Political Leaders - 9/11 Truth Website Offically Started 3/6/09- 29 Leaders of World Joined So Far!

reply to post by CameronFox


CameronFox, you are mixing oranges with apples again.
That was a totally stripped building, all windows removed, all non-critical walls removed, and a bottom-up demolition.

What we all saw on 911, were two top-down demolitions. In a fully intact part of the buildings, namely below the plane impact points.
And the first explosion occurred very high up, followed by a cascade of follow-up explosions, all the way down.


Pteridine is basically right, for any known nuclear incident with scientifically published known side effects. No evidence = no event.

But we were contemplating in all past threads regarding this nuclear subject, the use of much newer, unknown devices, 4th and fifth generation types, with unknown scientific data.


My latest stand on the nuclear subject is that it is unresolved for a small, unknown part, but has a low chance of really having occurred.


I am still looking into a much more viable option, the use of thermobarics. They have a low frequency sound footprint, and can be calculated to just fracture a whole floor in a closed environment like a building, without showing much explosive force outside its exterior.

The two tower demolitions were top-down ones, and started high up from street level, so the first detonations were arriving later to the ears of the spectators and to the microphones of the video tapers, than the basement explosions.
I have asked myself for many years why there should have been basement explosions (William Rodriguez et al), when they were not needed for the destructive effect of the obvious top-down demolition.

Lately, I realized that the speed of sound was the culprit that the perpetrators had to overcome.
So they used basement explosions to cover the one second that the sound of the first top demolition charge needed to travel the 333 meters down to street level.
That way the collapse was accompanied by a starting rumble and than directly followed by a constant increase of sound, caused by the cascading down demolition charges, which were probably thermobarics, added with perhaps some C-4 explosives or the likes, to cut thick columns at the three reinforced maintenance double floors.
Thus they created a continuous rumble, sounding like a natural collapse.
The later explosions were drowning in the overall immense rumbling sound of the orchestrated total collapse.


I always used to demonstrate the low sound footprint of a thermobaric by filling a strong plastic garbage bag with the gas-mixture for steel cutting available at gas suppliers, and igniting the securely closed bag of gas with some gasoline leading to it in an open parking lot with no cars, preferably.
Be careful when trying to duplicate that, take enough distance, about 50 meters minimum, or you are in for a surprise.
And this is just a very, very basic form of a gaseous explosion. If you exercise it in a closed environment, all windows will blow out and walls will crack.
You will mainly FEEL the explosion, and that feeling will overpower your hearing of it, since it is such a low frequency event.

See and hear the videos from Rick Siegel, "9/11 Eyewitness". Then you hear and feel the low frequency footprints of the initial explosions, and the following collapse cascade explosions, which were registered as a constant rumble by the news reporters at street level :

One of the early 911 Eyewitness threads :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And take note, that sound travels much faster through steel, then water from the Hudson River, than through air OVER the Hudson River.

Originally posted by CameronFox
Unless those are "Hush-A-Squibs "........In all the videos of all the collapses... did you happen to hear anything like that?

Yep, sure did. Google/YouTube the video called "9/11 Eyewitness" which filmed the towers from Hoboken in New Jersey about 2 miles away. You can clearly hear all of the pre-collapse and collapse detonations from both towers.

Bonez... I was accused of derailing this thread when I spoke of one of the PL members. I will not continue to discuss the CD theory on this thread, as this would be clearly be off topic. If you want to revive one of the old threads, let me know and I will join you there.

reply to post by questioningall


Pure Crap! Those 29 "Polical Leaders" that signed on are as useful as writing your Congressman! Just because some hick in the sticks of Australia signed on, does that mean that the US Govt is going to cave in to his demands? Hardly!

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by BlasteR

 

Blaster,
You said "The one case that is made by Air Force General George Nelson stands out in my mind.. WOW !!"

George Nelson was a Colonel, not a General.

You are correct. I stand corrected.

Originally posted by pteridine
He is fixated on serialized replacement parts on the four aircraft involved and the lack of information regarding those parts made available by the investigative agencies of the Federal Govenment. His opinions on what hit where and holes not being big enough have no credence because he was a maintenance officer and not a structural engineer.

