It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Whistle-blowers" notoriously infamous

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 01:08 AM
link   
this thread is to clarify the misconception that anyone who accepts the truth about 9/11 is a lone conspiracy nut-there are many- please add your favorite - ill start with a rather recent lawsuit concerning an infamous whistle-blower known as Timothy McNiven -a 29yr defense department operative still under govt contract with a unique and ominous story to tell concerning his past which is the reason he filed suit-heres the story-
************************************************************
The Perfect Terrorist Plan
To Level The Twin Towers
Created In 1976
By Greg Szymanski

Our own U.S. Army devised a plan commissioned by Congress to bring down the WTC using commercial airliners and box cutters as weapons.

The laundry list of terrorist warnings handed to the Bush administration prior to 9/11 makes the President and others look like "bumbling idiots or a bunch of conniving criminals" responsible for the mass murders at the Twin Towers and in Afghanistan and Iraq.

These are the harsh words of Timothy McNiven, an outspoken critic of the President's handling of 9/11 and a 29-year U.S. Defense Department operative still under contract with the government.

He says not only did the Bush administration purposely ignore Al Q'aida in the months preceding the WTC attacks, but the situation is even more disturbing, considering his military unit way back in 1976 devised a mock terrorist attack of the Twin Towers exactly like what occurred on 9/11.

McNiven, who first went public in an affidavit included in a 9/11-related federal conspiracy (RICO) lawsuit filed against Bush and others in 2004, claims his unit was ordered to create the "perfect terrorist plan" using commercial airliners as weapons and the Twin Towers as their target.

The publicized version of the study, commissioned by Congress, was to identify security lapses and submit corrective measures to lawmakers. However, McNiven claims the real purpose of the study was to brainstorm how to pull off the perfect terrorist attack using the exact same 9/11 scenario.

The study, commissioned to C-Battery 2/81st Field Artillery, U.S. Army, stationed in Strassburg, Germany in 1976, specifically devised the scenario of the Twin Towers being leveled by Middle Eastern terrorists using commercial airliners and even plastic box cutters to bypass security.

To silence critics, McNiven has successfully passed a credible lie detector test regarding his participation in the study as well as other specific orders given to him by his superiors in case of a real attack on the Twin Towers.

The head of the 1976 mock terrorist plan was Lt. Michael Teague of Long Island, who McNiven says was given specific orders by higher-ups in the military to use the Twin Towers as the terrorist target.

McNiven said he has been unable to contact Lt. Teague, but was interested in his opinion now that "the 9/11 attacks happened the way we planned them in 1976."

"I remember Lt. Teague changed the scenario of the supposed study from a 100 story building to the Twin Towers," recalled McNiven, emphasizing that Lt. Teague was acting on specific orders from unknown superiors.

"He then said he thought it was very strange to be asked to devise a plan to blow up your own home town. But as I watched the Twin Towers really collapse on the morning of September 11th, I realized I was watching the very same thing we devised in the 1976."

Since that ominous realization, McNiven has devoted his entire life to alerting the American public about the similarities between 9/11 and the 1976 study without much success, his story basically being ignored by politicians and the mainstream media.

"Why am I doing this? Why have I spent every waking hour trying to bring this story to the American people?" asked McNiven, claiming he still is following a strange direct military order given to him more than 25 years ago.

"During the course of the terrorist plan we were devising, I made the statement to Lt. Teague that if the WTC was ever attacked like we planned, I'd go public. I was then physically assaulted and told never to reveal anything we were doing regarding the Twin Towers."

However, about a week later a strange turn of events occurred. For no apparent reason, McNiven claims his superiors completely changed their minds.

"I was given the direct order that if the Twin Towers were ever attacked the way we discussed in the 1976 study, I was to do everything in my power to bring the similarities to the attention of the American people.

"I have no idea why they changed their minds, but I was then emphatically told that this order was never to be rescinded - never - because those who would rescind it, would be the very same people who turned against the American people."

Besides taking a lie detector to verify his story, McNiven has made public a detailed list of about 40 names of those individuals who took part in the mock terrorist plan, including Col. Robert Morrison, Maj. Joe Dipiero, Sgt. Middleton, Sgt. Arroyo and many others.

"There were also people from the Defense Department and the CIA who were monitoring the study, but I wasn't able to get their names," he added.

Some of McNiven's most recent assignments with the Defense Department include work on the Northwest Drug Task Force and various other drug smuggling and weapons trafficking cases.

March 9, 2005
www.rense.com...

