Slashdot Mirror

It's too long, it's too dull, it's too lame.

But the mythic source he seems to have based this episode on is . . . "The McLaughlin Group"

It's like reading the latest dispatch on the Mongolian parliament, as reported by Elizabeth Drew in a really cranky mood.

the master Obi-Wan (Ewan McGregor) and his young mentee, Anakin Skywalker (played by 'N Sync star Justin Timberlake - no, no, played by Hayden Christensen, who looks like an 'N Sync kid but doesn't have as much talent).

I'll tell you one thing: no star system central, as in, say, MGM, would have built a movie around the dim Americans who haunt this one. In fact, the movie is kind of a laboratory on American vs. British technique. Score: Brits 10, Yanks 0.

even an actual great actor, Samuel L. Jackson, seems ridiculous. He never looks comfortable as the Jedi Mace Windu, in robes and boots, and there's nothing he can do at all with a line like "The Genosians aren't warriors. One Jedi has to be worth a hundred Genosians!"

The 'N Sync kid is even worse. He seems to have wandered in from a Pepsi commercial. No, that would have been Justin Timberlake. Who knows where this dreary boy has been?

said it sucked

you, you silly little conservative college student. Your right wing politics and contrarian attitudes towards the "lefties" at your school don't make you clever or alternative. You never give any actual thought to the opinions you spew out; they're wholly recieved from the like of Rush Limbaugh and other halfwits.

Actually, it tends to be the other way around. When some teacher tries to teach kids what is right based on the facts, they get sued by some leftist organization like the ACLU... just like this case: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A560 03-2002May8.html

You whining knee-jerk liberals really are so transparent.

I do not like Microsoft - I think that they have done wrong that they need to be punished for, but not in the way many /.'ers would agree with.

If the writer of the parent post wants to bring his opinion into the classroom, I think that is excellent, as long as he backs up what he says with facts and allows the other side to be argued.

You know, you shouldn't use the F-word so much -- your liberal/socialistic bent is showing. ;)

About the 'illegal stripping of 100,000 voters of the rights...', the supreme court halted the vote because it did not recount the entire state and thus treated voters in different counties differently. Ironically, that's the one scenario where Gore might have won.

So how come VoterMarch hasn't been updated in over a year? The site is owned by Maybe this is why.... (NOTE- it's from a different Posner than the one who runs VoterMarch.)

Oh, yeah, and by the way, see what *this* Brit has to say about about Palast's book.

Your sources are biased and have an adgenda. Nice try.

All you Microserf users, I will own you! Muhahaha

"... so as long as you have MSN Messenger installed, if I send you a special URL, I can own you," said Marc Maiffret, Eeye's "chief hacking officer."
article

"I guess it's a matter of how hard you make it," Allchin replied. "We have to work on our reputation for security in the marketplace." from Jim Allchin, who oversees the Windows operating system.

Gee ... I guess that's why theres so FEW reported news stories about the hacking of Windows ... and so MANY stories about the hacking of Linux.

It is true that the 14th amendment says American laws apply to everyone on US soil, and does not use the word citizen. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has not been interpreting the Constitution to mean this recently. For example, undocumented worker Jose Castro was last month denied back pay, even though under US law he has a right to it. As the dissenting opinion on the 5-4 opinion stated, by denying him back pay, this just encourages more employers to hire undocumented workers.

I don't disagree with your statement, but please do look for the facts before commenting. Otherwise, you reveal stong personal bias.

Nice advert free gallery of the photos available from WashingtonPost.com. Nice and big too.

Click for Gallery

Quote from the article: We will be able to enter the 'twilight zone' period when galaxies were just beginning to form out of the blackness following the cooling of the universe from the big bang.

It sounds like perhaps we are about to enter another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land of imagination. Next stop, the Twilight Zone!

It's not digital projection, but nothing else in the area beats the Uptown theater. It's incredible.

Since they closed the Foundry, I just haven't had the heart to go out to see movies in DC anymore.

This one should work better.

I'd like to see who all is back from the Reagan era. I know Cheney and Rumsfeld. Admitidly two very high ranking officials, but who else. It seems a bit generous to say "a good majority

• Mitch Daniels - Office of Management and Budget Director
• Condoleezza Rice - Foreign Policy Advisor
• Robert Zoellick - US Trade Representative
• Andrew Card - Chief of Staff
• Richard A. Clarke - Special Advisor for Cyberspace Security
• Robert Joseph - Senior Director for Proliferation Strategy, Counterproliferation and Homeland Defense
• Elliot Abrams - Senior Director for Democracy, Human Rights,and International Operations
• Richard Armitage - Deputy Secretary of State (from former Bush Admin)
• Paul Wolfowitz - Deputy Secretary of Defense
• Gary R. Edson - Deputy Assistant for International Economic Affairs and Deputy National Security Advisor
• William Howard Taft, IV - Legal Advisor to the Secretary of State
• Timothy Muris - Federal Trade Commission

Just when did the US create a situation in the middle east? Look at Britain that created Israel. Look at the arab countries for attacking Israel. Look at Israel for rocketing innocent people. Look at childish leaders that can't agree on how to meet for peace, let alone discuss peace terms. There are lots of people to blame for the problems but hardly the US, unless giving hope of some sort of peace settlement is a bad thing.

