http://rinf.com/alt-news/911-truth/911-truth-we%E2%80%99ve-got-the-bbc-on-the-run/1706/
Since July 2007 British scientist, member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice and RINF science correspondent, John A. Blacker, has been in an ongoing battle with the BBC over their lie infested hit piece programme ‘9/11: The Conspiracy Files’, which aired in February 2007 and was designed to present an unfair view of the 9/11 truth movement and prominent researchers. Mr Blacker is currently in ‘pre-action protocol’ with the BBC, meaning they have to try and settle the argument out of court.
In this latest update, Mr Blacker has been informed of a scheduled meeting, due to take place in October which has now been pushed back further to late November. This is the third time the BBC has bought more time by delaying the meeting. A clear sign they are struggling to piece together a legal case to defend their actions.
With the BBC desperately on the run, I am making available the latest letter Mr Blacker has sent them, in which he pin points even more of the faults contained in the programme and demands an apology for their blatant lies as their hit piece is a complete disrespect to the truth and an insult to all who died on 9/11.
Please take the time to read the letter published below. As stated many months ago, RINF Alternative News will not allow this issue to be dropped and we’ve only just begun the battle to see justice prevail and the BBC admit it is guilty of mass public deception in a court of law.
Pre action for damages without prejudice.
Thursday, 08 November 2007
Dear Chairman,
Thank you for your letter dated 31 October 2007 and the 6 section Cover notes for appeal of which accompanied said.
Firstly I request and Expect each and every member of the decision panel to disclose their affiliations such as to “Common Purpose” “Masons” etc, etc and to forward said disclosure to the Chair. I am a member of AE911 truth, STJ911 truth and also ST911 truth, I am not currently a member of any political party & I am 1 of three professional partners of Physical Systems, Lancaster England & a qualified Physicist & Mechanical Engineer.
I shall be going through the folder you sent in order stating from section 1 and making my comments & observations as I proceed if I may, as this is the first opportunity I have been given to these information resources in their current format.
SECTION 1
(1) The Item
The Conspiracy files team spoke to and recorded the testimony of many eyewitnesses, fire fighters, police officers, and public high witnesses, plus also officialdom high witnesses and had access to written testimony from many high witnesses via official sites on the WWW.
YET NOT ONE SINGLE HIGH WITNESS WAS PRESENTED IN THE DOCUMENTARY TO PUT THE TRUTH PERSPECTIVE.
If the documentary was not biases — WHY not one?
Take for example the evidence of Fire CAPTAIN KARIN DESHORE who states on page 15 of the official report given to official government 911 investigators quote:
“SOMEWHERE AROUND THE MIDDLE OF THE WORLD
TRADE CENTER THERE WAS THIS ORANGE AND RED FLASH
COMING OUT INITIALLY IT WAS JUST ONE FLASH THEN
THIS FLASH JUST KEPT POPPING ALL THE WAY AROUND THE
BUILDING AND THAT BUILDING HAD STARTED TO EXPLODE THE
POPPING SOUND AND WITH EACH POPPING SOUND IT WAS
INITIALLY AN ORANGE AND THEN RED FLASH CAME OUT OF
THE BUILDING AND THEN IT WOULD JUST GO ALL AROUND THE
BUILDING ON BOTH SIDES AS FAR AS COULD SEE THESE
POPPING SOUNDS AND THE EXPLOSIONS WERE GETTING BIGGER
GOING BOTH UP AND DOWN AND THEN ALL AROUND THE
BUILDING”
What sort of research did the BBC team do? How can a documentary ignore such clear damming evidence?
WHAT WAS THE ACTUAL PROCESS OF SELECTING INFORMATION TO PRESENT TO THE PUBLIC?
What checks and balances ensured impartiality & the delivery of FACTUAL & accurate information worthy of a BBC Documentary & BBC viewers ?????
Alex Jones stated that he was filmed for many many hours and forwarded documentary proof upon proof to the BBC documentary team, yet all of that proof was ignored in favour of what was shown – why? What selection criteria was used, if not to deliberately select out everything which was conclusive in favour of what was actually shown – which was nothing more than Hearsay, Opinion & NEGATIVE Stereotyping of truth members.
High witnesses, actual Fire fighters and actual police were ignored by the BBC crew in favour of 3rd hand 3rd rate information. Why? Where is the journalistic integrity in this so called documentary?
Prof Jim Fetzer states the BBC team recorded many hours with him yet showed next to nothing of what he explained were the key science issues of the truth movement & the key evidence – why – what has the BBC got to hide – perhaps the FACTS???
Why was all of this key evidence censored?
(2.1)
The truth movement
A point which is missing, is the fact NO actual Physics was mentioned either to back the official government (Physically Impossible) lies, or more importantly, to explain why so many informed “intelligent” professional people do not believe the government lies because the official story simply defies the laws of physics.
1 There was not enough energy in the “collapse sequence” to turn the 300,000 tonnes of concrete and all of the floor panels to DUST – by a factor of at least 10.
2 3 buildings came to ground at near freefall; hence the undamaged, heaviest and strongest lower floors offered near zero resistance which was consistent with falling through clear AIR only.
3 Falling bodies never take the path of greatest resistance, EVER, always the path of least resistance only! (without exception)
4 A 757 simply can not fit through a 20 foot hole at the Pentagon – the program did not show the hole prior to collapse at the Pentagon, but misled the public into thinking the Jet had caused the damage after collapse. (TOTAL DECEIT)
I will stick to just 4 points here, however there are more, please see the actual correspondence from myself re key omissions of key & important points.
The Collapse of the twin towers.
There was not a single mention that NIST, who were hired by the US government to explain why the towers came to ground – did not cover the actual collapse sequence AT ALL.
The NIST report’s title was:
“Final report on the collapse of the world trade centre towers.”
Yet the official report did not actually even mention the “collapse” of the world trade centre towers or anything to do with building 007 (demolition 003).
In summary MANY pieces of KEY DAMMING information were deliberately and methodically left out or deliberately & methodically removed from the documentary during editing because they were far too conclusive, and far too damaging to the official government lies peddled by this BBC documentary. Instead of reporting the bread & butter truth issues the program was bulked out with nonsense from a science fiction writer and some really dodgy reporting from “Popular Mechanics” et al who gave not one slither of proof to the statements they made.
NOT a single first hand account was shown or mentioned – why? What process lead to no first hand accounts being selected or deemed worthy to be included or reported on in what was supposed to be a factual documentary?
SECTION 002 correction:
A second version of the letter dated 07/072007 was sent to the BBC via email to replace the one with hand written maths, this second version had typo corrections and also clearer printed maths which was better suited to publication online for the whole world to see.
http://rinf.com/alt-news/911-truth/st911-scientist-to-sue-bbc-for-public-deception/776/
SECTION 3
The original letter was intended to pursue action for damages and apology.
The response by the BBC was very positive as can be seen from the reply letters and it was at this point felt that whilst the documentary was a piece of yellow journalism designed to discredit the truth movement, it was perhaps not necessarily targeting and singling out any would be qualified scientist who was prepared to take a closer look at the evidence in detail, although it certainly did not encourage closer scrutiny as any fair and balanced documentary (considering all the evidence there is) should promote.
NOTE: What is the point of a BBC documentary if it does not promote learning and further research into the subject matter, as opposed to just reinforcing the “Physically Impossible” government lies?
As such after this point the Apology (for total public deception) and hopefully another program incorporating the actual key evidence and the actual first hand High witness testimony, would suffice.
May I complement the team on what was visually, an excellent piece, the problem lies with the integrity of other aspects of the program as stated in correspondence, including this.
SECTIONS 4.
Fine
SECTION 5.
On page 2.
“If a large passenger jet crashed into the Pentagon ….. why was the hole in the exterior wall apparently so small?”
Whilst this script was being spoken, Images of the damage at the pentagon was being flashed, the problem is, it shows the damage AFTER collapse, as being the actual damaged caused by the Jet impact. Only a knowledgeable person would know the image shown was “After Collapse” some 20 minutes later, and was not the damage caused by the jet impact as the sequence implies.
If only the 20 ft hole and the pre collapse images had been shown then this would have been honest journalism. As a result of confusing the viewer by flashing what was dishonest journalism and having those post collapse images associated with the initial jet impact, which was reinforced by the way in which the viewer was fed words and images together – this is propaganda Yellow Journalism portraying FALSE FACTS DECEPTION by stealth.
On page 2 again,
“Could a controlled demolition have caused this building to collapse at the World Trade Centre?”
How misleading could one short question statement & video combination be? The viewer sees a 47 story steel framed building descending straight down at near freefall of which is not one of the twin towers, it is not called by its name, Building WTC007, and the viewer is not informed the building came to ground on the actual day of 911 into its own footprint at near freefall speed.
Seeing as most of the population only know that 2 tall buildings were destroyed on the day of 911, would it not be honest journalism to actually name the building and mention the particular circumstances of which the building came to ground and of which is key to the truth movement perspective at the very least?
Again this is an example of deception by KEY FACT OMMISION.
On Page 12
19:22 into the documentary - the images are not of 5 Alleged Hijackers arriving and checking in at Dulles airport as the commentary suggests, but are in fact 2 young men checking in hundreds of miles from DULLES at 5.45:08 on 9-11-01 in a an alleged link flight.
Why was the misleading CCTV image used to totally deceive the unsuspecting Public viewer in combination with misleading narration? Why was the genuine actual image not shown, if they exist?
On Page 13.
Minutes later the façade of the building collapsed.
The military say there was limited damage to the exterior wall, ……cont
NO mention was made of the no fly zone around the pentagon and how large it is. No mention was made of the two rings of ground to air missile defence. No mention was made of the fact if any unauthorised aircraft reaches the outer zone jets are automatically scrambled to intercept and take under 10 seconds (YES UNDER 10 seconds) from lift-off to reach the Pentagon. No mention that if the unauthorised aircraft reaches the inner zone, regardless of transponder on or off, the missile batteries shoot until the target is destroyed.
These key omissions are clear evidence of deliberate bias in reporting by omitting key information essential for the viewer to make a knowledgeable informed assessment of the Pentagon FACTS.
On Page 14.
21:19 into the documentary an engineer states: “What I usually say is that is Bullshit, but what I’ll say is that it’s just flawed people that have something to dream about to make a name for themselves. It’s absolutely not true.
NOTE: AT no point in this Engineers statement does he once mention a 757 or large JET as hitting the Pentagon. A plane & plane wreckage at the pentagon is not the same as 757 plane wreckage at the Pentagon, indeed, there was an engine and plane wreckage found at the Pentagon.
This part of the documentary has to be one of the most deceitful parts. Pardon the pun.
Firstly the actual question relating to 757 wreckage was never put to the engineer on camera, for all the viewer knows the BBC crew could have asked the Engineer absolutely anything.
And What exactly is “ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE”?
The journalism here is of the lowest possible quality and is clearly “YELLOW” and a deliberate attempt to make members of the truth movement who question the evidence of a 757 at the Pentagon - look ridiculous - and not actually get to the bottom of the saga via irrefutable evidence etc.
A motorcycle fuel tank & bike parts (small engine & wheels) at a crash scene is not evidence of a Wagon has crashed.
EVEN the Engineer did not say he witnessed ANY parts off a 757 or large Jet - to suggest a qualified Engineer would not know the difference between parts off a BIG jet and parts off a small one would be the height of stupidity.