[edit on 9-4-2005 by Sunofone]

[edit on 9-4-2005 by Sunofone]




posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 01:10 AM
link   
Little is publicly known about John O’Neil, the former deputy FBI director who chased the tail of Bin Laden for years. Primarily because it nearly justifies that the US government had some sort of prior knowledge before 9-11. O’Neil was possibly the FBI’s leading expert on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda but faced obstacles that he couldn’t overcome. He was obsessed with tracking and finding Bin Laden but every time he got close to him, O’Neil’s bosses never allowed him to proceed, pulling him away from case after case. He felt that they were trying to hide things from him because they wouldn’t allow him to do his job no matter how close he got.

After so many road-blocks, John O’Neil was forced to quit the FBI soon after. O’Neil says, "The main obstacles to investigating Islamic terrorism were U.S. oil corporate interests, and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it." 2 weeks later O’Neil got a new job as head of security at the World Trade Center. The reason for him working at the WTC is because John knew that Bin Laden or other terrorist would eventually attempt attack the twin towers, years of research and tracking Bin Laden is what led O’Neil to this conclusion and he was right. But sadly, on the 2nd day on his new job, O’Neil died trying to rescue people in the south tower on 9-11-01.

According to a few sources, O’Neil leaked the secret Executive Order W199I-WF-213589 signed by Bush, to the BBC press before he died (and ill admit this subject seems a bit shady cause I’m not exactly sure who gave the BBC the actual Executive Order info, so I actually emailed BBC new’s Greg Palast about the EO, ill let you know if he replies). The BCC says that this executive order was signed to prevent FBI agents from further investigating the Bin Laden family.

www.pbs.org... - On this site right here you can watch a whole PBS documentary about John O’Neil “The Man Who Knew”.

[edit on 9-4-2005 by Sunofone]



posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 01:14 AM
link   
you must know about FBI Special Agent Robert Wright who got on national TV and practically cried as he talked about how his bosses wouldn’t let him do his job in protecting the American people and preventing the WTC attacks. This lead Agent Wright to write a 500 paged manuscript, titled “Fatal Betrayals of the Intelligence Mission”.

You can read about him here
article
article..

[edit on 9-4-2005 by Sunofone]



posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 01:18 AM
link   
here is one of my all time favorites-he continues to investigate and update his findings and he originally was introduced to the unbelievable claims and hoaxes perpetated by the govt in oklahoma and it continues to be one of his main focus issues- here is a synopsis on Brigadier General Benton K. Partin (USAF, Retired)-General Partin’s highly decorated, 31-year military career included command of the Air Force Armaments Technology Laboratory and direct involvement in the research and development of many of our armaments and weapons systems.
On May 18, 1995, one month after the bombing, General Partin delivered a preliminary detailed analysis of the event to members of Congress. "From all the evidence I have seen in the published material," Partin testified, " I can say with a high level of confidence that the damage pattern on the reinforced concrete superstructure could not possibly have been attained from the single truck bomb without supplementing demolition charges at some of the reinforced column bases." In that report (See "OKC Bombing: Expert Analysis" in our June 26, 1995 issue), and in the detailed study which he released on July 13, 1995 (see "Explosive Evidence" in our August 7, 1995 issue), Partin eviscerated the prosecution’s lone-bomb thesis with a host of findings from the forensic evidence indicating that demolition charges were certainly used inside the Murrah Building.

Since that time, a veritable mountain of evidence, documents, records, eyewitness testimony, and authoritative support has accumulated to fortify General Partin’s thesis, making the stubborn adherence of government officials and journalists to the lone-bomb scenario truly incredible.

New Evidence

In this article, we present startling new eyewitness testimony concerning demolition charges removed from the Murrah Building and the men who may have planted them there, together with new expert testimony, recently released official records, and some of the most important evidence and supporting documentation that has been reported piecemeal in our previous articles on the bombing. This includes:

• World-renowned physicists and an assortment of scientists, engineers, and explosives experts who concur that internal charges must have been used.

• A series of Air Force test blasts on concrete structures corroborating General Partin’s main contention that air blast from a truck bomb outside of the building could not possibly account for the pattern and magnitude of the damage to the Murrah Building’s superstructure.

• A study by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) which acknowledges that a truck bomb of 4,800 pounds of ANFO (as claimed by the government) would have been insufficient to cause the destruction experienced at the Murrah Building.

• Two eyewitnesses inside the Murrah Building who attest that they observed bomb squad personnel removing undetonated explosive devices from the building after the initial blast.

• A rescue worker who attests that she heard an ATF agent state that he had found an undetonated explosive device inside the building.

• Recently released government communiques and radio transmission logs indicating that undetonated devices had been found in the building during the early rescue efforts.