You must remember that Bush came into the White House saying outright that Clinton's mistake was in meddling with the affairs of the Middle East. Up until 2 weeks ago, he pretty much wanted to ignore the issues...which lead to mass confusion on Bush's stance Which Sharon took as an OK to advance onto Palestine territory. Now recently, Powell went over there to try to resolve things, but his mission was considered by many as a failure. Both sides have lost respect for the US as a mediator.

Bush does not really care or want to be involved in the middle east. It's quite a tangled web. On one hand, part of his administration wants to fully support Israel. But on the other hand, if he does support Israel, the entire Islamic world will come down upon him. Even today's news, the Saudi Prince (our supposed Ally) just threatened to cut off ties to the US if the US does not take a harder stance on Israel. In addition, Egypt (another ally) is threatening to go to war again Israel once it gets enough financial support.

Alright...I'm done with my rambling... :-P

At least try to have your conspiracy theories make some kind of sense. Exactly what kind of government test can go awry, resulting in anthrax being mailed to US senators?

Three weeks ago Dr Barbara Rosenberg - an acknowledged authority on US bio-defence - claimed the FBI is dragging its feet because an arrest would be embarrassing to the US authorities. Tonight on Newsnight, she goes further...suggesting there could have been a secret CIA field project to test the practicalities of sending anthrax through the mail - whose top scientist went badly off the rails...

DR BARBARA ROSENBERG: FEDERATION OF AMERICAN SCIENTISTS: Some very expert field person would have been given this job and it would have been left to him to decide exactly how to carry it out. The result might have been a project gone badly awry if he decided to use it for his own purposes and target the media and the senate for his own motives as not intended by the govt project...but this is a possibility that I think needs to be considered

Unfortunately what the administration has found is that it has opened up Pandora's box and does not know how to handle it anymore. And like you said, it has fallen back 15 years to Reaganism. The thing is, a good majority of the administration are from the Reagan era. It is much easier to lead a country back during the Cold War than it is now. When you know who your enemies are and can rally support against a common enemy, you can pretty much push anything through legistlation. In the past 6 months or so, the administration has tried to find a common enemy (first terrorists, but since that is a broad term, moved onto Usama Bin ladin, and since we can't find him, moved onto al Qaeda then Taliban, etc, etc...)

Bush has had it out for China since he first stepped into office. Remember the US spy plane incident?. And honestly, China isn't doing anything worse than what the US has been doing for years. I would say distrupting and ousting a democratically elected leader of a country is a bigger crime than DDoS that is talked about in this article.

The best comparison I have seen so far for The Rock's acting is to Ah-nold in "Conan the Barbarian", made by a Washington Post review. Both are/were athletes, trying to break away from areas they are primarily known for (bodybuilding for Arnold, wrestling for the Rock). For his first shot at 'real' acting, I think Rock did a decent job. He's not going for an Academy Award. He just wants to entertain. And he did a fairly decent job of it.

This seems like a fairly common explination of our political system, espoused by Ralph Nader, Michael Moore, and John McCain, among others. However, I often hear the accusation but seldom hear the evidence.

I would be interested in any hard evidence of corporations controlling politicians.

Indeed, one might say that the NRA controls Congress by giving large sums of money to politicians to buy their votes when gun-control related bills come up for a vote. And this assertion would seem to be born out by looking at the votes of those who received large sums of money from the NRA -- they most often vote along the lines that the NRA would like.

But I wonder if there might be a different explination. Perhaps the NRA is giving money to people who it knows already share its views. Just as I sometimes give a small contribution to a political candidate that I want to win, the NRA gives vast somes of money to politicians that it wants to win. They're just bigger and more organized. But keep in mind -- the NRA, and organizations like it (hopefully to include GeekPAC) are supported by tens of thousands of dues-paying members.

So, corporations, organizations, and hopefully the "Geek lobby" are simply conduits to organize the political desires of individuals. I can't think of anything more democratic.

As a side note, George Will has written an interesting column about the current scheme to limit free expression in the name of "reform" of our allegedly corporate-owned political system.

