Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]
Kevin Ryan | 30 October 2011
When Underwriters Laboratories fired me for challenging the World Trade Center (WTC) report that it helped create with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), it said “there is no evidence” that any firm performed the required fire resistance testing of the materials used to build the Twin Towers. Of course, that was a lie.
With this experience in mind, I checked to see how many times the 9/11 Commission Report used the phrase “no evidence,” and noted in particular the times the Commission claimed to have “found no evidence” or that “no evidence was uncovered.” I discovered that the phrase “no evidence” appears an amazing 63 times. An example is the dubious statement — “There is no evidence to indicate that the FAA recognized Flight 77 as a hijacking until it crashed into the Pentagon (p 455).”
Of these 63 instances, some variation of “we found no evidence” appears three dozen times. This seems to be an unusually high number of disclaimers begging ignorance, given that the Commission claims to have done “exacting research” in the production of a report that was the “fullest possible accounting of the events of September 11, 2001.”
The number of times these “no evidence” disclaimers appear in the report is doubly amazing considering how infrequently some of the most critical witnesses and evidence are referenced. For example, the FAA’s national operations manager, Benedict Sliney, who was coordinating the FAA’s response that day, appears only once in the narrative (and twice in the notes). And the FAA’s hijack coordinator, Michael Canavan, appears only twice in the narrative, with neither of those citations having anything to do with Canavan’s assigned role as the key link between the military and the FAA, a role whose failure the Commission says caused the attacks to succeed. Similarly, the testimony of FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, who says Bin Laden worked with the U.S. government up until the day of the attacks, is mentioned only once in the notes. William Rodriguez, the WTC janitor who has publicly testified to basement level explosions, is not mentioned at all despite having given testimony to the Commission.
It seems a good idea to look more closely at the instances in which the attorneys, myth experts and military intelligence operatives who wrote the 9/11 Commission Report said that they did not find evidence. Here are a few of the most interesting examples.
These first four examples highlight the little discussed fact that the 9/11 Commission did not explain how any of the alleged hijackers entered the cockpits of any of the four hijacked planes.
With regard to Flight 11 the Commission states — “We do not know exactly how the hijackers gained access to the cockpit (p 5)” and — “FAA rules required that the doors remained closed and locked during the flight.” Based on a recording attributed to flight attendant Betty Ong, the report speculates that they might have “jammed their way in.” One problem with this hypothesis is that the act of breaking down the locked cockpit door would certainly have given the professional flight crew plenty of time to enter the four-digit hijack “squawk code” into the transponder. This is a simple, standard operating procedure which the crew was trained to follow but none of them accomplished.
Yet another problem is that, according to the story, Atta and his co-conspirators disagreed with the “jamming” hypothesis. The report states that Atta “had no firm contingency plan in case the cockpit door was locked” and …”he was confident the cockpit doors would be opened and did not consider breaking them down to be a viable idea (p 245).” These were, apparently, very bold and optimistic hijackers who walked onto the plane assuming that normal operating procedures would not be followed and who did not have any kind of back-up plan in case they were wrong. In any case, these claims certainly seem to contradict the words of Acting Director of the FBI, Thomas Pickard, who testified that – “these 19 and their superiors operated flawlessly in their planning, communications and execution of this event. They successfully exploited every weakness from our borders to cockpit doors.”
For Flight 175, the Commission report does not describe how the alleged hijackers got into the cockpit nor does it even mention that this first critical step in a hijacking was omitted from the explanation. Similarly, for Flight 77 and Flight 93, the alleged hijackers just appear in the cockpit and in control of the aircraft. As with Flight 11, all three crews failed to follow the simple procedure to squawk the hijack code.
What makes this even less believable is that the Commission admits that Flight 93 received and acknowledged a warning (although not from the FAA Command Center) to secure the cockpit four minutes before the hijacking began. This means that 37-minutes after the third plane was hijacked, and 25-minutes after the second plane crashed into the WTC, the crew of the fourth plane could not secure it’s cockpit or enter the hijack squawk code despite having four minutes warning that hijackers might try to break in.