It would be like saying an Engineer would not know the difference between a motorcycle & a wagon engine or Motorcycle & wagon wheel.
So why did the BBC journalists not ask for specifics, such as how large were the parts etc, could the parts have come off a 757 or large jet, were they large enough to fit a 757?
On Page 17.
The pilot Steve O’ Brien not once states he observed a 757, does anyone suppose he would not know a 757? The man is a trained observer who’s job it is to know and identify every type of aircraft without exception, does anyone think he would not state 757 if he had actually observed a 757 at his 12 o clock?
If he was on a routine flight do you suppose a USAF pilot or any other pilot would not know that the Pentagon was in a defended air exclusion zone and off limits to unauthorised non military planes. Why did he not mention this in his video statement?
Does anyone think a 500mph 757 is not the easiest target for a missile defence system to shoot down?
Why were none of these types of questions put to the pilot as these and many like them had been informed to the BBC crew by Prof Fetzer and Alex Jones?
Is there anybody alive who believes commercial jets are permitted to pull 4 G turns by the onboard fly by wire system?
In conclusion the Conspiracy Files Documentary was a work of Total Public deception from start to end, perfectly crafted to stealthily deceive and forward nothing which was conclusive either one way or the other, in other words, perfect propaganda YELLOW journalism by stealth, omission & deception.
Kind regards
J A Blacker MSc IMI (Physical Systems)(Lancaster England)
PS: Why was Prof Judy Wood not asked to explain the 911 physics?
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Monday, November 12, 2007
UK 'has longest' terror detention
Yahoo! My Yahoo Mail Search:
Welcome, jlerollin
[Sign Out, My Account] News Home - Help
NavigationPrimary NavigationHomeUKWorldPoliticsBusinessSportTechnologyScienceHealthEntertainmentOddly EnoughSecondary NavigationFull CoverageVideoMost PopularRoyal familyMessage BoardsSearchSearch: in All News Yahoo! News Only News Photos
UK 'has longest' terror detention
Press Assoc. - 2 hours 14 minutes agoThe pre-charge detention limit for terror suspects in Britain is already much longer than in comparable countries, according to a survey by human rights group Liberty.
(Advertisement)
As ministers prepare to controversially extend the current 28-day period, Liberty director Shami Chakrabarti described the comparison with 15 other countries as "astonishing".
The survey found that the next longest period for detention without charge was just 12 days in Australia.
European countries granted police an even shorter timescale - detectives in Turkey are given 7.5 days and those in France six days.
Ms Chakrabarti told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme: "All of these countries, many of them face very similar challenges from international terrorism to here.
"Spain suffered the Madrid bombings, they have five days, and there wasn't a great big row about pre-charge detention there."
While direct comparisons with foreign legal systems can be difficult, Ms Chakrabarti said Liberty had asked lawyers and academics in each country to use a similar yardstick.
On the comparatively short detention periods overseas, she added: "It's really quite astonishing given that this has been one of the most contested issues in British politics for more than two years now."
She suggested that, rather than extending the detention period still further, ministers should copy methods from abroad, including charging suspects with lesser crimes while continuing to investigate more complicated and serious offences.
Welcome, jlerollin
[Sign Out, My Account] News Home - Help
NavigationPrimary NavigationHomeUKWorldPoliticsBusinessSportTechnologyScienceHealthEntertainmentOddly EnoughSecondary NavigationFull CoverageVideoMost PopularRoyal familyMessage BoardsSearchSearch: in All News Yahoo! News Only News Photos
UK 'has longest' terror detention
Press Assoc. - 2 hours 14 minutes agoThe pre-charge detention limit for terror suspects in Britain is already much longer than in comparable countries, according to a survey by human rights group Liberty.
(Advertisement)
As ministers prepare to controversially extend the current 28-day period, Liberty director Shami Chakrabarti described the comparison with 15 other countries as "astonishing".
The survey found that the next longest period for detention without charge was just 12 days in Australia.
European countries granted police an even shorter timescale - detectives in Turkey are given 7.5 days and those in France six days.
Ms Chakrabarti told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme: "All of these countries, many of them face very similar challenges from international terrorism to here.
"Spain suffered the Madrid bombings, they have five days, and there wasn't a great big row about pre-charge detention there."
While direct comparisons with foreign legal systems can be difficult, Ms Chakrabarti said Liberty had asked lawyers and academics in each country to use a similar yardstick.
On the comparatively short detention periods overseas, she added: "It's really quite astonishing given that this has been one of the most contested issues in British politics for more than two years now."
She suggested that, rather than extending the detention period still further, ministers should copy methods from abroad, including charging suspects with lesser crimes while continuing to investigate more complicated and serious offences.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
bastards are copying hitler uk is nazi germany in the making
the law that hitler passed blair tried to pass but was defeated though the same things are happening
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire
Reichstag fire
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Reichstag fire was a pivotal event in the establishment of Nazi Germany.The Reichstag fire was a pivotal event in the establishment of Nazi Germany. At 21:15 on the night of February 27, 1933, a Berlin fire station received an alarm call that the Reichstag building, the assembly location of the German Parliament, was ablaze. The fire was started in the Session Chamber[1], and by the time the police and firemen arrived, the main Chamber of Deputies was in flames. Inside the building, the police quickly found a shirtless Marinus van der Lubbe. Van der Lubbe was a Dutch Jewish insurrectionist council communist and unemployed bricklayer who had recently arrived in Germany, ostensibly to carry out his political activities. The fire was used as evidence that the Communists were beginning a plot against the German government. Van der Lubbe and 4000 Communist leaders were arrested. Then-chancellor Adolf Hitler urged President Hindenburg to pass an emergency decree in order to counter the "ruthless confrontation of the KPD".
Meanwhile, investigation of the Reichstag Fire continued, with the National Socialists eager to uncover Comintern complicity. In early March 1933, three men were arrested who were to play pivotal roles during the Leipzig Trial, known also as "Reichstag Fire Trial," namely three Bulgarians: Georgi Dimitrov, Vasil Tanev and Blagoi Popov. The Bulgarians were known to the Prussian police as senior Comintern operatives, but the police had no idea how senior they were: Dimitrov was head of all Comintern operations in Western Europe.
Contents
1 Prelude
2 The Fire
3 Political consequences of the Fire
4 The Reichstag Fire Trial
5 Van der Lubbe's execution
6 Dispute about van der Lubbe's role in the Reichstag Fire
6.1 Goering's commentary
6.2 'Counter-trial' organized by the German Communist Party
7 Footnote
8 References
[edit] Prelude
Hitler had been sworn in as Chancellor and head of the coalition government on January 30, 1933. As Chancellor, Hitler asked German President (Reichspräsident) Paul von Hindenburg to dissolve the Reichstag and call for a new parliamentary election. The date set for the elections was March 5, 1933. Hitler's aim was first to acquire a National Socialist majority in order to secure his position and eliminate the communist opposition. If prompted or desired, the President could remove the Chancellor. Hitler hoped to abolish democracy in a more or less legal fashion by passing the Enabling Act. The Enabling Act was a special law which gave the Chancellor the power to pass laws by decree without the involvement of the Reichstag. These special powers would remain in effect for four years, after which time they were eligible to be renewed. Under the existing Weimar constitution, under Article 48, the President could rule by decree in times of emergency. The unprecedented element of the Enabling Act was that the Chancellor himself possessed these powers. An Enabling Act was only supposed to be passed in times of extreme emergency, and in fact had only been used once before, in 1923-24 when the government used an Enabling Act to rescue Germany from hyperinflation. To pass an Enabling Act, a party required a vote by a two-thirds majority in the Reichstag. In January 1933, the Nazis had only 32% of the seats and thus were in no position to pass an Enabling Act.
During the election campaign, the Nazis alleged that Germany was on the verge of a Communist revolution and that the only way to stop the communists was to pass the Enabling Act. The message of the campaign was simple: increase the number of Nazi seats so that the Enabling Act could be passed. In order to decrease the number of opposition members of parliament who could vote against the Enabling Act, Hitler had planned to ban the Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands (the Communist Party of Germany or KPD), which at the time held 17% of the parliament's seats, after the elections and before the new Reichstag convened. The Reichstag Fire allowed Hitler to accelerate the banning of the Communist Party. The Nazis capitalized on the fear that the Reichstag fire supposed to serve as a signal launching the Communist revolution in Germany, and promoted this claim in their campaign.
[edit] The Fire
At 10:00 PM on February 27, 1933, the Berlin Fire Department received a message that the Reichstag was on fire. Despite the best efforts of the firemen, the building was gutted by the blaze. Only by 11:30 PM was the fire put out. The firemen and policemen inspected the ruins, and found twenty bundles of flammable material unburned laying about. At the time the fire was reported, Adolf Hitler was having dinner with Joseph Goebbels at Goebbels' apartment in Berlin. When Goebbels received a phone call informing him of the fire, he regarded it as a joke at first, and only after the second call did he report the news to Hitler. Hitler, Goebbels, the Vice-Chancellor Franz von Papen and Prince Heinrich Günther von Hohenzollern were taken by car to the Reichstag where they were met by Hermann Göring. Göring told Hitler "This is a Communist outrage! One of the Communist culprits has been arrested". Hitler called the fire a "sign from heaven", and claimed the fire was a Fanal (signal) meant to mark the beginning of a Communist Putsch (coup). The next day, the Preussische Pressedienst (Prussian Press Service) reported that "this act of incendiarism is the most monstrous act of terrorism carried out by Bolshevism in Germany". The Vossische Zeitung newspaper warned its readers that "the government is of the opinion that the situation is such that a danger to the state and nation existed and still exists".[2]
[edit] Political consequences of the Fire
The day after the fire, Hitler asked for and received from President Hindenburg the Reichstag Fire Decree, signed into law by Hindenburg using Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution. The Reichstag Fire Decree suspended most civil liberties in Germany. As a consequence of the Reichstag Fire Decree, the Communist Party of Germany was banned on March 1, 1933 under the grounds that they were preparing a putsch. In the March 5, 1933 Reichstag elections, the Nazis increased their share of the vote to 44 percent, which gave the Nazis and their allies (the German National People's Party who won 8% of the vote) a majority of 52% in the Reichstag. The Nazis emerged as winners, but they had fallen short of their goal, which was 50%–55% of the vote. This would make it more difficult to obtain the two-thirds majority needed to pass the Enabling Act. Nevertheless, the Nazis were able to capitalize on national security concerns and obtain the additional support needed, thus granting Chancellor Hitler the right to rule by decree. The vote took place on March 23, 1933, and only the Social Democrats opposed the measure, which came into effect on March 27. Had the Communist Party participated, its representatives would have contributed 17% of the Reichstag votes. Instead, their representatives were under arrest for their suspect role in the Reichstag Fire.
[edit] The Reichstag Fire Trial
In July 1933, Marinus van der Lubbe, Ernst Torgler, Georgi Dimitrov, Blagoi Popov, and Vassil Tanev were indicted on charges of setting the Reichstag on fire. From September 21 to December 23, 1933, the Leipzig Trial took place and was presided over by judges from the old German Imperial High Court, the Reichsgericht. This was Germany's highest court. The presiding judge was Judge Dr. Wilhelm Bürger of the Fourth Criminal Court of the Fourth Penal Chamber of the Supreme Court. [3] The accused were charged with arson and with attempting to overthrow the government.