He actually does touch on other aspects of 9/11 in his essay/statement.
But regardless of his professional experience he is only pointing out the facts..

not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view. The hard evidence would have included hundreds of critical time-change aircraft items, plus security videotapes that were confiscated by the FBI immediately following each tragic episode.

And yet, still, the simple truth is that no part of any aircraft involved in the 9/11 attacks has ever been seen and studied in detail by anyone but the FBI. Thus, the four aircraft supposedly involved in the attacks were never verified. We simply took everyones word for it which planes/flights these were when there is nothing at all proving they were even airliners with passengers. You would think it a pretty important detail.. These parts have still never come public even in leu of the 9/11 commission inquiry. Not even they know for sure that these were the aircraft everyone sais they were...LOL!

At the site of the supposedly crashed flight 77, parts were on the site but it has never even been verified that these were parts belonging to an airliner of any kind.. That would seem like a pretty important detail to leave out too..

You would think that the government under fire from 9/11 truthers everywhere would declassify at least some of the parts in an effort to quell public dissonance. They have not. The way I see it, There are only 2 logical possibilities here...

1-Either they have the actual parts and for some unknown reason refuse to release or otherwise allow them to be viewed by the public for positive verification of the aircraft type, tail numbers, etc.. OR

2-They have something to hide.

7 and a half years later our government doesn't seem to really think it matters. Meanwhile one of the entire reasons for 9/11 truthers coming out of the woodwork is because of this same unexplained secretive nonsense by the government and the FBI. Some folks seem to always ask why there are so many 9/11 truthers. This is one of the biggest reasons why.

What is so critical for the FBI to hide about these parts that they would be confiscated so rapidly after the planes supposedly crashed and then never allowed to be seen by anyone? The point is that the secrecy remains therefore these kinds of questions remain. The record has never been set straight. We don't have all the facts.

9/11 truthers are only after the truth.. (No, I don't consider myself a 9/11 truther).

Originally posted by pteridine
He knows about USAF rules for replacement parts and investigating failures. None of the aircraft failed; they all worked just fine. He does not know about how big holes in buildings should be just because he happens to understand landing gear serial number requirements.
He can't make a "case" for anything. All he can do is to say he has no proof that the planes were those lost on 911 because he hasn't seen the serial numbers. He seems to need public attention.

He is an air force colonel with specialized experience in time-change parts. We know he is not an engineer. There are probably other 9/11 truther engineers who have already talked about these issues in great detail. He only talks about the hole in the ground because he is applying his own expertise and knowledge and forming a valid opinoin based on what he sees. No, he is not an expert in holes in the ground left by crashing airliners.. Few people are. He doesn't claim to be an expert in that area either.

If you can look at the footage of the pentagon attack and show me an airliner I would love to see it. The video footage of what really happened at the Pentagon exists but it has been kept secret from public view for nearly 8 years for unexplained reasons. The only reason we even have grainy footage of the attacks is because of a lawsuit filed against the government (basically for being caught in a lie with regards to an official FOIA request).
911research.wtc7.net...

Supposedly there are around 85 video tapes that captured some or all of what happened at the Pentagon. This IS the Pentagon though.. 85 sounds alot like a pretty realistic number. We will never know, of coarse, until the tapes are released (and if they aren't going to be released 8 years later they may never be). I only ask what would be so critical to keep secret that this evidence of what happened would not be released to the public?

AGAIN.. An unexplained brick wall of government and FBI secrecy surrounding the events of September 11th for reasons we can only speculate about. This is a recurring theme.

Then we have the complex tail number conflicts Colonel Nelson also pointed out. We have discussed this issue to great length in other ATS threads. Some people here have done an immense amount of research on this one aspect too. Yet we still have never been told truth or given an explanation regarding that aspect either.

-ChriS

[edit on 8-3-2009 by BlasteR]

[edit on 8-3-2009 by BlasteR]

Hello, this is my first post. I've been reading this website for awhile and good 80% of what I read reminds of ramblings of a paranoid man. However, reading some comments in this thread, I just had to register and join the discussion.

First of all, the term "Political Leader" is quite loose.

In my opinion it should be called "Political Officials for 9/11 Truth".

However...