Recently, the world’s leading insurance provider, Lloyd’s of London, filed a lawsuit alleging the exact opposite of these claims made by the 9/11 Commission. Although Lloyd’s dropped the lawsuit just days later without explanation, one would think that at least some small amount evidence must have been available for the company to have gone to all the trouble of putting together a case and filing it against the Saudis. If there was no such evidence, Lloyd’s could be sued for false or frivolous litigation.
Lloyd’s was not the first to contradict the Commission on this topic, however, as the many of the 9/11 victims’ relatives had joined together not long after the attacks to file a 15-count, $116 trillion lawsuit against Saudi royals, including some who were among top government leaders in Saudi Arabia. That lawsuit was thrown out on a technicality related to the ability to sue a foreign government and, later, the Obama Administration backed the Saudis during the appeal. What’s important to realize, however, is that it was only the 9/11 Commission that claimed no evidence for Saudi financing could be found. Obviously, such evidence could be found, it just could not be used to prosecute the Saudi government in the United States.
The “exhaustive investigations” conducted by the FBI, on which the 9/11 Commission report was based, were clearly bogus. The FBI did not interview the suspects and did not appear to compare notes with the 9/11 Commission to help make a determination if any of the people being investigated might have had ties to al Qaeda. The Commission’s memorandum summary suggests that the FBI simply made decisions on its own regarding the possible connections of the suspects and the alleged terrorist organizations. Those unilateral decisions were not appropriate, as at least three of the suspected informed trades involved reasonably suspicious links to Osama bin Laden or his family. Another suspect was a soon-to-be convicted criminal who had direct links to FBI employees who were later arrested for securities-related crimes.
The FBI also claimed in August 2003 that it had no knowledge of hard drives recovered from the WTC, which were publicly reported in 2001. According to the people who retrieved the associated data, the hard drives gave evidence for “dirty doomsday dealings.”
The evidence for informed trading on 9/11 includes many financial vehicles, from stock options to Treasury bonds to credit card transactions made at the WTC just before it was destroyed. Today we know that financial experts from around the world have provided strong evidence, through established and reliable statistical techniques, that the early expert suspicions were correct, and that 9/11 informed trading did occur.
For the 9/11 Commission to have made four separate “no evidence” claims related to the widely-reported flight of Saudi nationals out of the U.S. just after 9/11, there must have been a strong reason for this failure of “exacting research.”
Months before the Commission report was published, it was well known that numerous members of the Bin Laden family were among those flown out of the U.S. at a time when no other commercial or private flying was allowed. “Counter-terrorism Czar” Richard Clarke was the one to make this decision, although he did not coordinate it with Dale Watson of the FBI. Clarke’s FBI coordinator for these flights was Michael Rolince, the assistant director of the International Terrorism Operations Section (ITOS).
It was reported that Rolince decided the Saudis could leave the country and required only the most superficial examination of their passports and checking for their names on terrorist watch lists. The fact that many of them were the relatives of the man accused of perpetrating the 9/11 attacks did not lead to any concern or even to basic interviews of the passengers by the FBI.
Rolince, who now works for Booz Allen Hamilton, appears to have been behind several of the inexplicable failures of the FBI to track down the alleged 9/11 conspirators before the attacks. In 1999, the FBI failed to follow-up on information provided to Rolince about fundraising done in the U.S. by Ayman al-Zawahiri, the alleged “number 2” of al Qaeda. In April 2001, Rolince also failed to follow-up on a memo sent to him by Dale Watson that warned of a terrorist operation that might have been the plan for the 9/11 attacks. Dave Frasca, one of Rolince’s direct reports, was the one who disrupted the Minneapolis FBI’s attempt to search the belongings of Zacharias Mousaoui, and Rolince is apparently the one who failed to let the FBI directors know of the arrest of Mousaoui.
