual Ready Reserve: 55,023
Reserves currently mobilized: 6,438 [As of 14 Oct ]
Personnel on deployment: 61,092
Navy Department Civilian Employees: 184,335
Ships and Submarines
Deployable Battle Force Ships: 283



Ships Underway (away from homeport): 123 ships (43% of total)

On deployment: 104 ships (37% of total)

Attack submarines underway (away from homeport): 30 submarines (55%)

On deployment: 20 submarines (37%)
Ships Underway

Carriers:
USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) - Atlantic Ocean
USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71) - 5th Fleet
USS George Washington (CVN 73) - Pacific Ocean
USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) - Pacific Ocean

Amphibious Warfare Ships:
USS Peleliu (LHA 5) - Pacific Ocean
USS Boxer (LHD 4) - Pacific Ocean
USS Bataan (LHD 5) - Atlantic Ocean
USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD 6) - Pacific Ocean
USS Iwo Jima (LHD 7) - 5th Fleet

Aircraft (operational): 3700+



Cookies:

The use of session cookies is permitted for session control and to maintain
state, but such cookies shall expire at the end of the logical session. Data
from those cookies may not be utilized for other purposes or stored
subsequently. The use of session cookies shall be explicitly identified in the
site’s privacy notice.

This is a World Wide Web site for official information about USS THEODORE ROOSEVELT (CVN 71). It is provided as a public service by the TR Public Affairs Office. The
purpose is to provide information and news about TR to the general public. All
information on this site is public domain and may be distributed or copied
unless otherwise specified. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is
requested. Unauthorized attempts to upload information or change information on
this Web site are strictly prohibited and may be punishable under the Computer
Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 and the National Information Infrastructure
Protection Act. For site security purposes and to ensure that this service
remains available to all users, this government computer system employs software
programs to monitor network traffic to identify unauthorized attempts to upload
or change information, or otherwise cause damage. Except for authorized law
enforcement investigation and to maintain required correspondence files, no other attempts are made to identify individual users or their usage habits. Raw
data logs are used to simply determine how many users are accessing the site,
which pages are the most popular, and, from time to time, from which top level
domain users are coming. This data is scheduled for regular destruction in
accordance with National Archives and Records Administration guidelines. This is
for statistical purposes.



USS THEODORE ROOSEVELT (CVN 71)
Web Page is managed by MC3 Sheldon Rowley and approved by Lt. Cmdr. Mike Kafka, TR
Public Affairs Officer and Ensign Richard Chernitzer, Photo Officer.



Use of this or any other DoD interest computer system constitutes a consent to monitoring at all times this is a Department of Defense (DoD) interest computer system. All DoD interest computer systems and related equipment are intended for the communication, transmission, processing, and storage of official U.S. Government or other authorized information only. All DoD interest computer systems are subject to monitoring at all times to ensure proper functioning of equipment and systems including security devices and systems, to prevent unauthorized use and violations of statutes and security regulations, to deter criminal activity, and for other similar purposes. Any user of a DoD interest computer system should be aware that any information placed in the system is subject to monitoring and is not subject to any expectation of privacy. If monitoring of this or any other DoD interest computer system reveals possible evidence of violation of criminal statutes, this evidence and any other related information, including identification information about the user, may be provided to law enforcement officials. If monitoring of this or any other DoD interest computer system reveals violations of security regulations or unauthorized use, employees who violate security regulations or make unauthorized use of DoD computer systems are subject to appropriate disciplinary action. Use of this or any other DoD interest computer system constitutes a consent to monitoring at all times.

Rick or Ricky: A "recruit" or Sailor-to-be still in boot camp.

• Ricky Boxing: A boot camp term for sailors masturbating.
• Ricky Fishing: A boot camp term for female sailors masturbating.
• Ricky Girlfriend: Your right hand.
• Saltpeter: Chemical supposedly added to "bug juice" aboard ship to stifle libido
• B.O.C.O.D:"Beat Off Cut Off Date" The date before returning home from a deployment to stop masturbating in order to save it up for your wife or girlfriend.
• Cruise sock: A sock that is sacrificed early in a deployment and used to clean up after masturbating. It is usually kept under the mattress and can stand up on its own by the end of cruise.
• Bun: A sexually active female sailor.
• Hot Dog: A sexually active male sailor.
• Dirty-dick: To rub genitalia on someone’s cup or soda can as an act of retribution or to be funny.
• WTF: "What the Fuck" (pronounced "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot" using the phonetic alphabet): colorful way of asking what just happened, ie, "What the F..."
• Broke-dick: Technical term describing malfunctioning or inoperable equipment. Example: "The f**' aux drain pump is f**' broke-dick."
• FTN: F** the Navy (common ephitet used when complaining about naval policies or regulations). Often scrawled on the walls of toilet stalls by sailors who have been assigned to clean it for a reason.
• 
  