What skeptics need to realize is that as of right now the website is only 3 days old. Imagine what it will be in a month? A year? 3 Years?

Important links to check out.

www.pl911truth.com - Political Leaders for an independent 9/11 investigation

www.911citizenswatch.org... - members of families of those who were killed on 9/11 demanding a new independent investigation.

www.st911.org... - Scholars for 9/11 - college and university professors questioning the official story

www.ae911truth.org... - architects and engineers for truth.

lawyersfor911truth.blogspot.com... - Lawyers for truth.

911research.wtc7.net... - 9/11 commission report is full of lies and conveniently missing pieces.


[edit on 9-3-2009 by mishabaikal]

Originally posted by mishabaikal
Hello, this is my first post. I've been reading this website for awhile and good 80% of what I read reminds of ramblings of a paranoid man. However, reading some comments in this thread, I just had to register and join the discussion.

First of all, the term "Political Leader" is quite loose.

In my opinion it should be called "Political Officials for 9/11 Truth".

However...

What skeptics need to realize is that as of right now the website is only 3 days old. Imagine what it will be in a month? A year? 3 Years?

Important links to check out.

www.pl911truth.com - Political Leaders for an independent 9/11 investigation

www.911citizenswatch.org... - members of families of those who were killed on 9/11 demanding a new independent investigation.

www.st911.org... - Scholars for 9/11 - college and university professors questioning the official story

www.ae911truth.org... - architects and engineers for truth.

lawyersfor911truth.blogspot.com... - Lawyers for truth.

911research.wtc7.net... - 9/11 commission report is full of lies and conveniently missing pieces.


[edit on 9-3-2009 by mishabaikal]

Excuse me Laughing so loud butt.....

In my Opinion you should change your website because they are not even Officials
They might be Politically motivated, but certainly not in any way a Official,
and therefore not a Official Representive of a Political Party.
In other words, what your website is saying is total Bullocks.

reply to post by CameronFox


CameronFox,

Good video!!!!

Now THAT was a 'free-fall' !!!!!

Because that tall building was intentionally detonated!

I have watched, with a lump in my throat, every time the WTC Towers collapsed.....and, it should be obvious to everyone, as it was to me.....that the extreme weight of the upper portions, after the damage below weakened enough, allowed the potential energy, the 'gravity' of that tremendous weight to begin to fall. It was the ENERGY of that, all of that weight, that caused the progressive collapsing....floor by floor, by floor.

Everyone, I think, remembers which Tower was hit first, and which one collapsed first!!!!

reply to post by _BoneZ_


BoneZ.....two miles away?

Are you allowing for the speed of sound vs/ the speed of light?

Ever seen a fireworks display????

reply to post by BlasteR


BlasteR

That was a long post.....so I'll focus on just ONE point.

You said that AAL77, at the Pentagon, left NOTHING that could be identified as a part of an airplane.....ermmmm, there are numerous photos showing sections of the fuselage, the wheels, the landing gear parts...and, here's the biggie! The CVR and DFDR!!!

The read-outs from UAL93 and AAL77 DFDRs are readily availible on the Internet, if you care to look.

If you need help iintrepreting them, just ask.

EDIT....I should have added, the CVR 'transcripts', timed to co-incide with the DFDR data, available as well. CVR recordings are NEVER aired publically. Transcriptions are made....FAA ATC recordings ARE aired....not to be confused with actual on-board recorder, the CVR.

Modern CVRs record a lot....there is the 'CAM', or cockpit area microphone...they also record VHF1, VHF2, and, if installed, VHF3. Also, HF1 and HF2 (if installed). Also, the Interphone system....so all Cabin-to-cabin and Cockpit-to-cabin conversations are recorded....OH! And the PA system too.

AND, if the hot-mic option is selected, depending on the airplane, then all talking between the pilots on the hot-mic are recorded!

In NTSB accident investigations, a lot of extraneous non-pertinent info is left out from the transcripts.

Obviously, the events of 9/11 were viewed as a CRIME, not a traditonal 'accident'.

Please research other 'accidents' iin history that involve air piracy....a PSA jet crash in California in 1987 comes to mind...(a four engined de-Havilland) ... result of a disgruntled fired employee.