Like some of the other carefully worded claims in the Commission report, this might be technically true, but the premise is probably false. Christine Whitman, who was director of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency just after 9/11, did claim that the air in lower Manhattan was safe to breathe when it was known that was not the case. This was probably not done for the purpose of re-opening the stock market, however. It is far more likely that these false claims were made in order to expedite the removal of evidence at the WTC site.
In any case, interested citizens should examine the many “we found no evidence” disclaimers from the 9/11 Commission Report more closely. Doing so leads one to a better understanding of how false that report really is, and the Commission’s feigned ignorance of evidence might help lead us to the truth about what happened that day.
John Pilger and his mate chumpsky are disingenous gate keepers. Nothing they say here is unheard of, or un reported elsewhere.. The whole world knows of why israel is copping justifiable criticism. They pretend to be on the side of truth and justice, all the time perpetuating the lies.
Pilger stated the most “plausible” scenario for 911, is that “they” let it happen. His good mate julian assange is on the record saying that those who question the official account of 911 “annoy” him. After more than a decade of investigation of the evidence, the consensus would suggest the most “plausible” explanation would be that “they” engineered, executed and implemented the cover up.
Pilger is therefore either willfully ignorant, or deliberately deceptive.
By Andrew Adams on 2014 10 25 - 10:51:03
From the entry 'How you have been betrayed by your government and your media'.
I wish you could point out in one sentence or two why you think my explanation is wrong regarding increased contrail activity that precedes approaching weather fronts.
Copying and pasting heaps of loosely related paragraphs is very unconvincing.
On the good side, I see that you now seem to acknowledge that supersaturation in the atmosphere exists. Several pages earlier, you wrote: “Firstly let me iterate that there is no such thing supersaturation in the free atmosphere at any altitude.” So some advancement there.
However, you picked the wrong sort of supersaturation. Persistent contrails depend on supersaturation with respect to ice instead of supersaturation with respect to water. This occurs at much lower levels of relative humidity (with respect to water); it can happen below 70% already and is in no way limited to the vicinity of thunderstorms.
We have been through this before, you know. That’s why I’m repeating the quotes and their reference from scientic papers that I already gave you on that previous page:
Aircraft flying through cold ice-supersaturated air produce persistent contrails which contribute to the climate impact of aviation[/url]
The radiosonde data showed that the upper troposphere was very often supersaturated with respect to ice.
Condensation trails (contrails) are aircraft induced cirrus clouds, which may persist and grow to large cirrus cover in ice-supersaturated air
While supersaturation with respect to ice is not required to form a contrail, it is necessary for the contrail to persist for long times.
[...] contrails form when the air surrounding the particles becomes supersaturated with respect to ice.
Each of these freezing mechanisms requires that the atmosphere be highly supersaturated with respect to the vapor pressure of ice before crystals can form.
By Josh on 2014 10 24 - 04:59:59
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
I believe you are simply out of your depth trying to impress others with knowledge you allege to have gleaned from glider flying instructors, and, as you write, the University of North Carolina you have “linked” to, or you are a mis-informationist, a shill, a useful tool to others. Either way you are simply misguided. Your quoting of terms you have read in textbooks does you no service. Your claims about supersaturation demonstrate your lack of knowledge. You need to understand supersaturation in regard to meteorology is mainly associated with thunderheads, hail and freezing conditions way beyond the normal. Have you ever seen a cumulonimbus topping out at 60,000 feet? I can say without fear of intelligent contradiction that you have never, in a glider, experienced a micro-burst at low level because you would, or should, never have been making an approach to land in such conditions. Supersaturation can result from the internal violence associated with the updrafts inherent in a low level thunderstorm. Being a glider pilot does not mean you have sat and passed any of the senior level meteorology examinations as I have done in both Australia and Canada. To be a private glider pilot you only need to have passed the meteorology examination for a private pilot to demonstrate you have sufficient knowledge of basic meteorology to hopefully fly safely. Did you know that urine can become supersaturated and cause kidney stones? No massive changes of freezing level temperatures there, I can assure you. No doubt you will respond with some inane theory, but if it makes you feel superior please do so. I hope you are not passing on your inanities to young glider pilots around the bar at the gliding club whilst expanding you ego at their expense. Because meteorology is more of an art than a science, using science to compose theories, I can set you an examination with particular details regarding a place, and no matter whether you answer yes or no to the question posed, I cannot mark you wrong if you back up your answer with logical reasoning. e.g. “Will there be fog in the morning at place A given the following forecast ambient conditions?” Nobody can be 100% sure of the answer and must wait and see if the forecast proves correct.