• Recordings of real-time, live television news broadcasts reporting official confirmations of multiple unexploded devices inside the Murrah Building.

• Early statements from government officials and terrorism and bombing experts — before the "official" line was laid down — that the explosives used were clearly very sophisticated, indicating it was the work of a "group" highly knowledgeable in explosive techniques.

• Five survivors of the blast who attest that they saw three men in the parking garage of the Murrah Building with wires, tools, and what appeared to be building plans several days before the bombing.

• Military personnel who reportedly saw McVeigh or John Doe No. 2 inside the building but were threatened with court-martial if they mentioned what they had seen.

The Unheard Experts

General Benton Partin’s report on the Oklahoma bombing should have hit the nation like a thunderclap. Not only was his analysis thorough and scholarly and his credentials unimpeachable, but his observations also conformed to a commonsense appraisal of evidence that was widely available and understandable to the general public. General Partin’s highly decorated, 31-year military career included command of the Air Force Armaments Technology Laboratory and direct involvement in the research and development of many of our armaments and weapons systems. Among many other things, this expert’s expert pointed out that:

• Blast through air is a terribly inefficient coupling mechanism against heavy reinforced concrete beams and columns. Blast wave energy drops dramatically when traveling through air, initially falling off more rapidly than an inverse function of the distance cubed.

• Using the official estimate of 4,800 pounds of ANFO would yield a maximum pressure of explosion of about one-half million pounds per square inch at detonation. But by the time the blast wave traveled through the air to the nearest of the building’s columns, it would have dropped off to about 375 pounds of pressure per square inch, and by the time it reached the nearest column in the second row of columns it would have been down to 27 to 38 psi. The compressive yield strength of concrete is around 3,500 pounds per square inch, far above anything exerted by the truck bomb blast on the building’s structure.

• The asymmetrical damage to the building — i.e., the off-center "bite" — presents another insuperable problem for the official scenario, requiring that the blast wave leave standing columns that were closer to the explosion while taking out columns that were farther from the blast.

• Inherent in the official scenario is the absurd claim that the truck blast was sufficiently strong to collapse the huge columns and beams, but not strong enough to knock down sheet rock, furring strips, and other light, fragile materials.

• Examination of the photographic evidence shows clearly that the column failures were smooth and localized, as would be expected with cutting charges, not jagged, as would be the case if they had been shattered by the brisance of an air blast.

The persuasive cogency of his analysis — coupled with his outstanding stature and experience in the field of military ordnance, explosives, and blast effects — should have earned General Partin’s thesis a respectable hearing. But it was dismissed out of hand or ridiculed by the same officials and media-anointed "experts" who have propagated a continuous string of absurdities to explain away the avalanche of contradictions and inconsistencies in the official scenario of the bombing.

However, an impressive and growing array of experts supports the general’s conclusions. Renowned physicist Samuel Cohen, the inventor of the "neutron bomb," is one of them. One of the last remaining scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project, the original U.S. atomic bomb program, Dr. Cohen has spent more than half a century deeply involved in scientific work on weapons systems and analysis for the U.S. government and private industry. "I believe that demolition charges in the building placed inside at certain key concrete columns did the primary damage to the Murrah Federal Building," Cohen stated in June 1995. "It would have been absolutely impossible and against the laws of nature for a truck full of fertilizer and fuel oil — no matter how much was used — to bring the building down." Contacted this year shortly after the third anniversary of the bombing, Dr. Cohen said he was even more convinced of the truth of that statement. "I have not been following the case closely," he told The New American, "but it seems to me that the evidence has gotten much stronger in favor of internal charges, while the ammonium nitrate bomb theory has fallen apart."

Another celebrated scientist who shares much the same opinion is Dr. Frederick Hansen, professor of physics at the University of Oregon. Dr. Hansen’s distinguished career includes professorships in engineering, aeronautics, and chemistry at MIT, Nagoya University in Japan, the Indian Institute of Technology in India, and Cheng Kung University in Taiwan. For 15 years he was the head of earth and astro sciences at the General Motors Defense Research Laboratories, and for more than 20 years was a research scientist with NASA, where he became chief of the Fluid Mechanics Branch and, later, chief of the Physical Gas Dynamics Branch. In the latter post, he supervised construction of the world’s most powerful research shock tube, where he conducted experiments using high explosives. In a letter to Representative Charles Key earlier this year, Dr. Hansen stated: "I agree with Gen. Partin that blast through air is a very inefficient coupling mechanism against structure. Only by containing or focusing the blast can extensive damage be inflicted on reinforced structures.... Everything considered, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that only an explosive detonated right at the column could have sheared it."