The Leipzig Trial was widely publicized and was broadcast on the radio. It was expected that the court would find the Communists guilty on all counts and approve the repression and terror exercised by the Nazis against all opposition forces in the country. At the end of the trial, however, only van der Lubbe was convicted, while his fellow defendants were found not guilty. In 1934, van der Lubbe was beheaded in a German prison yard. In 1981, a West German court posthumously overturned van der Lubbe's 1933 conviction and found him not guilty by reason of insanity.
The trial began at 8:45 on the morning of September 21, with van der Lubbe testifying. Van der Lubbe's testimony was very hard to follow as he spoke of losing his sight in one eye, wandering around Europe as a drifter, and that he had been a member of the Dutch Communist Party, which he quit in 1931, but still considered himself a Communist. Dimitrov began his testimony on the third day of the trial. Georgi Dimitrov gave up his right to a court appointed lawyer and defended himself successfully. When warned by Judge Bürger to behave himself in court, Dimitrov stated: "Herr President, if you were a man as innocent as myself and you have passed seven months in prison, five of them in chains night and day, you would understand it if one perhaps becomes a little strained". During the course of his defence, Dimitrov claimed that the organizers of the fire were senior members of the Nazi Party, and frequently verbally clashed with Göring at the trial. The highpoint of the trial occurred on November 4, 1933 when Göring took the stand, and was cross-examined by Dimitrov[4]. The following exchange took place:
Dimitrov: Herr Prime Minister Göring stated on February 28 that when arrested the "Dutch Communist van der Lubbe had on his person his passport and a membership card of the Communist Party". From whom was this information taken?
Göring: The police search all common criminals, and report the result to me.
Dimitrov: The three officials who arrested and examined van der Lubbe all agreed that no membership card of the Communist Party was found on him. I should like to know where the report that such a card had been found came from.
Göring: I was told by an official. Things which were reported to me on the night of the fire...could not be tested or proven. The report was made to me by a responsible official, and was accepted as a fact, and as it could not be tested immediately it was announced as a fact. When I issued the first report to the press on the morning after the fire the interrogation of van der Lubbe had not been concluded. In any case I do not see that anyone has any right to complain because it seems proved in this trial that van der Lubbe had no such card on him.
Dimitrov: I would like to ask the Minister of the Interior what steps he took to make sure that van der Lubbe's route to Hennigsdorf, his stay and his meetings with other people there were investigated by the police to assist them in tracking down van der Lubbe's accomplices?
Göring: As I am not an official myself, but a responsible Minister it was not important that I should trouble myself with such petty, minor matters. It was my task to expose the Party, and the mentality, which was responsible for the crime.
Dimitrov: Is the Reichsminister aware of the fact that those that possess this alleged criminal mentality today control the destiny of a sixth part of the world - the Soviet Union?
Göring: I don't care what happens in Russia! I know that the Russians pay with bills, and I should prefer to know that their bills are paid! I care about the Communist Party here in Germany and about Communist crooks who come here to set the Reichstag on fire!
Dimitrov: This criminal mentality rules the Soviet Union, the greatest and best country in the world. Is Herr Prime Minister aware of that?
Göring: I shall tell you what the German people already know. They know that you are behaving in a disgraceful manner! They know that you are a Communist crook who came to Germany to set the Reichstag on fire! In my eyes you are nothing, but a scoundrel, a crook who belongs on the gallows![5].
Only Van Der Lubbe was found guilty and sentenced to death. The rest were acquitted, and (with the exception of Torgler, who was taken into “protective custody" by the Gestapo after the trial), were expelled to the Soviet Union, where they received a hero's welcome. Hitler was furious with the outcome of this trial. He decreed that henceforth treason – among many other offenses – would only be tried by a newly established People's Court (Volksgerichtshof). The People's Court later became associated with the number of death sentences it handed down, including those following the 1944 attempt to assassinate Hitler. It was presided over by Judge-President Roland Freisler.
[edit] Van der Lubbe's execution
At his trial, Van der Lubbe was found guilty and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire
Reichstag fire
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Reichstag fire was a pivotal event in the establishment of Nazi Germany.The Reichstag fire was a pivotal event in the establishment of Nazi Germany. At 21:15 on the night of February 27, 1933, a Berlin fire station received an alarm call that the Reichstag building, the assembly location of the German Parliament, was ablaze. The fire was started in the Session Chamber[1], and by the time the police and firemen arrived, the main Chamber of Deputies was in flames. Inside the building, the police quickly found a shirtless Marinus van der Lubbe. Van der Lubbe was a Dutch Jewish insurrectionist council communist and unemployed bricklayer who had recently arrived in Germany, ostensibly to carry out his political activities. The fire was used as evidence that the Communists were beginning a plot against the German government. Van der Lubbe and 4000 Communist leaders were arrested. Then-chancellor Adolf Hitler urged President Hindenburg to pass an emergency decree in order to counter the "ruthless confrontation of the KPD".
Meanwhile, investigation of the Reichstag Fire continued, with the National Socialists eager to uncover Comintern complicity. In early March 1933, three men were arrested who were to play pivotal roles during the Leipzig Trial, known also as "Reichstag Fire Trial," namely three Bulgarians: Georgi Dimitrov, Vasil Tanev and Blagoi Popov. The Bulgarians were known to the Prussian police as senior Comintern operatives, but the police had no idea how senior they were: Dimitrov was head of all Comintern operations in Western Europe.
Contents
1 Prelude
2 The Fire
3 Political consequences of the Fire
4 The Reichstag Fire Trial
5 Van der Lubbe's execution
6 Dispute about van der Lubbe's role in the Reichstag Fire
6.1 Goering's commentary
6.2 'Counter-trial' organized by the German Communist Party
7 Footnote
8 References
[edit] Prelude
Hitler had been sworn in as Chancellor and head of the coalition government on January 30, 1933. As Chancellor, Hitler asked German President (Reichspräsident) Paul von Hindenburg to dissolve the Reichstag and call for a new parliamentary election. The date set for the elections was March 5, 1933. Hitler's aim was first to acquire a National Socialist majority in order to secure his position and eliminate the communist opposition. If prompted or desired, the President could remove the Chancellor. Hitler hoped to abolish democracy in a more or less legal fashion by passing the Enabling Act. The Enabling Act was a special law which gave the Chancellor the power to pass laws by decree without the involvement of the Reichstag. These special powers would remain in effect for four years, after which time they were eligible to be renewed. Under the existing Weimar constitution, under Article 48, the President could rule by decree in times of emergency. The unprecedented element of the Enabling Act was that the Chancellor himself possessed these powers. An Enabling Act was only supposed to be passed in times of extreme emergency, and in fact had only been used once before, in 1923-24 when the government used an Enabling Act to rescue Germany from hyperinflation. To pass an Enabling Act, a party required a vote by a two-thirds majority in the Reichstag. In January 1933, the Nazis had only 32% of the seats and thus were in no position to pass an Enabling Act.
During the election campaign, the Nazis alleged that Germany was on the verge of a Communist revolution and that the only way to stop the communists was to pass the Enabling Act. The message of the campaign was simple: increase the number of Nazi seats so that the Enabling Act could be passed. In order to decrease the number of opposition members of parliament who could vote against the Enabling Act, Hitler had planned to ban the Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands (the Communist Party of Germany or KPD), which at the time held 17% of the parliament's seats, after the elections and before the new Reichstag convened. The Reichstag Fire allowed Hitler to accelerate the banning of the Communist Party. The Nazis capitalized on the fear that the Reichstag fire supposed to serve as a signal launching the Communist revolution in Germany, and promoted this claim in their campaign.
[edit] The Fire
At 10:00 PM on February 27, 1933, the Berlin Fire Department received a message that the Reichstag was on fire. Despite the best efforts of the firemen, the building was gutted by the blaze. Only by 11:30 PM was the fire put out. The firemen and policemen inspected the ruins, and found twenty bundles of flammable material unburned laying about. At the time the fire was reported, Adolf Hitler was having dinner with Joseph Goebbels at Goebbels' apartment in Berlin. When Goebbels received a phone call informing him of the fire, he regarded it as a joke at first, and only after the second call did he report the news to Hitler. Hitler, Goebbels, the Vice-Chancellor Franz von Papen and Prince Heinrich Günther von Hohenzollern were taken by car to the Reichstag where they were met by Hermann Göring. Göring told Hitler "This is a Communist outrage! One of the Communist culprits has been arrested". Hitler called the fire a "sign from heaven", and claimed the fire was a Fanal (signal) meant to mark the beginning of a Communist Putsch (coup). The next day, the Preussische Pressedienst (Prussian Press Service) reported that "this act of incendiarism is the most monstrous act of terrorism carried out by Bolshevism in Germany". The Vossische Zeitung newspaper warned its readers that "the government is of the opinion that the situation is such that a danger to the state and nation existed and still exists".[2]
[edit] Political consequences of the Fire
The day after the fire, Hitler asked for and received from President Hindenburg the Reichstag Fire Decree, signed into law by Hindenburg using Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution. The Reichstag Fire Decree suspended most civil liberties in Germany. As a consequence of the Reichstag Fire Decree, the Communist Party of Germany was banned on March 1, 1933 under the grounds that they were preparing a putsch. In the March 5, 1933 Reichstag elections, the Nazis increased their share of the vote to 44 percent, which gave the Nazis and their allies (the German National People's Party who won 8% of the vote) a majority of 52% in the Reichstag. The Nazis emerged as winners, but they had fallen short of their goal, which was 50%–55% of the vote. This would make it more difficult to obtain the two-thirds majority needed to pass the Enabling Act. Nevertheless, the Nazis were able to capitalize on national security concerns and obtain the additional support needed, thus granting Chancellor Hitler the right to rule by decree. The vote took place on March 23, 1933, and only the Social Democrats opposed the measure, which came into effect on March 27. Had the Communist Party participated, its representatives would have contributed 17% of the Reichstag votes. Instead, their representatives were under arrest for their suspect role in the Reichstag Fire.
[edit] The Reichstag Fire Trial
In July 1933, Marinus van der Lubbe, Ernst Torgler, Georgi Dimitrov, Blagoi Popov, and Vassil Tanev were indicted on charges of setting the Reichstag on fire. From September 21 to December 23, 1933, the Leipzig Trial took place and was presided over by judges from the old German Imperial High Court, the Reichsgericht. This was Germany's highest court. The presiding judge was Judge Dr. Wilhelm Bürger of the Fourth Criminal Court of the Fourth Penal Chamber of the Supreme Court. [3] The accused were charged with arson and with attempting to overthrow the government.
The Leipzig Trial was widely publicized and was broadcast on the radio. It was expected that the court would find the Communists guilty on all counts and approve the repression and terror exercised by the Nazis against all opposition forces in the country. At the end of the trial, however, only van der Lubbe was convicted, while his fellow defendants were found not guilty. In 1934, van der Lubbe was beheaded in a German prison yard. In 1981, a West German court posthumously overturned van der Lubbe's 1933 conviction and found him not guilty by reason of insanity.