Simple physics regarding clouds from Wikipedia for your assistance. There is much more from other sources but I do not have the time to train you.
1. To cause a chemical solution to be more highly concentrated than is normally possible under given conditions of temperature and pressure.
2. To cause a vapor to exceed the normal saturation vapor pressure at a given temperature.
Cloud physics is the study of the physical processes that lead to the formation, growth and precipitation of clouds. Clouds consist of microscopic droplets of liquid water (warm clouds), tiny crystals of ice (cold clouds), or both (mixed phase clouds). Cloud droplets initially form by the condensation of water vapor onto condensation nuclei when the supersaturation of air exceeds a critical value according to Köhler theory. Cloud condensation nuclei are necessary for cloud droplets formation because of the Kelvin effect, which describes the change in saturation vapor pressure due to a curved surface. At small radii, the amount of supersaturation needed for condensation to occur is so large, that it does not happen naturally. Raoult’s Law describes how the vapor pressure is dependent on the amount of solute in a solution. At high concentrations, when the cloud droplets are small, the supersaturation required is smaller than without the presence of a nucleus.
In warm clouds, larger cloud droplets fall at a higher terminal velocity because the drag force on smaller droplets is larger than on large droplets. The large droplet can then collide with small droplet and combine to form even larger drops. When the drops become large enough so that the acceleration due to gravity is much larger than the acceleration due to drag, the drops can fall to the earth as precipitation. The collision and coalescence is not as important in mixed phase clouds where the Bergeron process dominates. Other important processes that form precipitation are riming, when a supercooled liquid drop collides with a solid snowflake, and aggregation, when two solid snowflakes collide and combine. The precise mechanics of how a cloud forms and grows is not completely understood, but scientists have developed theories explaining the structure of clouds by studying the microphysics of individual droplets. Advances in weather radar and satellite technology have also allowed the precise study of clouds on a large scale.
History of cloud physics
The history of cloud microphysics developed in the 19th century and is described in several publications. Otto von Guericke originated the idea that clouds were composed of water bubbles. In 1847 Agustus Waller used spider web to examine droplets under the microscope. These observations were confirmed by William Henry Dines in 1880 and Richard Assmann in 1884.
Rising packets of moist air
As water evaporates from an area of the earth surface, the air over that area becomes moist. Moist air is lighter than the surrounding dry air, creating an unstable situation. When enough moist air has accumulated, all the moist air rises as a single packet, without mixing with the surrounding air. As more moist air forms along the surface, the process repeats, resulting in a series of discrete packets of moist air rising to form clouds.
The amount of water that can exist as vapor in a given volume increases with the temperature. When the amount of water vapor is in equilibrium above a flat surface of water the level of vapor pressure is called saturation and the relative humidity is 100%. At this equilibrium there are equal numbers of molecules evaporating from the water as there are condensing back into the water. If the relative humidity becomes greater than 100%, it is called supersaturated. Supersaturation occurs in the absence of condensation nuclei, for example the flat surface of water.
Since the saturation vapor pressure is proportional to temperature, cold air has a lower saturation point than warm air. The difference between these values is the basis for the formation of clouds. When saturated air cools, it can no longer contain the same amount of water vapor. If the conditions are right, the excess water will condense out of the air until the lower saturation point is reached. Another possibility is that the water stays in vapor form, even though it is beyond the saturation point, resulting in supersaturation.