September Clues -- 9/11 was a snuff movie and magic illusion

If you think that 911 terror attacks were as the government and corporate embedded media has described them to us, you are ignorant.

NO BOEING 767 aircraft did crash into the WTC towers!!

Sure.. aircraft debris was found. But it was wrong paint, parts magically moved, fell out of covered scaffolding, debris was planted.
TO THIS DAY NOT A SINGLE SERIAL NUMBER was published.

"Agent 99! Bring these boxes into the WTC and place the marked side against the outer wall" (boxes contained remote control and explosives that eject aeroplane debris)

http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2007/08/planted-aircraft-debris-evidence.html

TV-Fakery and Hologrames both are helped by a clear blue sky

http://tangibleinfo.blogspot.com/2008/08/911-holographic-projection-onto-drones.html

SEPTEMBER CLUES -- MUST SEE

download avi!
(not DVD or mpg mpeg vob mp4 mp3 quicktime mov qt divx xvid mkv -- no subtitles, not in german, italian, french, chinese, spanish)
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4358054

Simon's latest hi-quality version of September Clues is a MUST SEE!

http://tangibleinfo.blogspot.com/2008/08/september-clues-911-was-snuff-movie-and.html

it has quite a few downloading already....

September Clues .. the latest version is fantastic. While there still are false claims (moving bridge, simon, do the math!).. nearly all information is well presented and tangible. It proves TV fakery conclusively (and that alone should cause the immediate onset of the revolution :-)

When Simon gets his head around hologrammes, September Clues "final cut" will be perfect IMHO.


Another argument in favour of dynamic holography.

There are a handful of "final approach" videos that show identical details on the UA175 (-illusion).

Just imagine the effort and that would have had to go into faking the picture of MANY videos to show the SAME nose-out, the same attitude, the same amputee wings, the same airframe distortions...

How would one actually produce the courchesne video and make the wing disappear at the same moment than the other amputee wing videos (hllava etc)

http://u2r2h-documents.blogspot.com/2008/01/luc-courchesne-911-ua-175-hologram.html

Though the computer-real-time generated hologram (if that is the correct name) cannot have been perfectly THE SAME for every viewing angle there were features that -- if "really" in the air -- had to be the same for all cameras. Just take the nose-out as the perfect example.

The missile (unexpectedly) WENT THROUGH the tower and the PROJECTION-SCREEN vapour was still dispersed, the laser (from a distant ABL? A non-visible wavelength laser from another skyscraper? {woolworth structure?}) was not switched off in time.

Many people saw a missile, that's a fact. Some people however saw some sort of airplane, or didn't they. Some cameras recorded a semi-realistic looking boeing. SOME DID NOT (e.g. Bob and Bri) because their viewing angle revealed the missile.

(see variable visibility hologram theory - VVHT
http://u2r2h-documents.blogspot.com/2007/10/911-hologram-theory.html )

Simon Shack's SeptClues tries to persuade that ALL footage must have been faked. While I agree that MUCH has. I believe that some footage is authentic and only the sound has been faked. The reason for faking the sound is obvious. A missile makes a tell-tale sound. Every military person in the world would know immediately.

So please, KT, Simon, WF .. please do not rule out hologrammes. Once you have agreed that they were possibly employed and re-evaluate your vast knowledge of 911 in this light you will agree that nothing excludes their use.

Or is there something? Do tell.

IMHO there even is a photo that shows the illuminating laser:
http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2007/08/david-thom-pictures.html

September Clues is a documentary film by independent audio/video researcher Simon Shack which was released on livevideo.com in June 2007. The film presents a conspiracy theory relating to September 11 2001. In the film it is suggested that no airplanes hit the World Trade Center towers, and that all footage shown on the television news broadcasts, as well as the 36 known amateur clips that appeared afterwards, have been forged to create the impression of planes hitting the buildings.