The trial began at 8:45 on the morning of September 21, with van der Lubbe testifying. Van der Lubbe's testimony was very hard to follow as he spoke of losing his sight in one eye, wandering around Europe as a drifter, and that he had been a member of the Dutch Communist Party, which he quit in 1931, but still considered himself a Communist. Dimitrov began his testimony on the third day of the trial. Georgi Dimitrov gave up his right to a court appointed lawyer and defended himself successfully. When warned by Judge Bürger to behave himself in court, Dimitrov stated: "Herr President, if you were a man as innocent as myself and you have passed seven months in prison, five of them in chains night and day, you would understand it if one perhaps becomes a little strained". During the course of his defence, Dimitrov claimed that the organizers of the fire were senior members of the Nazi Party, and frequently verbally clashed with Göring at the trial. The highpoint of the trial occurred on November 4, 1933 when Göring took the stand, and was cross-examined by Dimitrov[4]. The following exchange took place:
Dimitrov: Herr Prime Minister Göring stated on February 28 that when arrested the "Dutch Communist van der Lubbe had on his person his passport and a membership card of the Communist Party". From whom was this information taken?
Göring: The police search all common criminals, and report the result to me.
Dimitrov: The three officials who arrested and examined van der Lubbe all agreed that no membership card of the Communist Party was found on him. I should like to know where the report that such a card had been found came from.
Göring: I was told by an official. Things which were reported to me on the night of the fire...could not be tested or proven. The report was made to me by a responsible official, and was accepted as a fact, and as it could not be tested immediately it was announced as a fact. When I issued the first report to the press on the morning after the fire the interrogation of van der Lubbe had not been concluded. In any case I do not see that anyone has any right to complain because it seems proved in this trial that van der Lubbe had no such card on him.
Dimitrov: I would like to ask the Minister of the Interior what steps he took to make sure that van der Lubbe's route to Hennigsdorf, his stay and his meetings with other people there were investigated by the police to assist them in tracking down van der Lubbe's accomplices?
Göring: As I am not an official myself, but a responsible Minister it was not important that I should trouble myself with such petty, minor matters. It was my task to expose the Party, and the mentality, which was responsible for the crime.
Dimitrov: Is the Reichsminister aware of the fact that those that possess this alleged criminal mentality today control the destiny of a sixth part of the world - the Soviet Union?
Göring: I don't care what happens in Russia! I know that the Russians pay with bills, and I should prefer to know that their bills are paid! I care about the Communist Party here in Germany and about Communist crooks who come here to set the Reichstag on fire!
Dimitrov: This criminal mentality rules the Soviet Union, the greatest and best country in the world. Is Herr Prime Minister aware of that?
Göring: I shall tell you what the German people already know. They know that you are behaving in a disgraceful manner! They know that you are a Communist crook who came to Germany to set the Reichstag on fire! In my eyes you are nothing, but a scoundrel, a crook who belongs on the gallows![5].
Only Van Der Lubbe was found guilty and sentenced to death. The rest were acquitted, and (with the exception of Torgler, who was taken into “protective custody" by the Gestapo after the trial), were expelled to the Soviet Union, where they received a hero's welcome. Hitler was furious with the outcome of this trial. He decreed that henceforth treason – among many other offenses – would only be tried by a newly established People's Court (Volksgerichtshof). The People's Court later became associated with the number of death sentences it handed down, including those following the 1944 attempt to assassinate Hitler. It was presided over by Judge-President Roland Freisler.
[edit] Van der Lubbe's execution
At his trial, Van der Lubbe was found guilty and
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Friday, October 26, 2007
Unusual Amount of Put Options Just Before 9/11 Attack
http://www.lesechos.fr/info/marches/4620847.htm
Tuesday October 02nd 2007, 5:07 pm
Filed under: 9/11, 9/11 Truth, American Airlines, Bank of America, Bin Laden Trades, Economy, False Flag, JPMorgan, Merrill Lynch, State Sponsored Terrorism, Stock Market, United Airlines, World Trade Center, citigroup, put options
9/11: Unusual volumes on Put Options just before the attack. Swiss study
9/11 Blogger
September 30, 2007
September 11, 2001: Unusual volumes on Put Options just before the attack. Swiss study
Says the 11 September 2007 issue of Les Echos, the leading French financial newspaper ]
The paper continues:
Six years after the attacks, a study has been released by two professors of the university of Zurich on the atypical volumes of put options placed before the attacks on World Trade Centre.
The authors, one specialist in derivatives, the other a specialist in econometrics, studied the options to sell (put options), used to speculate on the fall in the price of 20 large American groups.
(Read the full the French article below – Lesage translation)
“Atypical volumes, very rare on certain titles, lead to suspicions of insider trading. ” Six years after the attacks of World Trade Center, it is the disconcerting conclusion of a recent study by Marc Chesney and Loriano Mancini, professors at the University of Zurich.
The authors, one a specialist in derivatives, the other a specialist in econometrics, worked on the options to sell, used to speculate on the fall, of 20 great American groups, in particular in aeronautics and finance.
Their analysis relates to the transactions carried out between the 6 and September 10, 2001 compared to the average volumes recorded over long period (ten years for the majority of the companies).
The two specialists, in addition, calculated the probability of several options of the same sector having significant volumes in a few days.
“We tried to see whether the movements recorded on certain titles little before the attacks were common. We show that, for certain companies like American Airlines, United Airlines, Merrill Lynch, Bank of America, Citigroup, Marsh & McLehnan, movements are scarce from a statistical point of view, a fortiori in comparison to the volumes observed for other values like Coke or Hewlett-Packard, explains Marc Chesney, a former professor with (the prestigious business school) HEC, author of “Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism” (published by Ellipses Editions).
“For example, 1.535 contracts of options to sell in the term October 2001, with 30 dollars, were exchanged on American Airlines on September 10, against a daily average of approximately 24 contracts over the three previous weeks “the fact that the market is bear at the time” does not explain enough these surprising volumes “
“Enormous” profits:
The authors also studied the profitability of the options to sell, and of purchase, for an investor having bought a product between the 6th and the 10th “For certain titles, the profits were enormous. For example, investors having acquired options to sell of Citigroup with a maturity at October 2001 could potentially have gained more than 15 million dollars “,He said.
The conjunction of the data between volumes and profitability, the two authors conclude “the probability that there were offences of initiates (insider trading) is strong for American Airlines, United Airlines, Merrill Lynch, Bank of America, Citigroup and JP Morgan.
It is not a legal proof but it is the findings of statistical methods confirming signs of irregularities “.
The study is certainly not the first on possible insider trading in connection to the attacks but it is disconcerting in comparison with the conclusions of the regulatory authorities. As of September 2001, the Securities Exchange Commission and its European counterparts were interested in the atypical stock exchange movements before the attacks.
In an official statement of July 2004, the American regulator stated that it examined more than 9,5 million transactions in the weeks preceding September 11, then delivered its conclusions to the National Commission on the terrorist attacks (The 9/11 Comission).
According to this commission, unusual transactions certainly took place but each had a non-criminal explanation. The authorities evoke, for example, analyst’s investor advice to explain certain rises of volumes.
Same tone from the ex-COB now the AMF (French SEC), which states in its annual report of 2002: “the elements obtained forbid to show any evidence that financial groups related to the instigators of the attacks could have used the Stock Exchange to realise operations”
MARINA ALCARAZ
http://www.lesechos.fr/info/marches/4620847.htm
0 Comments
profitting from 9 11 ?
deutsche bank A.B.
merrill lynch/hsbc
morgan stanley
bank of america
raytheon
lehman brothers
general motors
axa re
merrill lynch/hsbc
morgan stanley
bank of america
raytheon
lehman brothers
general motors
axa re
operation northwoods
Operation Northwoods, or Northwoods, was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of simulated or real terrorism and violence on US soil or against US interests, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government of Fidel Castro. As part of the U.S. government's Operation Mongoose anti-Castro initiative, the plan, which was not implemented, called for various false flag actions, including simulated or real state-sponsored acts of terrorism (such as hijacked planes) on U.S. and Cuban soil. The plan was proposed by senior U.S. Department of Defense leaders, including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Lyman Louis Lemnitzer.
http://www.retakingamerica.com/northwoods_page_1.html
Content
In response to a request for pretexts for military intervention by the Chief of Operations of the Cuba Project, Brig. Gen. Edward Lansdale, the document lists methods (with, in some cases, outlined plans) the authors believed would garner public and international support for U.S. military intervention in Cuba. These are staged attacks purporting to be of Cuban origin, with a number of them having real casualties. Central to the plan was the use of "friendly Cubans"—Cuban exiles seeking to oust Fidel Castro.
The proposals included:
Starting rumors about Cuba by using clandestine radios.
Staging mock attacks, sabotages and riots at Guantanamo Bay and blaming them on Cuban forces.
Blowing up a U.S. ship in Guantánamo Bay and blaming it on Cuba—reminiscent of the destruction of the USS Maine at Havana in 1898, which helped to precipitate the Spanish-American War. (The document's first suggestion regarding the sinking of a U.S. ship is to blow up a ship at sea and hence would result in U.S. Navy members being killed, with a secondary suggestion of possibly using an unmanned ship and fake funerals instead.)
"Harassment of civil air, attacks on surface shipping and destruction of US military drone aircraft by MIG type [sic] planes would be useful as complementary actions."
Destroying an unmanned drone masquerading as a commercial aircraft supposedly full of "college students off on a holiday". This proposal was the one supported by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Staging a "terror campaign", including the "real or simulated" sinking of Cuban refugees:
"We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington. The terror campaign could be pointed at refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute [sic] to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized. Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement, also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government."
Burning crops by dropping incendiary devices in Haiti, the Dominican Republic or elsewhere.
Journalist James Bamford summarized Operation Northwoods in his April 24, 2001 book Body of Secrets:
Operation Northwoods, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war.[13]
[edit] Related Operation Mongoose proposals
In addition to Operation Northwoods, under the Operation Mongoose program the Department of Defense had a number of similar proposals to be taken against the Cuban regime of Fidel Castro.
Twelve of these proposals come from a February 2, 1962 memorandum entitled "Possible Actions to Provoke, Harass or Disrupt Cuba," written by Brig. Gen. William H. Craig and submitted to Brig. Gen. Edward Lansdale, the commander of the Operation Mongoose project.[14][5][6][7]
The memorandum outlines Operation Bingo, a plan to, in its words, "create an incident which has the appearance of an attack on U.S. facilities (GMO) in Cuba, thus providing an excuse for use of U.S. military might to overthrow the current government of Cuba."
It also includes Operation Dirty Trick, a plot to blame Castro if the 1962 Mercury manned space flight carrying John Glenn crashed, saying "The objective is to provide irrevocable proof that, should the MERCURY manned orbit flight fail, the fault lies with the Communists et al Cuba [sic]." It continues, "This to be accomplished by manufacturing various pieces of evidence which would prove electronic interference on the part of the Cubans."