Supersaturation of more than 1–2% relative to water is rarely seen in the atmosphere, since cloud condensation nuclei are usually present. Much higher degrees of supersaturation are possible in clean air, and are the basis of the cloud chamber.
Water droplets commonly remain as liquid water and do not freeze, even well below 0 °C (32 °F), because of the high surface tension of each microdroplet, which prevents them from expanding to form larger ice crystals. Without ice nuclei supercooled water droplets can exist down to about −40 °C (−40 °F), at which point they will spontaneously freeze.
Main article: Coalescence (meteorology)
One theory explaining how the behavior of individual droplets leads to the formation of clouds is the collision-coalescence process. Droplets suspended in the air will interact with each other, either by colliding and bouncing off each other or by combining to form a larger droplet. Eventually, the droplets become large enough that they fall to the earth as precipitation. The collision-coalescence process does not make up a significant part of cloud formation as water droplets have a relatively high surface tension. In addition, the occurrence of collision-coalescence is closely related to entrainment-mixing processes.
Main article: Bergeron process
The primary mechanism for the formation of ice clouds was discovered by Tor Bergeron. The Bergeron process notes that the saturation vapor pressure of water, or how much water vapor a given volume can hold, depends on what the vapor is interacting with. Specifically, the saturation vapor pressure with respect to ice is lower than the saturation vapor pressure with respect to water. Water vapor interacting with a water droplet may be saturated, at 100% relative humidity, when interacting with a water droplet, but the same amount of water vapor would be supersaturated when interacting with an ice particle. The water vapor will attempt to return to equilibrium, so the extra water vapor will condense into ice on the surface of the particle. These ice particles end up as the nuclei of larger ice crystals. This process only happens at temperatures between 0 °C (32 °F) and −40 °C (−40 °F). Below −40 °C (−40 °F), liquid water will spontaneously nucleate, and freeze. The surface tension of the water allows the droplet to stay liquid well below its normal freezing point. When this happens, it is now supercooled liquid water. The Bergeron process relies on supercooled liquid water interacting with ice nuclei to form larger particles. If there are few ice nuclei compared to the amount of SLW, droplets will be unable to form. A process whereby scientists seed a cloud with artificial ice nuclei to encourage precipitation is known as cloud seeding. This can help cause precipitation in clouds that otherwise may not rain. Cloud seeding adds excess artificial ice nuclei which shifts the balance so that there are many nuclei compared to the amount of supercooled liquid water. An over-seeded cloud will form many particles, but each will be very small. This can be done as a preventative measure for areas that are at risk for hail storms.
Dynamic phase hypothesis
The second critical point in the formation of clouds is their dependence on updrafts. As particles group together to form water droplets, they will quickly be pulled down to earth by the force of gravity. The droplets would quickly dissipate and the cloud will never form. However, if warm air interacts with cold air, an updraft can form. Warm air is less dense than colder air, so the warm air rises. The air traveling upward buffers the falling droplets, and can keep them in the air much longer than they would otherwise stay. In addition, the air cools as it rises, so any moisture in the updraft will then condense into liquid form, adding to the amount of water available for precipitation. Violent updrafts can reach speeds of up to 180 miles per hour (290 km/h). A frozen ice nucleus can pick up 0.5 inches (1.3 cm) in size traveling through one of these updrafts and can cycle through several updrafts before finally becoming so heavy that it falls to the ground. Cutting a hailstone in half shows onion-like layers of ice, indicating distinct times when it passed through a layer of super-cooled water. Hailstones have been found with diameters of up to 7 inches (18 cm).
Main article: List of cloud types
Clouds are classified according to the height at which they are found, and their shape or appearance. There are three basic categories based on physical structure and process of formation. Cirriform clouds are high, thin and wispy, and are seen most extensively along the leading edges of organized weather disturbances. Stratiform clouds appear as extensive sheet-like layers, ranging from thin to moderately thick with some vertical development. They are mostly the product of large scale lift of stable air. Cumuliform clouds are formed mostly into localized heaps, rolls and/or ripples ranging from very small cloudlets of limited convection in slightly unstable air to very large towering free convective buildups when the airmass is very unstable. Clouds of limited convection that show a mix of cumuliform and stratiform characteristics are often grouped into a fourth category, stratocumuliform.