Part of the suggestion of the film is that missiles hit the World Trade Center, much in the same vein as other theories claim missiles hit the Pentagon and the Shanksville field. The main assertion is that the 5 major tv networks ran digitalized imagery ( or hybrid techniques including real images ) to insert computer-generated airplane animations. It is pointed out that all local tv stations were blacked out as the first tower (with TV antenna) was hit.

The film stresses that only simple, bi-dimensional silhouettes of planes were shown on the live broadcasts. It also points out that the 5 networks only showed a plane in motion yet not its actual impact in the tower - on live tv. All the other subsequent clips that emerged later were credited to a string of alleged authors, all linked to the newsmedia industry. These subsequently released videos, it is claimed, were designed to conclusively imprint in the public belief the idea that real airplanes hit the towers. However, SEPTEMBER CLUES demonstrates that all these videos betray significant discrepancies in speed, trajectories, pitch and yaw of the plane silhouettes.

Some clips show the plane clearly disappearing into the steel-frame tower without any apparent breakage of the wings or even the aft assembly. This is claimed to violate Newton's 3° law of motion as well as basic laws of structural interaction (aluminum vs steel) applied in mechanical engineering.

One WNYW/Fox shot features a helicopter camera's view of a plane silhouette appearing in the bottom right of the screen, disappearing into the tower and re-emerging on the other side ( with its undamaged front cockpit section ). The claim of the author is that no aluminum plane can impact on a steel-frame building, thrust through its entire length, and emerge with its nosecone intact. The ensuing conclusion is that the plane silhouette must have been a 2D computer generated image (CGI) which was edited into the shot without accounting for the backdrop scenery's sideway drift.

The film also shows a fly-over plane over Manhattan at the exact moment of impact, suggesting this could have been deployed as a decoy to induce many bystanders to report the presence of a real airliner.

By the end of the film, which mostly features official TV archive high-resolution footage, two screenshots from NBC and CBS are compared. Both show a panoramic view of Manhattan, with the Empire State building in the immediate foreground. In one, the Empire State is on the left of the image while in the other it is on the right. Yet, the relative distance and perspective of all buildings in both backgrounds, are identical. Inversely, in other shots, the New York Verrazzano bridge (in the background) appears to be moving by several miles in spite of only slight shifts of the camera's viewing angles. This is claimed to challenge the laws of perspective, supporting the underlying thesis that the live footage was actually a multiple-layer video composite.

In support of the latter claim, the film compares pairs of synchronized footage. On several occasions, helicopters appear to be flying over the towers on only one of the two broadcasts, suggesting the broadcasts were not truthful representations of the real-life events in Manhattan that day. Those helicopters, which in fact only appear to fly by at sustained speed from either side of the screen, are claimed to be CGI (computer generated imagery) overlays to make up for the digital masking needed to obscure/control the skyline to conceal what in reality hit the WTC.

The film, which is in 9 parts (A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H+epilogue), can be downloaded in high-quality in nine separate parts,in two 45min sections or in its single full 90min version : http://www.thesocialservice.it

It can be viewed in streaming quality here : http://www.youtube.com/user/simonshack http://www.livevideo.com/socialservice

The author expressly authorizes downloaders to print out CD's(for PC/MAC viewing) or DVD's for free, non-profit diffusion of his research.

The amazing disappearing wing... aka amputee wings. Holograms do that.

WTC7 collapse INCREDIBLE CONCLUSIVE

"WTC 7 explanation falls short" {Letter to the Editor of The Houston Chronicle}

After I read Friday's Page A8 article, "Sept. 11 building enigma solved in investigation," and reviewed the National Institute of Standards and Technology Web site http://www.nist.gov/, I can only conclude that the "final" and official government explanation of why World Trade Center tower 7 collapsed is a far cry from a plausible explanation.

WTC 7, which was not struck by a plane and had only minor isolated fires, collapsed in perfect symmetry at literally free-fall speed. Prior to 9/11 no steel structured building had ever collapsed or even come close to collapsing due to fire. The official explanation that this symmetrical eight-second collapse was due to "thermal expansion" of the steel structure because of scattered and isolated fires defies common sense and the most elementary laws of physics. The computer model presented on the NIST Web site does not even match the video of the actual collapse.