Even after General Lyman Lemnitzer lost his job as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Joint Chiefs of Staff still planned false-flag pretext operations at least into 1963. A different Department of Defense policy paper created in 1963 discussed a plan to make it appear that Cuba had attacked a member of the Organization of American States (OAS) so that the United States could retaliate. The Pentagon document says of one of the scenarios, "A contrived 'Cuban' attack on an OAS member could be set up, and the attacked state could be urged to take measures of self-defense and request assistance from the U.S. and OAS." The plan expresses confidence that by this action "the U.S. could almost certainly obtain the necessary two-thirds support among OAS members for collective action against Cuba."[15][13]
Included in the nations the Joint Chiefs suggested as targets for covert attacks were Jamaica and Trinidad-Tobago. Since both were members of the British Commonwealth, the Joint Chiefs hoped that by secretly attacking them and then falsely blaming Cuba, the United States could incite the people of the United Kingdom into supporting a war against Castro.[13] As the Pentagon report noted,
Any of the contrived situations described above are inherently, extremely risky in our democratic system in which security can be maintained, after the fact, with very great difficulty. If the decision should be made to set up a contrived situation it should be one in which participation by U.S. personnel is limited only to the most highly trusted covert personnel. This suggests the infeasibility of the use of military units for any aspect of the contrived situation.[13]
The Pentagon report even suggested covertly paying a person in the Castro government to attack the United States: "The only area remaining for consideration then would be to bribe one of Castro's subordinate commanders to initiate an attack on [the U.S. Navy base at] Guantanamo."[13]
[edit] Reaction
It has been reported that John F. Kennedy personally rejected the Northwoods proposal, but no official record of this exists. The proposal was sent for approval to the Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, but was not implemented. President Kennedy removed General Lyman Lemnitzer as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shortly afterward, although he became Supreme Allied Commander of NATO in January 1963.
The continuing push against the Cuban government by internal elements of the U.S. military and intelligence community (the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion, the Cuban Project, etc.) prompted President John F. Kennedy to attempt to rein in burgeoning hardline anti-Communist sentiment that was intent on proactive, aggressive action against communist movements around the globe. After the Bay of Pigs, John F. Kennedy fired then CIA director Allen W. Dulles, Deputy Director Charles P. Cabell, as well as Deputy Director Richard Bissell, and turned his attention towards Vietnam.
Kennedy also took steps to bring discipline to the CIA's Cold War and paramilitary operations by drafting a National Security Action Memorandum (NSAM) which called for the shift of Cold War operations to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Pentagon as well as a major change in the role of the CIA to exclusively deal in intelligence gathering.
On August 3, 2001, the National Assembly of People's Power of Cuba (the main legislative body of the Republic of Cuba) issued a statement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
http://www.retakingamerica.com/northwoods_page_1.html
Content
In response to a request for pretexts for military intervention by the Chief of Operations of the Cuba Project, Brig. Gen. Edward Lansdale, the document lists methods (with, in some cases, outlined plans) the authors believed would garner public and international support for U.S. military intervention in Cuba. These are staged attacks purporting to be of Cuban origin, with a number of them having real casualties. Central to the plan was the use of "friendly Cubans"—Cuban exiles seeking to oust Fidel Castro.
The proposals included:
Starting rumors about Cuba by using clandestine radios.
Staging mock attacks, sabotages and riots at Guantanamo Bay and blaming them on Cuban forces.
Blowing up a U.S. ship in Guantánamo Bay and blaming it on Cuba—reminiscent of the destruction of the USS Maine at Havana in 1898, which helped to precipitate the Spanish-American War. (The document's first suggestion regarding the sinking of a U.S. ship is to blow up a ship at sea and hence would result in U.S. Navy members being killed, with a secondary suggestion of possibly using an unmanned ship and fake funerals instead.)
"Harassment of civil air, attacks on surface shipping and destruction of US military drone aircraft by MIG type [sic] planes would be useful as complementary actions."
Destroying an unmanned drone masquerading as a commercial aircraft supposedly full of "college students off on a holiday". This proposal was the one supported by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Staging a "terror campaign", including the "real or simulated" sinking of Cuban refugees:
"We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington. The terror campaign could be pointed at refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute [sic] to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized. Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement, also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government."
Burning crops by dropping incendiary devices in Haiti, the Dominican Republic or elsewhere.
Journalist James Bamford summarized Operation Northwoods in his April 24, 2001 book Body of Secrets:
Operation Northwoods, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war.[13]
[edit] Related Operation Mongoose proposals
In addition to Operation Northwoods, under the Operation Mongoose program the Department of Defense had a number of similar proposals to be taken against the Cuban regime of Fidel Castro.
Twelve of these proposals come from a February 2, 1962 memorandum entitled "Possible Actions to Provoke, Harass or Disrupt Cuba," written by Brig. Gen. William H. Craig and submitted to Brig. Gen. Edward Lansdale, the commander of the Operation Mongoose project.[14][5][6][7]
The memorandum outlines Operation Bingo, a plan to, in its words, "create an incident which has the appearance of an attack on U.S. facilities (GMO) in Cuba, thus providing an excuse for use of U.S. military might to overthrow the current government of Cuba."
It also includes Operation Dirty Trick, a plot to blame Castro if the 1962 Mercury manned space flight carrying John Glenn crashed, saying "The objective is to provide irrevocable proof that, should the MERCURY manned orbit flight fail, the fault lies with the Communists et al Cuba [sic]." It continues, "This to be accomplished by manufacturing various pieces of evidence which would prove electronic interference on the part of the Cubans."
Even after General Lyman Lemnitzer lost his job as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Joint Chiefs of Staff still planned false-flag pretext operations at least into 1963. A different Department of Defense policy paper created in 1963 discussed a plan to make it appear that Cuba had attacked a member of the Organization of American States (OAS) so that the United States could retaliate. The Pentagon document says of one of the scenarios, "A contrived 'Cuban' attack on an OAS member could be set up, and the attacked state could be urged to take measures of self-defense and request assistance from the U.S. and OAS." The plan expresses confidence that by this action "the U.S. could almost certainly obtain the necessary two-thirds support among OAS members for collective action against Cuba."[15][13]
Included in the nations the Joint Chiefs suggested as targets for covert attacks were Jamaica and Trinidad-Tobago. Since both were members of the British Commonwealth, the Joint Chiefs hoped that by secretly attacking them and then falsely blaming Cuba, the United States could incite the people of the United Kingdom into supporting a war against Castro.[13] As the Pentagon report noted,
Any of the contrived situations described above are inherently, extremely risky in our democratic system in which security can be maintained, after the fact, with very great difficulty. If the decision should be made to set up a contrived situation it should be one in which participation by U.S. personnel is limited only to the most highly trusted covert personnel. This suggests the infeasibility of the use of military units for any aspect of the contrived situation.[13]
The Pentagon report even suggested covertly paying a person in the Castro government to attack the United States: "The only area remaining for consideration then would be to bribe one of Castro's subordinate commanders to initiate an attack on [the U.S. Navy base at] Guantanamo."[13]
[edit] Reaction
It has been reported that John F. Kennedy personally rejected the Northwoods proposal, but no official record of this exists. The proposal was sent for approval to the Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, but was not implemented. President Kennedy removed General Lyman Lemnitzer as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shortly afterward, although he became Supreme Allied Commander of NATO in January 1963.
The continuing push against the Cuban government by internal elements of the U.S. military and intelligence community (the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion, the Cuban Project, etc.) prompted President John F. Kennedy to attempt to rein in burgeoning hardline anti-Communist sentiment that was intent on proactive, aggressive action against communist movements around the globe. After the Bay of Pigs, John F. Kennedy fired then CIA director Allen W. Dulles, Deputy Director Charles P. Cabell, as well as Deputy Director Richard Bissell, and turned his attention towards Vietnam.
Kennedy also took steps to bring discipline to the CIA's Cold War and paramilitary operations by drafting a National Security Action Memorandum (NSAM) which called for the shift of Cold War operations to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Pentagon as well as a major change in the role of the CIA to exclusively deal in intelligence gathering.
On August 3, 2001, the National Assembly of People's Power of Cuba (the main legislative body of the Republic of Cuba) issued a statement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Thursday, October 25, 2007
architects and engineers for 9 11 truth
plans of 9 11 buildings
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/plans/frames.html
aeHome · Announcements · Speaking Engagements · Join Us · Help Us! · Discussion Forum · WTC 7 · Twin Towers · Blueprints · Online Store
Press · Web Resources · Contact Us · About Us · Tributes · Members · What Can I Do? · Downloads · Tech Articles
Members of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Select a Group to View
All Supporters (Warning: Large Document)
All A&E's
Architects (Degreed & Licensed)
Architectural Professionals (Degreed)
Engineers (Degreed & Licensed)
Engineering Professionals (Degreed)
Non-U.S. Architects and Engineers & Architectural and Engineering Professionals
Other Supporters and A&E Students (Warning: Large Document)
Select a Supporter to ViewAlbert V. BurnsBarry K. MillerBasil OrechwaCharles A. MarshallCharles N. PegelowChester W. GearhartCurtiss Lee PalinDavid E. CasselDennis J. KollarDennis M. FischerDerek JohnsonDonald MeserlianEdward MunyakFred NguyenJ. Marx AyresJack KellerJames R. CarrJeffrey M. MoskinJohn F. ShanahanJohn FranklinJohn M. SparnichtJohn V. MizziJoseph TestaKenneth WrennMichael E. StephensMichael S. BenefieldMichael T. DonlyMike MaguireMitchell Scott SteinPeter D. MorseRichard J. SniderRobert Lloyd NielsenRoland Edward AngleRon Paul LeBlancSteven Craig BrantinghamSteven ReiserTim RohachWilliam D. TaylorWilliam J. Cundiff
Engineers (Degreed & Licensed)
Engineers (Degreed & Licensed)
(please upload photo)
Albert V. Burns
P.E. (Ret. AZ. Prof. Civil Engr.) *
Lic: AZ civil engineer #2631, status: retired
BS Civ. Engr. Univ. Of AZ. 1951
Spanish Fork, Utah Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
(pending verification)
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
(pending verification)
Basil Orechwa
Senior Design Engineer
Lic: 32173-6 exp 2008
Wisconsin PE #32173
Beaver Dam, WI Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
Practicing civil engineering since 1975.
Currently with:
Kunkel Engineering Group
Beaver Dam, Wisconsin
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
I have reviewed the government 9/11 report and media footage. In my opinion the government story is simply not credible. Unfortunately, the physical evidence has been destroyed, leaving us to determine who ultimately benefited from this terrorism. This is how any competent criminal investigation would begin from this point forward. Further Congressional hearings are in order until this matter is resolved.
(please upload photo)
Charles A. Marshall
PE, MSCE *
Lic: 9396 civil engineer exp 2008
MS, Civil Engineering,USC
San Gabriel, CA Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
(pending verification)
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
(pending verification)
(please upload photo)
Chester W. Gearhart
P.E., Retired
Lic: Retired
B.S. Civil Engineering, Univ of Missouri
Kansas City, MO Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
I was forced to retire in 2002. I had a long Public Works career for the City of Kansas City, MO as a sewer and street designer and a plan reviewer. I college I had a strong interest and aptitude for structures and architecture. I have reviewed many construction plans for buildings and have watched construction of many large structures in KC. I no longer practice engineering but I have been researching 9/11 since it happened.
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
I have watched the construction of many large buildings and also have personally witnessed 5 controlled demolitions in KC. When I saw the towers fall on 9/11 I knew something was wrong and my first instinct was that it was impossible. When I saw building 7 fall I knew it was a CD. Why was there so many video cameras aimed at B7 when it fell if it was unexpected? Some coincidence. I have been studying this subject since it happened. I can find no evidence that any of the official story, even events other than the 3 buildings, makes any sense or is even possible.