These categories are cross-classified by high, middle, low, and vertical altitude ranges into ten genus types. All cirriform clouds are classified as high and therefore constitute a single cloud genus cirrus. Stratiform and stratocumuliform clouds in the topmost region of the troposphere have the prefix cirro- added to their names yielding the genera cirrostratus and cirrocumulus. Similar clouds found at intermediate heights carry the prefix alto- resulting in the genus names altostratus and altocumulus. No height-related prefixes are used for the low altitudes, so clouds of these two physical categories based around 2 kilometres or lower are known simply as stratus and stratocumulus.
Vertically developed nimbostratus (deep stratiform), cumulus, and cumulonimbus may form anywhere from near surface to intermediates heights of around 3 kilometres and therefore, like the low clouds, have no height related prefixes. However, those capable of producing heavy precipitation or stormy weather carry a nimbo- or -nimbus designation. Of the vertically developed clouds, the cumulonimbus type is the largest and can virtually span the entire troposphere from a few hundred metres above the ground up to the tropopause. It is the cloud responsible for thunderstorms. Its complex structure often combining a cirriform top and stratocumuliform accessory clouds with an overall cumuliform structure sometimes result in this genus type being separated into a fifth physical cumulonimbiform category. This leaves the cumulus genus with its simple heaped structure as the sole purely cumuliform physical category type. Small cumulus is usually considered a low cloud genus, while taller cumulus is more often grouped with cumulonimbiform and deep stratiform genus types as vertical or multilevel.
The cloud chamber, also known as the Wilson chamber, is a particle detector used for detecting ionizing radiation.
File:Home Made Cloud Chamber.webmPlay media
A Home Made Cloud Chamber
Image taken in the Pic du Midi at 2877m in a Phywe PJ45 cloud chamber (size of surface is 45 x 45 cm). This rare picture shows in a single shot the 4 particles that we can detect in a cloud chamber : proton, electron, muon (probably) and alpha
In its most basic form, a cloud chamber is a sealed environment containing a supersaturated vapor of water or alcohol. When a charged particle (for example, an alpha or beta particle) interacts with the mixture, the fluid is ionized. The resulting ions act as condensation nuclei, around which a mist will form (because the mixture is on the point of condensation). The high energies of alpha and beta particles mean that a trail is left, due to many ions being produced along the path of the charged particle. These tracks have distinctive shapes (for example, an alpha particle’s track is broad and shows more evidence of deflection by collisions, while an electron’s is thinner and straight). When any uniform magnetic field is applied across the cloud chamber, positively and negatively charged particles will curve in opposite directions, according to the Lorentz force law with two particles of opposite charge.
Cloud chambers played a prominent role in the experimental particle physics from 1920s to the 1950s, until the advent of the bubble chamber. In particular, the discoveries of the positron in 1932, the Muon in 1936, both by Carl Anderson (awarded a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1936), and the kaon in 1947 were made using cloud chambers as detectors. Anderson detected the positron and muon in cosmic rays.
By Leonard Clampett on 2014 10 23 - 10:18:01
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
“The term ‘Chemtrails’ is not a conspiracy theory either. The name can be traced back to the US Congress itself. House Bill 2977, Space Preservation Act 2001, Page 5, line 15, under the heading of “exotic weapons”.”
By Andrew Adams on 2014 10 22 - 14:17:07
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
Engineered Drought Catastrophe, Target California
So Josh, your argument against chemtrails on all points. There is nothing to debate.