Dr. Roger A. Raubach, a chemist who taught on the research faculty of Stanford University and now serves as the technical director of a chemical company, says he has "no reservations supporting General Partin." He adds that "the possibility of an ammonium nitrate fertilizer bomb, regardless of size, demolishing a reinforced concrete structure at a 20 or 30 foot standoff not only strains the limits of credibility but exceeds it by a considerable margin."

Dr. Ernest B. Paxson, an engineer with over 30 years experience in civilian and defense-related projects and a published author in many professional journals, concurs completely. "The damage pattern of any structure will indicate how the loading conditions which caused failure were applied," Dr. Paxson wrote in a letter to The New American after reviewing forensic evidence in the Oklahoma bombing. "In the case of the OKC Murrah Building, the failure pattern demonstrated to me that individual charges were placed on each of the failed columns inside the building." Paxson, who now runs his own engineering company in Utah, says he bases his evaluation on not only his knowledge of physics and engineering, but on training and practical experience he received in the U.S. Army Engineers Corps in the use of explosives to destroy different types of structures. "Based on that training alone," he told The New American, "I would say that a 4,800 pound ANFO truck bomb is an extremely inefficient way to bring down any structure. It might blow a hole in the curtain wall closest to the truck, but it would hardly touch the supporting columns of the building, because air is such a poor coupling agent. In fact, to be assured of destroying any structure, one would have to place the correct amount of explosive charge in intimate contact with the pertinent supporting members."

These experts are on solid scientific ground and are supported by a wealth of authoritative sources pertaining to blast effects in general as well as to evidence specific to the Murrah Building explosion. Especially important in this regard is the data from tests of blast effects on concrete structures conducted by the Armament Directorate of Wright Laboratory at Eglin Air Force Base. An extensive study of the Eglin data conducted by construction and demolition analyst John Culbertson and first published in The New American (see "Multiple Blasts" in our March 31, 1997 issue) concluded that "it is impossible to ascribe the damage that occurred on April 19, 1995 to a single truck bomb containing 4,800 lbs. of ANFO.... It must be concluded that the damage at the Murrah Federal Building is not the result of the truck bomb itself, but rather due to other factors such as locally placed charges within the building itself." The same conclusions were reached by the engineering experts who reviewed the study for this magazine: Robert Frias, president of Frias Engineering in Arlington, Texas; Mike Smith, a civil engineer in Cartersville, Georgia; and Alvin Norberg of Auburn, California, the engineer of record on over 5,000 building construction projects.

www.geocities.com...

[edit on 9-4-2005 by Sunofone]



posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 01:23 AM
link   
And also read about Sibel Edmonds who is a former FBI wiretap translator who spoke publicly about US prior knowledge. Recently testified before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, saying that the F.B.I. had detailed information prior to September 11, 2001, that a terrorist attack involving airplanes was being plotted. Then she was fired and placed under a gag order by John Ashcroft.

Here are some interviews with her
baltimorechronicle.com...
tomflocco.com...

Here is the letter that Sibel D. Edmonds and 24 other former federal employees signed and are prepared to tell all to a grand jury. I have over 200 former federal employees, with some overlap on the signatories below, also willing to tell all to a grand jury.

Date: September 13, 2004

To The Congress of The United States:

The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States ended its report stating that "We look forward to a national debate on the merits of what we have recommended, and we will participate vigorously in that debate." In this spirit, we the undersigned wish to bring to the attention of the Congress and the people of the United States what we believe are serious shortcomings in the report and its recommendations. We thus call upon Congress to refrain from narrow political considerations and to apply brakes to the race to implement the commission recommendations. It is not too late for Congress to break with the practice of limiting testimony to that from politicians and top-layer career bureaucrats-many with personal reputations to defend and institutional equities to protect. Instead, use this unique opportunity to introduce salutary reform, an opportunity that must not be squandered by politically driven haste.

Omission is one of the major flaws in the Commission's report. We are aware of significant issues and cases that were duly reported to the Commission by those of us with direct knowledge, but somehow escaped attention. Serious problems and shortcomings within government agencies likewise were reported to the Commission but were not included in the report. The report simply does not get at key problems within the intelligence, aviation security, and law enforcement communities. The omission of such serious and applicable issues and information by itself renders the report flawed, and casts doubt on the validity of many of its recommendations.