I know it isn't kosher to reply to your own reply, but I thought about the original posting. Basic research can lead to good things, but applied research is not good in and of itself. For example, check out the work of Jean-Marc Vanden-Broeck and his pursuit of the drip free teapot. He has been richly rewarded.

The cops in Arlington. VA ARE using GPS and "other" technologies to in a "bait cars" catch car thieves.

On Wednesday, the Jerusalem-born actress objected tartly in the Harvard Crimson to law student Faisal Chaudhry's April 11 essay on U.S. policy concerning Israel and the Palestinians.

Portman continued: "Outrageous and untrue finger-pointing is a childish tactic that disregards the responsibility of all parties involved."

See what Nobel Laureate and professor of Physics Brian D. Josephson has to say of Robert Park.

In Washinton Post, Charles Platt comments like so.

For a good commentary on Park vs Cold Fusion, go to the source.

"When I began my physical studies [in Munich in 1874] and sought advice from my venerable teacher Philipp von Jolly... he portrayed to me physics as a highly developed, almost fully matured science... Possibly in one or another nook there would perhaps be a dust particle or a small bubble to be examined and classified, but the system as a whole stood there fairly secured, and theoretical physics approached visibly that degree of perfection which, for example, geometry has had already for centuries."

• -- from a 1924 lecture by Max Planck (Sci. Am, Feb 1996 p.10)

May I all point you to a study done a few months ago that points to 6 hours a night being optimal.

This was a study of 1.1 million people over 6 years. It should be accurate. It showed, contrary to popular belief, that those who got 8 or more hours tended to die a little younger than those who got 6 or 7.

Also, it you get less sleep, in effect you are living longer.If you sleep 6 instead of 8, you get 2 more hours each day. That adds up to several years over your life, in effect.

I feel very refreshed with 6 hours of sleep. 8 hours makes me feel groggy.

Try this article from the Washington Post.

Theres numerous other examples of the bush whitehouse revising transcripts so they don't make the president look like such a dolt. There was a interesting article I saw about it a few days ago, that mentioned this example and several others (including rumsfeld transcripts being revised too) but even with google I am unable to find it now. If anyone knows the article I'm thinking of, please post a link.

Try this article from the Washington Post.

March 10, 2002 -- Eureka! One of my readers, who calls himself "Snake Plissken," has put it together. He tells us why the passenger lists of the four September 11 "suicide" jets were so small, how remote control was used, why the transponders were turned off, why the radar tracks of the four planes were confused, why there was no Boeing 757 debris at the Pentagon
By George, I think he's got it!

My e-mail exchanges with Snake took place over a series of days. With Snake's agreement, I have consolidated the exchanges, inserted some reference URLs, and made minor edits. My comments and additions will be bracketed thus [ ]. As you read what Snake has to say, keep the following in mind:

Magic is the pretended performance of those things which cannot be done. The success of a magician's simulation of doing the impossible depends upon misleading the minds of his audiences. This, in the main, is done by adding, to a performance, details of which the spectators are unaware, and leaving out others which they believe you have not left out. In short a performance of magic is largely a demonstration of the universal reliability of certain facts of psychology.
(John Mulholland, The Art of Illusion, Charles Scribner & Sons, 1944.)

Carol,

You did some fine research on 9-11. You came within inches of solving the puzzle of the "suicide" jets, and now you need the rest of the story. Let me explain by making a suggestion.

Go visit a bumblebee hive some time, and try to keep your eye on just one bee. You can't do it. You get confused. Think of the 9-11 jets as bumblebees. Matter of fact, you could even call Operation 911 Flight of the Bumble Planes.

I've worked in cryptology and there are many ways of hiding the truth. Substitute information, omit information, scramble the information out of sequence, and add nonsense (random garbage). All four methods were used on the 9-11 incident. Let me lay out the clues and show you where they lead.

Second Clue -- First Report of First WTC Crash: The second clue comes from the first New York eyewitness on NBC. She had no question about what she saw. You could hear it in her voice. If she was the state's witness, the defense team would have their heads between their knees before she stopped talking.

What did she say? She heard an airplane coming in low and looked up. She saw a small private jet, and watched it fly into the first WTC tower, the North tower. She was certain in her description -- most people know the difference between a big round-nose commercial jet and a smaller plane.

[ CV cmments:
In his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on October 25, 2001, NORAD commander Ralph Eberhart said of the first September 11 report: "We were told it was a light commuter airplane. It didn't look like that was caused by a light commuter airplane."
http://www.ngaus.org/newsroom/HomelandDefenseTrans cript.doc
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/eberhart-testimon y.html ]

Third clue -- Pentagon Crash: The first report on NBC said there had been an explosion near the Pentagon heliport. No mention of a plane.