A FedEx DC-10, out of Memphis, don't remember the year....the pilots were attacked, by a disgruntled soon-to-be-ex employee....but they landed safely. Still, by 'definintion', it was an accident due to greivous bodily injury.

I'd say, look into those, and see if the FBI took over from the NTSB.

The NTSB is not a 'crime investigating' body....it is an accident investigating body.

[edit on 3/9/0909 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by BlasteR

 

BlasteR

That was a long post.....so I'll focus on just ONE point.

You said that AAL77, at the Pentagon, left NOTHING that could be identified as a part of an airplane.....ermmmm, there are numerous photos showing sections of the fuselage, the wheels, the landing gear parts...and, here's the biggie! The CVR and DFDR!!!

The read-outs from UAL93 and AAL77 DFDRs are readily availible on the Internet, if you care to look.

If you need help iintrepreting them, just ask.

Yes that is true, parts were found

Apparently all those parts were Planted by the Spooks afterwards.
The Pentagon must of had these ready in the basement just ready
for such an event.

Surely, Eyewitnesses would have noticed if a ICBM, Cruise Missile or
Fighter Jet and not a JUMBO JET was heading for the Pentagon.

Their only claim to fame, was not enough debris for a Jumbo.
But there have a few aircraft around the world crashed and no obvious
debris found. In these other cases the debris was 1" pieces scattered
like confetti and even engines were ploughed so far into the earth they
had to excavate them.

reply to post by skeptic_al


skeptic_al


A B757 is NOT a 'JUMBO JET'.

Nevertheless....assuming you weren't being sarcastic....(or maybe you WERE, but not towards me...)

I didn't wish this to be a focus on JUST the Pentagon....but, since I live here......

I'd like to see some of these 'truthers' actually travel to Washington, DC, and track down the Arlington, Virginia firefighters who were part of the 'First Responders', and interview them as to what the did, or DID NOT see!!!

Sorry.....I see this 9/11 'Monday Morning Quarterbacking' as just that.....UNTIL we stop the accusations, and innuendo, and speak to REAL people!!!! Actual witnesses!!!

This new fantastic website "Political leaders for 9/11 Truth" should have Philip Zelikow as spokesperson so it gets clear to people what its all about.

This truth movement was set up by the perps from day one and all the so called truth websites has a little Zelikow controlling them and steering you away from the real truth.

Try clapping your hands 110 times in 10 seconds and you will see what I mean. You were watching a "movie" on 9/11.


Best
D.Duck

reply to post by weedwhacker


I'll tell you what Mr. expert of 12 hours on the internet.

I'll bet my 27 years as a Sr. Aerospace Engineer against you Kool-aid drink you have had from the Govt.
There is no way, the Pentagon and Flight 93 where aircraft like they described.
The probabilities are in the infinite as to the twin towers, both being hit from different angles at different levels, and come down exactly the same.

I watched it live on Multiple channels, and knew then something was not right. What they called expert analysis was more like a magic wand.

I guess if you want to believe the magician, your more than welcome.

Originally posted by j2000
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

I'll tell you what Mr. expert of 12 hours on the internet.

I'll bet my 27 years as a Sr. Aerospace Engineer against you Kool-aid drink you have had from the Govt.
There is no way, the Pentagon and Flight 93 where aircraft like they described.
The probabilities are in the infinite as to the twin towers, both being hit from different angles at different levels, and come down exactly the same.

I watched it live on Multiple channels, and knew then something was not right. What they called expert analysis was more like a magic wand.

I guess if you want to believe the magician, your more than welcome.

Fine...I will bet my 22 years in military aviation and the combined 87 years of aviation experience of four of my friends that were at the Pentagon and watched Flight 77 slam into the Pentagon...that it was indeed a 757 airliner that impacted the Pentagon that day.

NOW, shall we break out the tape measure and see who can pee the farthest?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I have watched, with a lump in my throat, every time the WTC Towers collapsed.....and, it should be obvious to everyone, as it was to me.....that the extreme weight of the upper portions, after the damage below weakened enough, allowed the potential energy, the 'gravity' of that tremendous weight to begin to fall. It was the ENERGY of that, all of that weight, that caused the progressive collapsing....floor by floor, by floor.