We believe that one of the primary purposes of the Commission was to establish accountability; that to do so is essential to understanding the failures that led to 9/11, and to prescribe needed changes. However, the Commission in its report holds no one accountable, stating instead "our aim has not been to assign individual blame." That is to play the political game, and it shows that the goal of achieving unanimity overrode one of the primary purposes of this Commission's establishment. When calling for accountability, we are referring not to quasi-innocent mistakes caused by "lack of imagination" or brought about by ordinary "human error." Rather, we refer to intentional actions or inaction by individuals responsible for our national security, actions or inaction dictated by motives other than the security of the people of the United States. The report deliberately ignores officials and civil servants who were, and still are, clearly negligent and/or derelict in their duties to the nation. If these individuals are protected rather than held accountable, the mindset that enabled 9/11 will persist, no matter how many layers of bureaucracy are added, and no matter how much money is poured into the agencies. Character counts. Personal integrity, courage, and professionalism make the difference. Only a commission bent on holding no one responsible and reaching unanimity could have missed that.

We understand, as do most Americans, that one of our greatest strengths in defending against terrorism is the dedication and resourcefulness of those individuals who work on the frontlines. Even before the Commission began its work, many honest and patriotic individuals from various agencies came forward with information and warnings regarding terrorism-related issues and serious problems within our intelligence and aviation security agencies. If it were not for these individuals, much of what we know today of significant issues and facts surrounding 9/11 would have remained in the dark. These "whistleblowers" were able to put the safety of the American people above their own careers and jobs, even though they had reason to suspect that the deck was stacked against them. Sadly, it was. Retaliation took many forms: some were ostracized; others were put under formal or informal gag orders; some were fired. The commission has neither acknowledged their contribution nor faced up to the urgent need to protect such patriots against retaliation by the many bureaucrats who tend to give absolute priority to saving face and protecting their own careers.

The Commission did emphasize that barriers to the flow of information were a primary cause for wasting opportunities to prevent the tragedy. But it skipped a basic truth. Secrecy enforced by repression threatens national security as much as bureaucratic turf fights. It sustains vulnerability to terrorism caused by government breakdowns. Reforms will be paper tigers without a safe channel for whistleblowers to keep them honest in practice. It is unrealistic to expect that government workers will defend the public, if they can't defend themselves. Courage is the exception, not the rule. Unfortunately, current whistleblower rights are a cruel trap and magnet for cynicism. The Whistleblower Protection Act has turned into an efficient way to finish whistleblowers off by endorsing termination. No government workers have access to jury trials like Congress enacted for corporate workers after the Enron/MCI debacles. Government workers need genuine, enforceable rights just as much to protect America's families, as corporate workers do to protect America's investments. It will take congressional leadership to fill this hole in the 9/11 Commission's recommendations.

The Commission, with its incomplete report of "facts and circumstances," intentional avoidance of assigning accountability, and disregard for the knowledge, expertise and experience of those who actually do the job, has now set about pressuring our Congress and our nation to hastily implement all its recommendations. While we do not intend to imply that all recommendations of this report are flawed, we assert that the Commission's list of recommendations does not include many urgently needed fixes, and further, we argue that some of their recommendations, such as the creation of an "intelligence czar," and haphazard increases in intelligence budgets, will lead to increases in the complexity and confusion of an already complex and highly bureaucratic system.

Congress has been hearing not only from the commissioners but from a bevy of other career politicians, very few of whom have worked in the intelligence community, and from top-layer bureaucrats, many with vested interests in saving face and avoiding accountability. Congress has not included the voices of the people working within the intelligence and broader national security communities who deal with the real issues and problems day-after-day and who possess the needed expertise and experience-in short, those who not only do the job but are conscientious enough to stick their necks out in pointing to the impediments they experience in trying to do it effectively.

We the undersigned, who have worked within various government agencies (FBI, CIA, FAA, DIA, Customs) responsible for national security and public safety, call upon you in Congress to include the voices of those with first-hand knowledge and expertise in the important issues at hand. We stand ready to do our part.

Respectfully,

Costello, Edward J. Jr., Former Special Agent, Counterintelligence, FBI

Cole, John M., Former Veteran Intelligence Operations Specialist, FBI

Conrad, David "Mark," Retired Agent in Charge, Internal Affairs, U.S. Customs

Dew, Rosemary N., Former Supervisory Special

Agent, Counterterrorism & Counterintelligence, FBI

Dzakovic, Bogdan, Former Red Team Leader, FAA

Edmonds, Sibel D., Former Language Specialist, FBI

Elson, Steve, Retired Navy Seal & Former Special Agent, FAA & US Navy

Forbes, David, Aviation, Logistics and Govt.
Security Analysts, BoydForbes, Inc.,

Goodman, Melvin A., Former Senior Analyst/
Division Manager, CIA; Senior Fellow at the
Center for International Policy

Graf, Mark, Former Security Supervisor, Planner,
& Derivative Classifier, Department of Energy