A controlled demolition model was dismissed, allegedly because explosions were not heard. This conclusion totally defies eyewitness accounts of explosions prior to the collapse, which are widely available on the Internet. Additionally, since the controlled-demolition hypothesis was not considered, no attempt was made to examine debris for explosive residue.

Further objective investigation is clearly needed. If evidence suggests explosives were planted prior to the collapse, perhaps Securacom, the company in charge of WTC security, should be investigated as well. Since Securacom was run by the president's brother Marvin Bush and cousin Wirt Walker, I'm sure we can count on their full cooperation.

THOMAS PELLEGRINI
The Woodlands

www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/5963856.html

the earth is not flat, quit telling me it is flat
my charcoal burning barbeque has not collapsed. Charcoal burns hotter then jet fuel.
no one would have predicted it's collaspe. but they did
sheeple1950 on Mon, 08/25/2008 - 3:44pm




9/11 at 5pm. This is the 1st known such failure of a skyscraper.


WE DECIDED TO PULL IT!!
(WTC 7 - Pull It By Larry Silverstein, youtube)


Nobody uses term "pull it" to evacuate building. It is obvious that larry gave permission to take the building down

clip on the WTC 7 collapse is taken from a PBS documentary America Rebuilds. In this clip, the owner of building 7, Larry Silverstein, talks about the World Trade Center 7 collapse on 9/11, stating "I remember getting a call from the fire department commander telling me that they were not sure they were going to able to contain the fire." Silverstein then relates his conversation with the fire commander: "I said 'you know we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.'" Silverstein follow this with, "and they made that decision to pull, and then we watched the building collapse." To see this clip:

When challenged with this, Mr. Silverstein has claimed that by "pull it," he meant pull the firefighters from the building. But if that is true, why did he link the pulling of the building with watching it collapse? The "and then" in his sentence clearly indicates a link between the "decision to pull" and the collapse. Others have claimed "pull it" is not a demolition term. For strong evidence that it is, click here. It should be noted that Larry Silverstein finalized his 99-year lease of the World Trade Center buildings on July 24, 2001, just six weeks before 9/11. It was the first time these buildings had ever been in private hands. Mr. Silverstein claimed $7 billion in insurance losses. That's quite a decent profit for buildings he had only taken over six weeks earlier.

---

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-274318264757977481

listen at 51 min 30 seconds...




... simple, straightforward, elegant and going along with what was observed. I would say that the findings we have are incredibly conclusive that fire is why WTC 7 collapsed..

HAHAHA

The CSPAN introduction says it all...

A Government report says (haha) that fires destroyed World Trade Center Building Seven on September 11., 2001.
Scientists with the National Institute of Standards and Technology concluded that the collapse of the 47 story building was the first known incidence of fire causing the total failure of a skyscraper.
The collapse came about a 7 hours after the twin towers came down.

How IN-credible!!



51m30sec -- INCREDIBLY conclusive... ha ha ha, truly NOT CREDIBLE... "alternative theories are... ah ah not credible" Imagine... the BBC reported the building as HAVING COLLAPSED before it actually did.. http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2007/03/bbc-reported-wtc7-collapsed-before-it.html



how INCREDIBLE is that?

================================

NIST's explanation for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 on September 11th follows the logic in the cartoon above.

Specifically, NIST claims that the collapse of building 7 is "the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building".

But then goes on to argue:

"The fires in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event"

===========================================

=======================================

Debunking NIST's conclusions about WTC 7 is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel.

Symmetrical Collapse

NIST lamely tried to explain the symmetrically collapse as follows:

WTC 7’s collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame. There were clues that internal damage was taking place, prior to the downward movement of the exterior frame, such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building and windows broke out on the north face at the ends of the building core. The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of the WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing.

NIST can't have it both ways. If the exterior frame was so stiff and strong, then it should have stopped the collapse, or - at the very least - we would have seen a bowing effect where tremendous opposing forces were battling each other for dominance in determining the direction of the fall.

In real life, the thick structural beams and "stiff [and strong]" exterior frame used in the building should have quickly stopped any partial collapse, unless the support columns were all blown. At the very worst, we should see a 1 or 2 floor partial collapse.