(please upload photo)
Curtiss Lee Palin
P.E.
Lic: Colorado 27315 Professional Engineer exp 2009
MS Engineering
Fort Collins, CO Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
[pending review]
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
[pending review]
(please upload photo)
David E. Cassel
P.E.
Lic: P-5352 Mechanical Engineering exp 2008
B.S. Mechanical Engineering
Oldtown, ID Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
Engineering work in solar energy, conservation, building science, manufactured housing. Also one year of graduate work in PhD program in economics.
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
Only refusal to look at the issues would prevent any thinking person from coming to the conclusion that the planes did not bring down the buildings.
(please upload photo)
Dennis M. Fischer
Engineering Consultant *
MSCE, BSCE
Naperville, IL Engineering — Degreed
• Bio:
(pending verification)
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
(pending verification)
(please upload photo)
Dennis J. Kollar
P.E., Structural Engineer
Lic: 34422-6 professional engineer exp 2008
B.S. + Graduate Coursework
West Bend, WI Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
I began my career in the 1980's as a Structurally Certified Welder and held various welding positions in a shop fabrication environment. I received my B.S. in Civil Engineering from the University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee in 1993 with an emphasis in Structural Engineering. I have several years experience in Municipal Engineering and site design and 10+ Years experience in the structural design of residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional structures of steel, concrete, masonry and timber.
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
For me the most convincing aspect that the 911 collapse was a controlled demolition is the recorded explosions on the 9/11 Eyewitness DVD. The explosions, along with the uniformity and totality of the collapses, when added to the 100's of so-called coincidences on, before and after that day, add up to more evidence of a Government involved crime than has convicted most people in our prisons today.
(please upload photo)
Derek Johnson
E.I.T., C.W.I.
Lic: EIT #37893
B.S. Mechanical Engineering
Marlin, Texas Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
Licensed Engineer in Training in Texas, E.I.T. #37893 University of Texas at Arlington, will take P.E. exam in 2009, also American Welding Society Certified Welding Inspector, structural steel AWS D1.1.
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
I did a much simplified finite element analysis of the 9-11 structures (twins and Solomon) using ANSYS w/the autodyn plug in. The speed of the falls and the downward force impulses that would have been created by the plane damage made many at UTA suspicious of the 9-11 investigation report. It is my opinion that a more complete and thorough FEA survey than the one I performed will help erode the credibility of the 9-11 report of record, and provide political pressure to bring those responsible for the 9-11 murders to trial. I am willing to volunteer time in working toward this goal, if anyone is interested and has access to FEA software, please contact me at cattleprods [at] hotmail.com and I will donate time to further this cause.
(please upload photo)
Donald Meserlian
P.E.
MSME
N. Caldwell, NJ Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
[pending review]
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
[pending review]
(please upload photo)
Edward Munyak
P.E.
Lic: Mechanical 16804 Fire Protection 247
BSME Catholic University of America
Los Altos Hills, CA Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
Registered Mechanical and Fire Protection Engineer in the State of California. Currently working as a fire protection engineer for the city of San Jose, CA
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
I have collaborated with a research chemical engineer( P.E. in CA also) and he has worked with NIST reports that positively show that the jet fuel contributed very little to the duration of the fires and that in fact all the fires were very weak in historical perspective. They were oxygen starved as evidenced by the black smoke. If you dig deeper into the NIST reports they confirm that steel temperatures were low.
I presented for continuing education credits at the NFPA World Safety Conference in Boston, MA 6/4/2007
My presentation showed that all three WTC "collapses" have no resemblance to any previous high rise fire, full scale fire tests in the UK involving much higher steel temperatures, or computer simulations using finite element analysis.
(please upload photo)
Fred Nguyen
P.E.
M.S. Mech. Eng., Stevens Inst. of Tech.
Maplewood, NJ Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
Sr. Energy Engineer for major controls company.
28 years experience in the energy industry.
Masters of Mechanical Engineering (energy conversion and thermodynamics).
Licensed P.E. state of N.J.
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
I do not believe that the combination of air plane crashes and fires led to the collapse of WTC 1, 2 and 7.
(please upload photo)
Jack Keller
Ph.D., P.E.
Lic: 139070-2202 issued 1961, exp 2009
Logan, UT Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
My education includes a B.S. in Civil Engineering from the University of Colorado (1953), M.S. in Irrigation Engineering from Colorado State University (1955), and Ph.D. in Agricultural and Irrigation Engineering from Utah State University (1967). I am still professionally active and my career has been split between academia (teaching, research, and extension) and private consulting and focused on irrigation engineering activities related to water resource development and management.
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
Without any serious study I had simply accepted that the events of 9/11 were as commonly perceived, although I was not happy with the way the disaster was being used to promote what I felt were illegal and self defeating imperialistic policies in the guise of the War on Terrorism. It was not until early 2006 that I stumbled upon sufficient information to become suspicious of the "official" and generally accepted 9/11 storyline. This led me to do my own investigation during which I discovered the demise of WTC 7, which I was heretofore unaware of. Obviously it was the result of controlled demolition and scheduled to take place during the confusion surrounding the day’s events. I now feel morally obligated to deal with and expose the "politically unthinkable" issues surrounding the 9/11 phenomena by participating in such undertakings as signing this petition.
(please upload photo)
Jeffrey M. Moskin
B.S.E.E. *
B.S.E.E.
Culver City, CA Engineering — Degreed
• Bio:
(pending verification)
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
(pending verification)
(please upload photo)
John V. Mizzi
P.E.
B.E.E.
Poughkeepsie, NY Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
My BEE is from Pratt Institute (1963); I also have graduate credits at U. of PA and other institutions. I was an engineer at IBM for 26 years. Currently a consulting patent engineer. I am named inventor of 27 U.S. patents.
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
Upon reviewing the work of Prof. Jones, Jim Hoffman, and others, as well as NIST reports: my opinion is that these "collapses" could not have happened without the use of some sort of explosive, barring repeal of laws of physics!
(please upload photo)
Kenneth Wrenn
P.E. *
B.S., Civil Engineering, NCSU
Durham, NC Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
(pending verification)
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
(pending verification)
(please upload photo)
Michael S. Benefield
Mechanical Engineer
Lic: 31102 Mechanical Engineer exp 2009
B.S. Mechanical Engineering
San Anselmo, CA Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
Graduated from the University of Utah in 1994. Currently working as an asbestos consultant in the State of California.
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
It appears that the NIST report fails to account for known physical evidence found on the scene, and indeed seems to contradict fundamental physical laws. Therefore it cannot be accepted. An independent investigation with full subpoena power is needed.
(please upload photo)
Michael T. Donly
P.E., Structural/Civil Engineer *
B.S.C.E. New Jersey Institute of Technol
Hackensack, NJ Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
(pending verification)
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
(pending verification)
(please upload photo)
Michael E. Stephens
P.E.
Lic: OK 20643 exp 2009; AK 11302
B.S., Geological Engineering
Welling, OK Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
Self employed as a general Civil Engineering Consultant, obtained B.S. degree in Geological Engineering with minor in Hazardous Waste Management from NMSU in 1994.
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
It was apparent to me from the day of 9/11 that the buildings did not fall due to catastrophic failure initiating from the impact by jet planes. If the towers had fallen due to anything but a controlled demolition, they would have taken out several city blocks and most adjacent buildings would have also been taken down by the towers.
(please upload photo)
Mike Maguire
P.E. *
MS, Mech/Aero Engineering, UC Davis
Livermore, CA Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
(pending verification)
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
(pending verification)
(please upload photo)
Mitchell Scott Stein
P.E.
Lic: env pe #84826
M.S. Civil Eng., Univ. of Texas at Austi
Austin, TX Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
Civil Engineering Site Designs; Potable Water Treatment Processes; Industrial Wastewater Treatment Processes
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
None of WTC 1, WTC 2, or WTC 7 could have fallen in the duration in took them to fall (on the order of 10 seconds), virtually directly downward, UNLESS the majority of their many key supporting structural elements on EACH FLOOR were 100% ineffective, or nearly 100% ineffective, and such a situation seems virtually 100% IMPLAUSIBLE, unless there was some sort of configuration for a controlled demolition in place PRIOR TO the planes hitting WTC 1 and WTC 2.
(please upload photo)
Peter D. Morse
P.E., Mechanical Engineer
Lic: Mechanical Engineer #38829 exp 2009
B.S., Mech. Engr., B.A., Journalism
Tucson, Arizona Other: Mechanical Engineering — Other: Licensed in 4 western states
• Bio:
My professional engineering career has been directed towards providing engineering design, procurement, and construction management services (EPCM) for very large capital expenditure projects for American industry as a member of large, multidisciplinary A/E teams.
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
"Those who have the privilege to know also have a duty to act." - Albert Einstein
I, like you, am privileged to be able to distinguish that the Official 9/11 Story defies natural law yet the observed phenomena of the day do not. I call on all my peers to understand and then expose the myths of the Official Story through the sound application of the natural laws that are the basis of our education and subsequent life's work. It is tragic but necessary that as engineers and architects this task looms large as our most important - and urgently needed - contribution.
(please upload photo)
Richard J. Snider
P.E.
Lic: PE electrical engineer license 73615, Texas
BSEE, University of Texas, Austin
Dallas, Dripping Springs, TX Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
Network Engineer - Grad in 1969. Commute from Dallas to Austin weekly - operate small WISP business west of Austin. Married 34 years, 2 Children
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
Physics of collapse, Clear indication of pre-planted explosives, and all the surrounding standdowns and pre-indications of major event on Sept. 11 indicate need for full re-examination of this crime.
(please upload photo)
Roland Edward Angle
Civil Engineer
Lic: 18242 Civil Engineer exp 2009
B.S. U.C. Berkeley
Alameda, CA Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
CA License 18242. Forty years experience in Civil & Military design, analysis & construction, including blast analysis of nuclear hardened facilities.
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
The official explanation of the building failures defies known scientific methods of analyses and is untenable in the face of logical investigation.
(please upload photo)
Steven Craig Brantingham
P.E.
Lic: OK PE License #13027 1982, exp. 9/09
B.S., ChemE, U. of Arkansas Fayetteville
Cypress, TX Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
I graduated in 1973 from the U. of Arkansas. I have 34 years experience in project and process engineering in the natural gas industry.
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
I first became aware of the 9/11 Truth movement in 2005, after viewing David Ray Griffin's presentation on C-SPAN. I then began researching the inconsistencies in the official story and have concluded that it is impossible that the events of 9/11 occurred the way the government claims they did.
(please upload photo)
Steven Reiser
Chemical Engineer
Lic: 10-7-07 bg emailed to ask for license number
Westminster, CO Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
Double B.S. - Chemical Engineering/Chemistry at University of Idaho 1978 - worked in Mining, Metal Refining R&D, Natural Gas Processing, Oil Refining, Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing R&D, and program management.
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
All engineering Student are required to take Engineering Physics, and Engineering Statics and Dynamics Courses, these give us the basic scientific and engineering principles to evaluate technical issues such as this. I have also worked with high explosives in government work in the past. I can state with confidence that the building collapses which happen at free fall such as on 9/11 require the violent controlled destruction of the support structures in order to effect a complete collapse of the structures as occurred on 9/11/2001.
(please upload photo)
William J. Cundiff
P.E. *
BSCE
Whitinsville, MA Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
(pending verification)
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
(pending verification)
(please upload photo)
William D. Taylor
P.E.