Graham, Gilbert M., Retired Special Agent, Counterintelligence, FBI

Kleiman, Diane, Former Special Agent, US Customs

Kwiatkowski, Karen U., Lt. Col. USAF (ret.), Veteran Policy Analyst-DoD

Larkin, Lynne A., Former Operation Officer, CIA

MacMichael, David, Former Senior Estimates Officer, CIA

McGovern, Raymond L., Former Analyst, CIA

Pahle, Theodore J., Retired Senior Intelligence Officer, DIA

Sarshar, Behrooz, Retired Language Specialist, FBI

Sullivan, Brian F., Retired Special Agent & Risk Management Specialist, FAA

Tortorich, Larry J., Retired US Naval Officer, US
Navy & Dept. of Homeland Security/TSA

Turner, Jane A., Retired Special Agent, FBI

Vincent, John B., Retired Special Agent, Counterterrorism, FBI

Whitehurst, Dr. Fred, Retired Supervisory Special
Agent/Laboratory Forensic Examiner, FBI

Wright, Ann, Col. US Army (ret.); and Former Foreign Service officer

Zipoli, Matthew J., Special Response Team (SRT) Officer, DOE


CC:

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Chairman
Pat Roberts &
Vice Chairman John D. Rockefeller
Senate Committee on the Judiciary,
Chairman Orrin G. Hatch &
Ranking Democratic Member Patrick Leahy
Senate Committee on Armed Services, Chairman John
Warner & Ranking Member Carl Levin
Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs,
Chairman Susan Collins &
Ranking Member Joseph Lieberman
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,
Chairman Porter J. Goss & Ranking Member Jane
Harman
House Committee on the Judiciary, Chairman F.
James Sensenbrenner, Jr. & Ranking Member John
Conyers
House Armed Services Committee, Chairman Duncan
Hunter & Ranking Member Ike Skelton
House Committee on Government Reform, Chairman
Tom Davis & Ranking Member Henry A. Waxman
House Select Committee on Homeland Security,
Chairman Christopher Cox & Ranking Member Jim
Turner
Senator Charles Grassley

For the record, Congress has not made a move to address the foregoing.

As we are all witnessing right now, whistleblowers that would make the system stay honest are being strongly discouraged and even purged from federal employment. In a recent memo by new CIA Director Porter Goss, one of those involved in the 9-11 cover-up and one of the three persons (Senators Graham and Kyl, Congressman Goss) that Pakistan ISI head Lt.Col. Mahmood Ahmed was meeting with in Washington when 9-11 happened, issued this warning to CIA employees. Remember that it was this Pakistani lieutenant colonel that wired $100,000 to Mohammed Atta shortly before 9-11.

GOSS MEMO MANDATES CIA EMPLOYEES TO SUPPORT BUSH POLICIES
Tue Nov 16 2004

Porter Goss, the new intelligence chief, has told Central Intelligence Agency employees that their job is to "support the administration and its policies in our work," a copy of the internal memorandum shows. The NEW YORK TIMES is planning to lead Wednesday's paper with the memo, newsroom sources tell DRUDGE.

MORE

"As agency employees we do not identify with, support or champion opposition to the administration or its policies," Goss said in the memorandum, which was circulated late on Monday. He said in the document that he was seeking "to clarify beyond doubt the rules of the road."

That, ladies and gentlemen, is "Controlling the Mythology" and silencing dissent so they can continue to operate our government above the law and in secret.



posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 01:26 AM
link   
Sunofone


Link to your sources for your last post [posted on 9-4-2005 at 02:18 AM Post Number: 1309423 (post id: 1331316)] would be appreciated.

Also, bear in mind, that all you need to do is quote a few paragraphs and a working link to the article(s) that you are sourcing will do.


Thank you.







seekerof

[edit on 9-4-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 01:27 AM
link   
the credentials dont get much better than this
***************************************************
"A respected firefighting trade magazine with ties to the city Fire Department is calling for a "full-throttle, fully resourced" investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center. A signed editorial in the January issue of Fire Engineering magazine says the current investigation is "a half-baked farce." The piece by Bill Manning, editor of the 125-year-old monthly that frequently publishes technical studies of major fires, also says the steel from the site should be preserved so investigators can examine what caused the collapse. "Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happy Land social club fire? ... That's what they're doing at the World Trade Center," the editorial says. "The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately." Fire Engineering counted FDNY Deputy Chief Raymond Downey, the department's chief structural expert, among its senior advisers. Downey was killed in the Sept. 11 attack. John Jay College's fire engineering expert, Prof. Glenn Corbett, serves as the magazine's technical editor.