Freefall Speed

NIST said that WTC 7 fell at 40% slower than freefall speed. But it collapsed alot faster than it would have if the structural supports were not all blown away at the same instant. 40% slower isn't very impressive -- that's like arguing that a rock falling through concrete 40% slower than a rock falling through the air is perfectly normal.

Again, why did the building collapse at all, given that the thick structural beams should have quickly stopped any partial collapse?

Fires Knocked Down Steel-Frame Buildings

NIST said fires alone brought down Building 7, but other office fires have burned longer and hotter without causing collapse.

No Explosive Sounds

NIST also said:

"No blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses."

Oh, really?

What about this, this, this, this, this, this and this?

Moreover, as discussed below, high-tech explosives don't necessarily make the same loud "booms" that dynamite make.

High-Tech Explosive Residues

And why were there residues for high-tech explosives at ground zero (and see this)?

Molten and Partially Evaporated Steel

And what about the pools of molten metal at ground zero for months? And why was the at and under the ground at the site of WTC 7 as hot as the ground under WTC 1 and 2?

And the New York Times wrote that partly EVAPORATED steel beams were found at WTC 7. But normal office and diesel fires are not NEARLY hot enough to evaporate steel. Hydrocarbon fires fueled by diesel (which was apparently stored at WTC 7) and normal office materials cannot evaporate steel. Steel does not evaporate unless it is heated to at least 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit. Everyone agrees that fires from conventional building fires are thousands of degrees cooler than that.

Pre-Knowledge

And why didn't NIST address the obvious pre-knowledge by everyone around and well in advance that 7 was going to come down?

Experts

And why didn't NIST address what these experts say?:

• The former head of the Fire Science Division of the government agency which claims that the World Trade Centers collapsed due to fire (the National Institute of Standards and Technology), who is one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering (Dr. James Quintiere), called for an independent review of the World Trade Center Twin Tower collapse investigation. "I wish that there would be a peer review of this," he said, referring to the NIST investigation. "I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they've done; both structurally and from a fire point of view. ... I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable.

• Two professors of structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo Bachmann) said that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition (translation here).

• Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley, of Fremont, California, says:

"Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition"

• Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, of Novato California, writes:

"Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds... ? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust."

• Graham John Inman, structural engineer, of London, England, points out:

"WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on this building was small & localized therefore what is the cause?"

• A Dutch demolition expert (Danny Jowenko) stated that WTC 7 was imploded

• A prominent physicist with 33 years of service for the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, DC (Dr. David L. Griscom) said that the official theory for why the Twin Towers and world trade center building 7 collapsed "does not match the available facts" and supports the theory that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition

Popular Mechanics chooses to confuse the issue by showing THE WRONG TOWER:

www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/4278927.html

how shameless...

http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/wtc7/gallery.html

WTC 7 Video Gallery

youtube*, google youtube (close-up 1) youtube (close-up 2)	youtube*	youtube*	youtube
youtube* Reporter: "...that building number 7 was going to collapse. That appears to be what has happened now."	youtube* "...when a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down." - Dan Rather	google	youtube*, google
youtube*	youtube	youtube*	youtube*, google
youtube*	youtube*	google - (911 Eyewitness - Experiment shows that WTC 7 fell at freefall speed; 2:02)	google
youtube* (@2:20), youtube* Rescuer 1: "Did you hear that?" Rescuer 2: "Keep your eye on that building. It will be coming down soon." Rescuer 3: "The building's about to blow up. Moving back... We are walking back. There is a building, about to blow up." Rescuer 4: "It's gone man!" Rescuer 5: "Seven came down?"	youtube*, youtube1, youtube2, google, google (24 sec) "'You know we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull it.' Uh, and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."	youtube*, youtube*, google "Hello? Oh, we're getting ready to pull building six." "We had to be very careful how we demolished building six."	youtube History Channel (@ 7:53) "Normally when you have a structural failure, you carefully go through the debris field looking at each item... We were unable to do that in the case of tower 7."
WTC 7 comparison youtube	google	youtube*	Misc. WTC 7 9-11 - youtube (4:03) WTC 7 Controlled Demolition (6:42) (*Killtown's YouTube videos)