Lic: Florida P.E. license #56163
B.S. Engineering
Tequesta, FL Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
Licensed Professional Civil Engineer in the State of Florida.
Graduate of the University of Florida, 1995, with a B.S. in Engineering.
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
I remember back to September 11, 2001 when the towers fell how shocked I was to actually see them fall. Based on my knowledge of structures and seeing the fires in the buildings appear to subside, I figured that the buildings would be salvageable. As many did, I did not question what I saw. However, when I woke up and researched further years later, I confirmed my initial gut feeling that the official story was not accurate.
(please upload photo)
Barry K. Miller
P.E., Mechanical Engineer
Lic: California Mechanical Engineer #27447 exp 6/09
Hinsdale, NY Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
(please enter a short bio)
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
(please enter a personal 9/11 statement)
(please upload photo)
Charles N. Pegelow
PE, Civil Engineer. lic Calif CE 26344 (Structural
Lic: Calif license 26344 Civil Engineer, exp 2008
Houston, Texas Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
(please enter a short bio)
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
(please enter a personal 9/11 statement)
(please upload photo)
J. Marx Ayres
PE, Mechanical Engineer
Lic: 10631 mechanical
Santa Monica, CA Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
(please enter a short bio)
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
(please enter a personal 9/11 statement)
(please upload photo)
James R. Carr
Ph.D., P.E.(geological engineering,, Professor, Ge
Lic: 007464 Geological Engineer 1987, exp 2008
Reno, Nevada Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
(please enter a short bio)
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
(please enter a personal 9/11 statement)
(please upload photo)
John Franklin
P.E. *
Lubec, ME Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
(please enter a short bio)
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
(please enter a personal 9/11 statement)
(please upload photo)
John F. Shanahan
PE, Electrical Engineer
Lic: 12091 electrical
Rancho Cucamonga, CA Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
(please enter a short bio)
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
(please enter a personal 9/11 statement)
(please upload photo)
John M. Sparnicht
P.E., Civil Engineer, California
Lic: CA license #89504 Civil Engineer, exp 12/31/07
Dayton, NV Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
(please enter a short bio)
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
(please enter a personal 9/11 statement)
(please upload photo)
Joseph Testa
P.E., Civil Engineer
Lic: PE 072702 New York License
Thousand Oaks, CA Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
(please enter a short bio)
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
(please enter a personal 9/11 statement)
(please upload photo)
Robert Lloyd Nielsen
PLS, Land Surveyor
Lic: 8075 Land Surveying exp 12/31/07
Walnut Creek, CA Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
(please enter a short bio)
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
(please enter a personal 9/11 statement)
(please upload photo)
Ron Paul LeBlanc
PE, Engineer
Lic: PE license 38312
Firestone, CO Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
(please enter a short bio)
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
(please enter a personal 9/11 statement)
(please upload photo)
Tim Rohach
P.E., Mechanical Engineer MSME
Sugar Land, Texas Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
(please enter a short bio)
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
(please enter a personal 9/11 statement)
aeHome · Announcements · Speaking Engagements · Join Us · Help Us! · Discussion Forum · WTC 7 · Twin Towers · Blueprints · Online Store
Press · Web Resources · Contact Us · About Us · Tributes · Members · What Can I Do? · Downloads · Tech Articles
Copyright © 2007 by ae911truth.org — All Rights Reserved · Contact the Webmaster · This page has been accessed 242 times.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/plans/frames.html
aeHome · Announcements · Speaking Engagements · Join Us · Help Us! · Discussion Forum · WTC 7 · Twin Towers · Blueprints · Online Store
Press · Web Resources · Contact Us · About Us · Tributes · Members · What Can I Do? · Downloads · Tech Articles
Members of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Select a Group to View
All Supporters (Warning: Large Document)
All A&E's
Architects (Degreed & Licensed)
Architectural Professionals (Degreed)
Engineers (Degreed & Licensed)
Engineering Professionals (Degreed)
Non-U.S. Architects and Engineers & Architectural and Engineering Professionals
Other Supporters and A&E Students (Warning: Large Document)
Select a Supporter to ViewAlbert V. BurnsBarry K. MillerBasil OrechwaCharles A. MarshallCharles N. PegelowChester W. GearhartCurtiss Lee PalinDavid E. CasselDennis J. KollarDennis M. FischerDerek JohnsonDonald MeserlianEdward MunyakFred NguyenJ. Marx AyresJack KellerJames R. CarrJeffrey M. MoskinJohn F. ShanahanJohn FranklinJohn M. SparnichtJohn V. MizziJoseph TestaKenneth WrennMichael E. StephensMichael S. BenefieldMichael T. DonlyMike MaguireMitchell Scott SteinPeter D. MorseRichard J. SniderRobert Lloyd NielsenRoland Edward AngleRon Paul LeBlancSteven Craig BrantinghamSteven ReiserTim RohachWilliam D. TaylorWilliam J. Cundiff
Engineers (Degreed & Licensed)
Engineers (Degreed & Licensed)
(please upload photo)
Albert V. Burns
P.E. (Ret. AZ. Prof. Civil Engr.) *
Lic: AZ civil engineer #2631, status: retired
BS Civ. Engr. Univ. Of AZ. 1951
Spanish Fork, Utah Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
(pending verification)
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
(pending verification)
Basil Orechwa
Senior Design Engineer
Lic: 32173-6 exp 2008
Wisconsin PE #32173
Beaver Dam, WI Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
Practicing civil engineering since 1975.
Currently with:
Kunkel Engineering Group
Beaver Dam, Wisconsin
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
I have reviewed the government 9/11 report and media footage. In my opinion the government story is simply not credible. Unfortunately, the physical evidence has been destroyed, leaving us to determine who ultimately benefited from this terrorism. This is how any competent criminal investigation would begin from this point forward. Further Congressional hearings are in order until this matter is resolved.
(please upload photo)
Charles A. Marshall
PE, MSCE *
Lic: 9396 civil engineer exp 2008
MS, Civil Engineering,USC
San Gabriel, CA Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
(pending verification)
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
(pending verification)
(please upload photo)
Chester W. Gearhart
P.E., Retired
Lic: Retired
B.S. Civil Engineering, Univ of Missouri
Kansas City, MO Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
I was forced to retire in 2002. I had a long Public Works career for the City of Kansas City, MO as a sewer and street designer and a plan reviewer. I college I had a strong interest and aptitude for structures and architecture. I have reviewed many construction plans for buildings and have watched construction of many large structures in KC. I no longer practice engineering but I have been researching 9/11 since it happened.
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
I have watched the construction of many large buildings and also have personally witnessed 5 controlled demolitions in KC. When I saw the towers fall on 9/11 I knew something was wrong and my first instinct was that it was impossible. When I saw building 7 fall I knew it was a CD. Why was there so many video cameras aimed at B7 when it fell if it was unexpected? Some coincidence. I have been studying this subject since it happened. I can find no evidence that any of the official story, even events other than the 3 buildings, makes any sense or is even possible.
(please upload photo)
Curtiss Lee Palin
P.E.
Lic: Colorado 27315 Professional Engineer exp 2009
MS Engineering
Fort Collins, CO Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
[pending review]
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
[pending review]
(please upload photo)
David E. Cassel
P.E.
Lic: P-5352 Mechanical Engineering exp 2008
B.S. Mechanical Engineering
Oldtown, ID Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
Engineering work in solar energy, conservation, building science, manufactured housing. Also one year of graduate work in PhD program in economics.
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
Only refusal to look at the issues would prevent any thinking person from coming to the conclusion that the planes did not bring down the buildings.
(please upload photo)
Dennis M. Fischer
Engineering Consultant *
MSCE, BSCE
Naperville, IL Engineering — Degreed
• Bio:
(pending verification)
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
(pending verification)
(please upload photo)
Dennis J. Kollar
P.E., Structural Engineer
Lic: 34422-6 professional engineer exp 2008
B.S. + Graduate Coursework
West Bend, WI Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
I began my career in the 1980's as a Structurally Certified Welder and held various welding positions in a shop fabrication environment. I received my B.S. in Civil Engineering from the University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee in 1993 with an emphasis in Structural Engineering. I have several years experience in Municipal Engineering and site design and 10+ Years experience in the structural design of residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional structures of steel, concrete, masonry and timber.
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
For me the most convincing aspect that the 911 collapse was a controlled demolition is the recorded explosions on the 9/11 Eyewitness DVD. The explosions, along with the uniformity and totality of the collapses, when added to the 100's of so-called coincidences on, before and after that day, add up to more evidence of a Government involved crime than has convicted most people in our prisons today.
(please upload photo)
Derek Johnson
E.I.T., C.W.I.
Lic: EIT #37893
B.S. Mechanical Engineering
Marlin, Texas Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
Licensed Engineer in Training in Texas, E.I.T. #37893 University of Texas at Arlington, will take P.E. exam in 2009, also American Welding Society Certified Welding Inspector, structural steel AWS D1.1.
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
I did a much simplified finite element analysis of the 9-11 structures (twins and Solomon) using ANSYS w/the autodyn plug in. The speed of the falls and the downward force impulses that would have been created by the plane damage made many at UTA suspicious of the 9-11 investigation report. It is my opinion that a more complete and thorough FEA survey than the one I performed will help erode the credibility of the 9-11 report of record, and provide political pressure to bring those responsible for the 9-11 murders to trial. I am willing to volunteer time in working toward this goal, if anyone is interested and has access to FEA software, please contact me at cattleprods [at] hotmail.com and I will donate time to further this cause.
(please upload photo)
Donald Meserlian
P.E.
MSME
N. Caldwell, NJ Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
[pending review]
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
[pending review]
(please upload photo)
Edward Munyak
P.E.
Lic: Mechanical 16804 Fire Protection 247
BSME Catholic University of America
Los Altos Hills, CA Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
Registered Mechanical and Fire Protection Engineer in the State of California. Currently working as a fire protection engineer for the city of San Jose, CA
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
I have collaborated with a research chemical engineer( P.E. in CA also) and he has worked with NIST reports that positively show that the jet fuel contributed very little to the duration of the fires and that in fact all the fires were very weak in historical perspective. They were oxygen starved as evidenced by the black smoke. If you dig deeper into the NIST reports they confirm that steel temperatures were low.
I presented for continuing education credits at the NFPA World Safety Conference in Boston, MA 6/4/2007
My presentation showed that all three WTC "collapses" have no resemblance to any previous high rise fire, full scale fire tests in the UK involving much higher steel temperatures, or computer simulations using finite element analysis.
(please upload photo)
Fred Nguyen
P.E.
M.S. Mech. Eng., Stevens Inst. of Tech.
Maplewood, NJ Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
Sr. Energy Engineer for major controls company.
28 years experience in the energy industry.
Masters of Mechanical Engineering (energy conversion and thermodynamics).
Licensed P.E. state of N.J.
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
I do not believe that the combination of air plane crashes and fires led to the collapse of WTC 1, 2 and 7.
(please upload photo)
Jack Keller
Ph.D., P.E.
Lic: 139070-2202 issued 1961, exp 2009
Logan, UT Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
My education includes a B.S. in Civil Engineering from the University of Colorado (1953), M.S. in Irrigation Engineering from Colorado State University (1955), and Ph.D. in Agricultural and Irrigation Engineering from Utah State University (1967). I am still professionally active and my career has been split between academia (teaching, research, and extension) and private consulting and focused on irrigation engineering activities related to water resource development and management.