A group of engineers from the American Society of Civil Engineers, with backing from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, has been studying some aspects of the collapse. But Manning and others say that probe has not looked at all aspects of the disaster and has had limited access to documents and other evidence. A growing number of fire protection engineers have theorized that "the structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers," the editorial stated.
************************************************
FE's Bill Manning Calls for Comprehensive Investigation of WTC Collapse

Fair Lawn, NJ, January 4, 2002 - Bill Manning, Fire Engineering's editor in chief, is summoning members of the fire service to "A Call to Action." In his January 2002 Editor's Opinion, "$elling Out the Investigation" (below ), he warns that unless there is a full-blown investigation by an independent panel established solely for that purpose, "the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals." Manning explained: "Clearly, there are burning questions that need answers .... The lessons about the buildings' design and behavior in this extraordinary event must be learned and applied in the real world."

In an interview with the New York Daily News today, Manning reiterated his call for a "full-throttle, fully resourced" investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center. He is asking members of the fire service to read "WTC 'Investigation'? A Call to Action" in the January 2002 issue of Fire Engineering and at fireengineering.com and to contact their representatives in Congress and officials in Washington to ask that a blue ribbon panel be convened to thoroughly investigate the WTC collapse.

Among those also calling for the investigation are Sally Regenhard, the mother of Christian Regenhard, the Fire Department of New York (FDNY) probationary firefighter killed in the World Trade Center (WTC) attack, and founder of the Campaign for Skyscraper Safety; Give Your Voice, a civilian relatives' group headed by Michael Cartier, who lost his brother in the collapse; prominent structural engineers and fire-safety experts, and New York State Senators Charles Schumer and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.
***********************************************
[Continuing text from the Fire Engineering page]
$elling Out the Investigation
By Bill Manning

Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happyland Social Club Fire? Did they cast aside the pressure-regulating valves at the Meridian Plaza Fire? Of course not. But essentially, that's what they're doing at the World Trade Center.

For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car.

Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall.

Hoping beyond hope, I have called experts to ask if the towers were the only high-rise buildings in America of lightweight, center-core construction. No such luck. I made other calls asking if these were the only buildings in America with light-density, sprayed-on fireproofing. Again, no luck-they were two of thousands that fit the description.

Comprehensive disaster investigations mean increased safety. They mean positive change. NASA knows it. The NTSB knows it.

Does FEMA know it?

No. Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything.

Maybe we should live and work in planes. That way, if disaster strikes, we will at least be sure that a thorough investigation will help find ways to increase safety for our survivors.

As things now stand and if they continue in such fashion, the investigation into the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer generated hypotheticals.

However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.

The frequency of published and unpublished reports raising questions about the steel fireproofing and other fire protection elements in the buildings, as well as their design and construction, is on the rise. The builders and owners of the World Trade Center property, the Port Authority of New York-New Jersey, a governmental agency that operates in an accountability vacuum beyond the reach of local fire and building codes, has denied charges that the buildings' fire protection or construction components were substandard but has refused to cooperate with requests for documentation supporting its contentions.

Some citizens are taking to the streets to protest the investigation sellout. Sally Regenhard, for one, wants to know why and how the building fell as it did upon her unfortunate son Christian, an FDNY probationary firefighter. And so do we.

Clearly, there are burning questions that need answers. Based on the incident's magnitude alone, a full-throttle, fully resourced, forensic investigation is imperative. More important, from a moral standpoint, for the safety of present and future generations who live and work in tall buildings-and for firefighters, always first in and last out-the lessons about the buildings' design and behavior in this extraordinary event must be learned and applied in the real world.

To treat the September 11 incident any differently would be the height of stupidity and ignorance.

The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately.

The federal government must scrap the current setup and commission a fully resourced blue ribbon panel to conduct a clean and thorough investigation of the fire and collapse, leaving no stones unturned.

Firefighters, this is your call to action. Visit WTC "Investigation"?: A Call to Action, then contact your representatives in Congress and officials in Washington and help us correct this problem immediately.

[edit on 9-4-2005 by Sunofone]



posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 01:29 AM
link   
The collapse of the WTC

by Kevin Ryan
Underwriters Laboratories
Thursday, Nov 11, 2004

The following letter was sent today by Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories to Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Underwriters Laboratories is the company that certified the steel componets used in the constuction of the World Trade Center towers. The information in this letter is of great importance.

Dr. Gayle,

Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly.

As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.

There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel…burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown’s theory."

We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.

The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse." The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.

However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building’s steel core to "soften and buckle." (5) Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C." To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.

This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.

There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at the crux of the crux of the crux. Either you can make sense of what really happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or we all face the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based on disinformation and “chatter”.