By Leonard Clampett on 2014 10 22 - 13:15:51
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
I think Brendon is a good bloke. Truely an Aussie who wants the best for his beloved country. A guy who has discovered like many people that Australia has been usurped by the parasitic Jew. This of course is nothing new as the Jews in history have been booted out of 88 different countries. Including the Uk. Which ofcourse is the snakes head, after stupid cromwell let them back in. So the city of London is the crown, oh (Not) the queen but Jew Rothschild who owns the banks. Most people I know don,t realise this, that our own RBA (Reserve Bank) is a private Rotschild bank. Rhodes schlolar is a indoctrinated Rothschild pupil. Your polititians are selected (Before) elected. Many a blood high pressure has been rectified after the truth is known. After all if you are on the field of battle, you must know your enemy. Well Done Brendon. This Aussie is proud of you ! !
By Daveeed on 2014 10 19 - 18:34:02
From the entry 'Meet Brendon O'Connell, Australia's first political prisoner'.
Susan Lindauer is a person deserved of recognition. Her book, “Extreme Prejudice” was a revolution for me in the understanding of the devious machinations of the US government, the real lack of decent values, the total disregard of truth and the falseness of so-called patriotism.
Their treatment of this lady will forever be a disgrace, not quite bordering on other acts of perfidy such as the USS Ulysses, the 29 standing ovations in the US Joint Houses for the world’s latter day fascist, Netanyahu, or the elation displayed in the Congress on the announcement of the (first) war in Iraq, based on lies. All acts from which for me there is no recovery, ever.
So her treatment is up there with those acts, the treatment of Scott Ritter and Edward Snowden, the establishment of Guantanamo Bay and the acts therein and the now effective loss of all respect for a country that was founded on real values. What fine people they were as well. A long time ago.
Right now we have another decent American, a scarcity these days, in Michael Mori who through his actions made people aware of how low the US had sunk in the manufacturing of evidence against people whose crimes may have been naivety, but not terrorism. The real terrorists were then and still are in Washington with a new junior chapter in Canberra, trying desperately to mix it with the big boys and in their own little way, through the mouth of the feckless “Friend of Israel”, Julie Bishop, trying desperately to make Russia an enemy of the world through her lies on the Malaysian Airliner shoot down.
All part of the role that this naive country is engaged in for political purposes. But with a country populated by insouciant people, or is that sheeple, does anyone really give a damn. Football season has just finished. Get your priorities right.
On with the seat belts. There’s much worse to come yet.
Full marks, Susan Lindauer. You have made a serious contribution to those who think that ALL people have rights.
By Rex Williams on 2014 10 09 - 09:17:36
From the entry 'Climbing the mountain of lies to better see World War III'.
I thought after researching the nwo and having a passion for the truth I knew how the world was being run…Then, by accident I stumbled upon
and I realised I had only scratched the surface to the lies we have been raised to believe.
Also, check out the archives page
I was shocked, so if you want the rest of the story…
By sick of all the lies on 2014 10 01 - 14:30:26
From the entry 'A review of violence and intolerance in Islamic and other societies'.
can you point out where anyone around here wrote or somehow conveyed the opinion “that governments can, and will, do no wrong”? The fact that contrails can persist and spread doesn’t have the slightest impact on the morality of governments ...
Do you doubt the basic mechanism of cloud formation that I summarized exists? Then please explain where I got it wrong - or the University of North Carolina that I linked to - or all my flight teachers and the text books for the exam - or all the guide books about clouds.
Be specific, don’t just say “misinformation” without giving any reason. By all means, show some actual “scrutiny”, along with references.
Of course I could have introduced dry and saturated lapse rate, condensation nuclei and many more sophisticated details, but that does not alter the principal mechanism of rising, cooling and increasing RH.
By the way, your credentials are not helping, I’m afraid - at least as long as you display a basic misunderstanding of central processes like combustion or supersaturation (which you claim doesn’t even exist).
By Josh on 2014 09 27 - 07:31:30
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.
Thanks mate, greatly appreciated.
By Hereward Fenton on 2014 09 24 - 22:27:31
From the entry 'Introducing Professor Garth L Nicolson: pioneering researcher on mycoplasmas'.