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
Without any serious study I had simply accepted that the events of 9/11 were as commonly perceived, although I was not happy with the way the disaster was being used to promote what I felt were illegal and self defeating imperialistic policies in the guise of the War on Terrorism. It was not until early 2006 that I stumbled upon sufficient information to become suspicious of the "official" and generally accepted 9/11 storyline. This led me to do my own investigation during which I discovered the demise of WTC 7, which I was heretofore unaware of. Obviously it was the result of controlled demolition and scheduled to take place during the confusion surrounding the day’s events. I now feel morally obligated to deal with and expose the "politically unthinkable" issues surrounding the 9/11 phenomena by participating in such undertakings as signing this petition.
(please upload photo)
Jeffrey M. Moskin
B.S.E.E. *
B.S.E.E.
Culver City, CA Engineering — Degreed
• Bio:
(pending verification)
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
(pending verification)
(please upload photo)
John V. Mizzi
P.E.
B.E.E.
Poughkeepsie, NY Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
My BEE is from Pratt Institute (1963); I also have graduate credits at U. of PA and other institutions. I was an engineer at IBM for 26 years. Currently a consulting patent engineer. I am named inventor of 27 U.S. patents.
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
Upon reviewing the work of Prof. Jones, Jim Hoffman, and others, as well as NIST reports: my opinion is that these "collapses" could not have happened without the use of some sort of explosive, barring repeal of laws of physics!
(please upload photo)
Kenneth Wrenn
P.E. *
B.S., Civil Engineering, NCSU
Durham, NC Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
(pending verification)
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
(pending verification)
(please upload photo)
Michael S. Benefield
Mechanical Engineer
Lic: 31102 Mechanical Engineer exp 2009
B.S. Mechanical Engineering
San Anselmo, CA Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
Graduated from the University of Utah in 1994. Currently working as an asbestos consultant in the State of California.
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
It appears that the NIST report fails to account for known physical evidence found on the scene, and indeed seems to contradict fundamental physical laws. Therefore it cannot be accepted. An independent investigation with full subpoena power is needed.
(please upload photo)
Michael T. Donly
P.E., Structural/Civil Engineer *
B.S.C.E. New Jersey Institute of Technol
Hackensack, NJ Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
(pending verification)
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
(pending verification)
(please upload photo)
Michael E. Stephens
P.E.
Lic: OK 20643 exp 2009; AK 11302
B.S., Geological Engineering
Welling, OK Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
Self employed as a general Civil Engineering Consultant, obtained B.S. degree in Geological Engineering with minor in Hazardous Waste Management from NMSU in 1994.
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
It was apparent to me from the day of 9/11 that the buildings did not fall due to catastrophic failure initiating from the impact by jet planes. If the towers had fallen due to anything but a controlled demolition, they would have taken out several city blocks and most adjacent buildings would have also been taken down by the towers.
(please upload photo)
Mike Maguire
P.E. *
MS, Mech/Aero Engineering, UC Davis
Livermore, CA Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
(pending verification)
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
(pending verification)
(please upload photo)
Mitchell Scott Stein
P.E.
Lic: env pe #84826
M.S. Civil Eng., Univ. of Texas at Austi
Austin, TX Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
Civil Engineering Site Designs; Potable Water Treatment Processes; Industrial Wastewater Treatment Processes
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
None of WTC 1, WTC 2, or WTC 7 could have fallen in the duration in took them to fall (on the order of 10 seconds), virtually directly downward, UNLESS the majority of their many key supporting structural elements on EACH FLOOR were 100% ineffective, or nearly 100% ineffective, and such a situation seems virtually 100% IMPLAUSIBLE, unless there was some sort of configuration for a controlled demolition in place PRIOR TO the planes hitting WTC 1 and WTC 2.
(please upload photo)
Peter D. Morse
P.E., Mechanical Engineer
Lic: Mechanical Engineer #38829 exp 2009
B.S., Mech. Engr., B.A., Journalism
Tucson, Arizona Other: Mechanical Engineering — Other: Licensed in 4 western states
• Bio:
My professional engineering career has been directed towards providing engineering design, procurement, and construction management services (EPCM) for very large capital expenditure projects for American industry as a member of large, multidisciplinary A/E teams.
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
"Those who have the privilege to know also have a duty to act." - Albert Einstein
I, like you, am privileged to be able to distinguish that the Official 9/11 Story defies natural law yet the observed phenomena of the day do not. I call on all my peers to understand and then expose the myths of the Official Story through the sound application of the natural laws that are the basis of our education and subsequent life's work. It is tragic but necessary that as engineers and architects this task looms large as our most important - and urgently needed - contribution.
(please upload photo)
Richard J. Snider
P.E.
Lic: PE electrical engineer license 73615, Texas
BSEE, University of Texas, Austin
Dallas, Dripping Springs, TX Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
Network Engineer - Grad in 1969. Commute from Dallas to Austin weekly - operate small WISP business west of Austin. Married 34 years, 2 Children
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
Physics of collapse, Clear indication of pre-planted explosives, and all the surrounding standdowns and pre-indications of major event on Sept. 11 indicate need for full re-examination of this crime.
(please upload photo)
Roland Edward Angle
Civil Engineer
Lic: 18242 Civil Engineer exp 2009
B.S. U.C. Berkeley
Alameda, CA Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
CA License 18242. Forty years experience in Civil & Military design, analysis & construction, including blast analysis of nuclear hardened facilities.
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
The official explanation of the building failures defies known scientific methods of analyses and is untenable in the face of logical investigation.
(please upload photo)
Steven Craig Brantingham
P.E.
Lic: OK PE License #13027 1982, exp. 9/09
B.S., ChemE, U. of Arkansas Fayetteville
Cypress, TX Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
I graduated in 1973 from the U. of Arkansas. I have 34 years experience in project and process engineering in the natural gas industry.
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
I first became aware of the 9/11 Truth movement in 2005, after viewing David Ray Griffin's presentation on C-SPAN. I then began researching the inconsistencies in the official story and have concluded that it is impossible that the events of 9/11 occurred the way the government claims they did.
(please upload photo)
Steven Reiser
Chemical Engineer
Lic: 10-7-07 bg emailed to ask for license number
Westminster, CO Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
Double B.S. - Chemical Engineering/Chemistry at University of Idaho 1978 - worked in Mining, Metal Refining R&D, Natural Gas Processing, Oil Refining, Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing R&D, and program management.
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
All engineering Student are required to take Engineering Physics, and Engineering Statics and Dynamics Courses, these give us the basic scientific and engineering principles to evaluate technical issues such as this. I have also worked with high explosives in government work in the past. I can state with confidence that the building collapses which happen at free fall such as on 9/11 require the violent controlled destruction of the support structures in order to effect a complete collapse of the structures as occurred on 9/11/2001.
(please upload photo)
William J. Cundiff
P.E. *
BSCE
Whitinsville, MA Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
(pending verification)
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
(pending verification)
(please upload photo)
William D. Taylor
P.E.
Lic: Florida P.E. license #56163
B.S. Engineering
Tequesta, FL Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
Licensed Professional Civil Engineer in the State of Florida.
Graduate of the University of Florida, 1995, with a B.S. in Engineering.
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
I remember back to September 11, 2001 when the towers fell how shocked I was to actually see them fall. Based on my knowledge of structures and seeing the fires in the buildings appear to subside, I figured that the buildings would be salvageable. As many did, I did not question what I saw. However, when I woke up and researched further years later, I confirmed my initial gut feeling that the official story was not accurate.
(please upload photo)
Barry K. Miller
P.E., Mechanical Engineer
Lic: California Mechanical Engineer #27447 exp 6/09
Hinsdale, NY Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
(please enter a short bio)
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
(please enter a personal 9/11 statement)
(please upload photo)
Charles N. Pegelow
PE, Civil Engineer. lic Calif CE 26344 (Structural
Lic: Calif license 26344 Civil Engineer, exp 2008
Houston, Texas Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
(please enter a short bio)
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
(please enter a personal 9/11 statement)
(please upload photo)
J. Marx Ayres
PE, Mechanical Engineer
Lic: 10631 mechanical
Santa Monica, CA Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
(please enter a short bio)
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
(please enter a personal 9/11 statement)
(please upload photo)
James R. Carr
Ph.D., P.E.(geological engineering,, Professor, Ge
Lic: 007464 Geological Engineer 1987, exp 2008
Reno, Nevada Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
(please enter a short bio)
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
(please enter a personal 9/11 statement)
(please upload photo)
John Franklin
P.E. *
Lubec, ME Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
(please enter a short bio)
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
(please enter a personal 9/11 statement)
(please upload photo)
John F. Shanahan
PE, Electrical Engineer
Lic: 12091 electrical
Rancho Cucamonga, CA Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
(please enter a short bio)
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
(please enter a personal 9/11 statement)
(please upload photo)
John M. Sparnicht
P.E., Civil Engineer, California
Lic: CA license #89504 Civil Engineer, exp 12/31/07
Dayton, NV Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
(please enter a short bio)
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
(please enter a personal 9/11 statement)
(please upload photo)
Joseph Testa
P.E., Civil Engineer
Lic: PE 072702 New York License
Thousand Oaks, CA Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
(please enter a short bio)
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
(please enter a personal 9/11 statement)
(please upload photo)
Robert Lloyd Nielsen
PLS, Land Surveyor
Lic: 8075 Land Surveying exp 12/31/07
Walnut Creek, CA Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
(please enter a short bio)
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
(please enter a personal 9/11 statement)
(please upload photo)
Ron Paul LeBlanc
PE, Engineer
Lic: PE license 38312
Firestone, CO Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
(please enter a short bio)
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
(please enter a personal 9/11 statement)
(please upload photo)
Tim Rohach
P.E., Mechanical Engineer MSME
Sugar Land, Texas Engineering — Degreed and Licensed
• Bio:
(please enter a short bio)
• Personal 9/11 Statement:
(please enter a personal 9/11 statement)
aeHome · Announcements · Speaking Engagements · Join Us · Help Us! · Discussion Forum · WTC 7 · Twin Towers · Blueprints · Online Store
Press · Web Resources · Contact Us · About Us · Tributes · Members · What Can I Do? · Downloads · Tech Articles
Copyright © 2007 by ae911truth.org — All Rights Reserved · Contact the Webmaster · This page has been accessed 242 times.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
bbc propaganda complete Nist refuted years ago fantasy
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6987965.stmhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6987965.stm
whos behind9 11 vid
whos behind9 11 vid
supposed proff for 911
this is a very bad paper?! basicly wiffle woffle no hard data no hard analysis says itself this is not how it actually happened¬
notice the uk civil engineering association hasnt come out and said anything
wait for them they are the structural engineering overseers of the country and would rip the paper to pieces if it had any real life data in it but it doesnt
this is a very bad paper?! basicly wiffle woffle no hard data no hard analysis says itself this is not how it actually happened¬
notice the uk civil engineering association hasnt come out and said anything
wait for them they are the structural engineering overseers of the country and would rip the paper to pieces if it had any real life data in it but it doesnt
Saturday, September 22, 2007
best 9 11 expose videos
press for truth excelent film on how the 9 11 commision was fought for and won
press for thruth
loose change 2nd edition very good broad video
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)