Thanks for your efforts to determine what happened on that day. You may know that there are a number of other current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth. I've copied one of these people on this message as a sign of respect and support. I believe your work could also be a nucleus of fact around which the truth, and thereby global peace and justice, can grow again. Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel.

1. www.boulderweekly.com... 2. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 61st edition, pg D-187 3. wtc.nist.gov... 4. www.voicesofsept11.org... 5. wtc.nist.gov... (pg 11) 6. www.forging.org...

Kevin Ryan

Site Manager Environmental Health Laboratories A Division of Underwriters Laboratories

www.septembereleventh.org...
************************************************************
look what happens to you if you speak out

**************************************************************
Kevin R. Ryan Terminated at Underwriters Laboratories
Area Man Stirs Debate on WTC Collapse:
South Bend firm's lab director fired after questioning federal probe
JOHN DOBBERSTEIN / South Bend Tribune 22nov04



SOUTH BEND — The laboratory director from a South Bend firm has been fired for attempting to cast doubt on the federal investigation into what caused the World Trade Center's twin towers to collapse on Sept. 11, 2001.

Kevin R. Ryan was terminated Tuesday from his job at Environmental Health Laboratories Inc., a subsidiary of Underwriters Laboratories Inc., the consumer-product safety testing giant.

On Nov. 11, Ryan wrote a letter to the National Institute of Standards and Technology — the agency probing the collapse — challenging the common theory that burning jet fuel weakened the steel supports holding up the 110-story skyscrapers.

Underwriters Laboratories Inc., according to Ryan, "was the company that certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings."

Ryan wrote that last year, while "requesting information," UL's chief executive officer and fire protection business manager disagreed about key issues surrounding the collapse, "except for one thing — that the samples we certified met all requirements.



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 10:18 PM
link   
September 12, 2001

New York City

Louie Cacchioli, 51, is a firefighter assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem.

We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck. I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building. I had just asked another firefighter to stay with me, which was a good thing because we were trapped inside the elevator and he had the tools to get out.

There were probably 500 people trapped in the stairwell. It was mass chaos. The power went out. It was dark. Everybody was screaming. We had oxygen masks and we were giving people oxygen. Some of us made it out and some of us didn't. I know of at least 30 firefighters who are still missing. This is my 20th year. I am seriously considering retiring. This might have done it.
firefighter witness video



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 01:50 AM
link   
holy **** Sunofone!!!

Awesome Find!!!!!!

this is nuts!!!!




posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 10:59 PM
link   
they cant supress the evil they have perpetrated-the truth,upon being supressed,gathers pressure exponentially until one day it blows up like a champagne cork
*****************************************************************

C-Span to Cover 9/11 Truth Talk at UW-Madison Monday!

Kevin Barrett, 12.04.2005 21:14

C-Span will challenge the official version of the 9/11 "terrorist attacks" with a nationwide delayed broadcast of a talk by David Ray Griffin at U.W.-Madison Monday 4/18/05, 7:30 p.m., in 272 Bascom Hall. The public is invited to attend, and admission is free.

Griffin's The New Pearl Harbor sparked the 9/11 Truth Movement

The nationwide news network C-span has broken the blackout on the 9/11 truth movement, raising hopes that other media outlets will follow, by deciding to broadcast a lecture by David Ray Griffin in Madison Monday night. An acclaimed philosopher-theologian and author of the 9/11 truth blockbusters The New Pearl Harbor and The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, Dr. Griffin will be making a rare public appearance at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Monday night, April 18th. at 7:30 p.m. in 272 Bascom Hall. His brand-new talk, entitled "9/11 and the American Empire: How Should Religious People Respond?" will focus on the ethical and spiritual dimension of facing the overwhelming evidence that the Bush Administration was complicit in the attacks of September 11th, 2001. His Madison appearance celebrates the founding of the new group MUJCA-NET: Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth: mujca.com....

Two related events will precede the Griffin talk: A discussion of David Griffin's 9/11 books will be held on Sunday, April 17th, 2-4 p.m.at Peregrine Forum, 616 S. Brearly St., Madison, WI (608) 442-4399; and a benefit dinner for the Griffin talk and MUJCA-NET will be held at Catacombs Coffee House, directly across from Memorial Library on the U.W.-Madison campus from 5 to 7 p.m. on Monday 4/18, right before the talk. Ten bucks buys all-you-can-eat cous-cous, falafel and baklava; David Griffin says he will be there, offering attendees the chance to shake the hand of the man political analyst Kevin Phillips says will take down the Bush Administration in flames.
milwaukee.indymedia.org...



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join