Hate to burst your perfect little world, but 3 WTC buildings were brought down with explosives on 9/11. If you don't believe me, call any controlled demo company and ask them if they blow up a few floors in the top third of a building, if the whole building will come crashing down onto itself. They will tell you no. Controlled demo experts wire buildings from top to bottom.

Why do they wire buildings from top to bottom? Because buildings are strong and built to stand strong. You have resistance below and unless you remove that resistance, your building will not collapse. The resistance was removed on 9/11 in the form of explosives. You can see some of those explosives being detonated in the form of puffs or jets of dust/debris coming out the sides of the towers all the way down.

In a project I'm working on for those of you that don't believe, I compared one of those puffs from the towers to the one's you see in controlled demolition. They are an exact match. Proof positive that those are explosives being detonated to take the resistance away and allow the building to free-fall collapse.

Controlled demo experts would be rich beyond believe if all they had to do was start some fires on a few floors near the top of a building, or even destroy a few floors with explosives. But that's not how controlled demolitions work. They would be rich because of all the time and money they would save from having to wire an entire building from top to bottom and pay all the workers to do all that work.

With your logic, you should start your own controlled demo company and just set some fires or use explosives on just a few floors near the top and watch the building collapse.......NOT.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by _BoneZ_]

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Hate to burst your perfect little world, but 3 WTC buildings were brought down with explosives on 9/11. If you don't believe me, call any controlled demo company and ask them if they blow up a few floors in the top third of a building, if the whole building will come crashing down onto itself. They will tell you no. Controlled demo experts wire buildings from top to bottom.

Why do they wire buildings from top to bottom? Because buildings are strong and built to stand strong. You have resistance below and unless you remove that resistance, your building will not collapse. The resistance was removed on 9/11 in the form of explosives. You can see some of those explosives being detonated in the form of puffs or jets of dust/debris coming out the sides of the towers all the way down.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by _BoneZ_]

Bone,
The demo companies have no experience with anything the size of the WTC's and don't know what would happen if they "blew up a few floors in the top third of the building." They don't think about those thinigs and have no experience with them because that is not how they do controlled demolitions. Their opinion is just another opinion when it comes to the WTC towers.
The towers were not a controlled demolition. You may think they were because it "feels" like they should be, but the event is so far out of any other experience that gut feelings don't count. Some believe that a catastrophic collapse shoud be more leisurely and different from a demolition. Gravity shouldn't work as well if something fails due to fire or accidental impact as it does if the impact is planned through explosive charges.

Originally posted by pteridine
The demo companies have no experience with anything the size of the WTC's

Who are you to say how experienced any demo company is? That's only your opinion based on your denial against the facts. When I finally show my evidence that the puffs like these:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/82681924bc62.jpg[/atsimg]

operate exactly identical to the ones coming from the towers, then what are you going to debunk, hmm? You'll probably make up something as you always do.

Look at those apartment towers in that pic. They were brought down from the top down, very similar to the WTC towers. Now make those apartment towers in the pic taller and spread the puffs out a little more and there you have WTC sized towers with the puffs coming out down the side of the building, just as the WTC. It doesn't matter how tall the buildings are, the WTC towers and these apartment towers were brought down very similarly.

The only thing different between these apartment towers and the WTC is that these apartment towers are being collapsed. The WTC towers were blown from the inside out and all four sides peeled out like a banana.

reply to post by pteridine

The towers were not a controlled demolition.

And you have proof of all this, right? Because all you are doing is giving us, is your opinion.
I hope you are not going to say yes, and tell me to read the NIST report because most people know that is a sham. The NIST report dose not stand up to real science and that’s a fact.

You are right about one thing, there is no documentation of any building the size of the WTC being demolished by explosions, however if the WTC where brought down by demolition, explosion just how do you think it would have fell.

It would have fell the same way any building falls when demolition explosion are used and that my friend is what we all saw on TV on the morning of 911.
If a false flag operation was, being done this is exactly how they would go about it.
If you cannot see a cover up, then you have not research 911 well. There is an old saying that is very true, if it blew up like an explosion, and looks like an explosion, and sounded like an explosion, and smell of an explosion, then it is an explosion. Just like WTC 7 and no plane hit that building.