If you were watching ABC, the first reports cited eyewitnesses who said a business jet had crashed into the Pentagon. Notice that this description is similar to the first report about the WTC. A small plane, not a big, round-nosed passenger jet.

Then ABC interviewed some media executive who said he "saw the whole thing" from his car on the freeway. It was an American Airlines passenger jet. Good luck the road didn't need his attention while he was gawking. And of course it was a big passenger jet scraping the light poles with it's belly as it came in low. And that story paved the way for the official truth.

Fourth Clue -- No Boeing 757 Debris at Pentagon Crash Site : By now lots of people have realized there is something very wrong with the story of Flight 77's crash into the Pentagon. What's the problem? The wingspan of a 757 is about 125 feet, with about 35 feet between the two jet engines.

[CV comments: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757-200/ext.html
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/boeing757-200

The hole left by whatever hit the building was 70 feet across.

US News & World Report, December 10, 2001, pg. 31
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/usn011210-1.jpg ]

[CV comments:
I have studied TV footage taken contemporaneously by various networks and reviewed photos from news magazines published just after 9-11. After the smoke died down, no Boeing 757 debris was visible.

See the following URLs at the website of the U.S. Army Military District of Washington, D.C., sent to me by researcher John DiNardo, <jadinardo@hotmail.com>. By the way, Mr. DiNardo suspects that inside explosives were used at the Pentagon on 9-11. Certainly the damaged section of the building had just been renovated; explosives would have been easy to install.

http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/911/pages / iretruck.html
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/pentagon6

http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/911/pages / apitolview.html
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/pentagon5

http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/911/pages / ars-damaged.html
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/pentagon2

The scenes depicted by the US Army photos are consistent with contemporaneously published photos in the popular press. See, for example, US News and World Report, September 14, 2001, pg. 40.

http://www.Public-Action.com/911/usn010914-1.jpg

and the photo that appeared in Newsweek's 2001 "Extra" edition, pgs. 26, 27.
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/nwkxtr-1.jpg

This photograph below, with caption, appeared on the US Army Military District of Washington site. It unwittingly demonstrates that there was no Boeing 757 wreckage. Think now: a hundred thousand pounds of seats, framework, skin plates, engine parts, flaps, wheels, luggage, interior panels, electronics, and this little out-of-context scrap of God-knows-what was shown by the Pentagon.

http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/911/pages / lanepiece.html
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/pentagon0

In the last several months, largely as a result of Mr. DiNardo's work, there has been growing Internet discussion of the lack of Boeing 757 debris outside the Pentagon. Now, magically, new photos of "Boeing 757" Pentagon wreckage are beginning to appear. Check out the websites of Mike Rivero <whatreallyhappened.com> and Joe Vialls for copies of these fakes. Rivero and Vialls, by endorsing them as real, have surely identified themselves as members of the fake opposition.

OK. Now back to Snake Plissken]

[http://www.Public-action.com/911/robotplane.html ]

Yet the Washington Post described the maneuvers of Flight 77 before it hit the Pentagon. The huge jet took a 270 degree hairpin turn to make its target. The Post said Flight 77 had to be flown by expert pilots.

Something is wrong here. Now "dumb and dumber" are expert pilots. That is your fifth clue.

Sixth Clue -- Transponders Turned Off: As you point out, the "hijackers" turned off the transponders which transmit information showing the airline names, flight numbers, and altitude. But the FAA also uses conventional radar, so the "hijackers" must have known the planes were still visible. Why would the "hijackers" shut the transponders off, you asked? You are looking at your sixth clue.

[ Did NORAD Send The 'Suicide' Jets? Part 1
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/noradsend.html ]

Eighth Clue -- Second WTC Tower Barely Hit : Have a look at the footage of the second WTC tower being hit. The plane almost missed the tower and just managed to hit the corner. Yet the first plane struck its target dead center. That's your eighth clue.

[See diagrams from Wag the WTC website at:
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/psyopnews/Extra/1 / outhtowerpath.jpg ] HERE'S WHAT HAPPENED

* The number of the passengers on each flight was kept artificially low that day. Easy to do. Just monkey with the airline computers and show the fights full so no more tickets are sold. Include some of your own operatives in each flight, maybe.

* After the planes are in the air, the transponders must be shut down. There are a few ways to do this, maybe, but the simplest is this: Have one of the NORAD insiders call the pilots and say: "This is the North American Aerospace Defense Command. There is a national emergency. We are under terrorist attack. Turn off your transponders. Maintain radio silence. Here is your new flight plan. You will land at [name] military air base."

* The pilots turn off the transponders. The FAA weenies lose the information which identifies the airline, the flight number, and the altitude of the planes. Of course the planes can still be seen on conventional radar, but the planes are just nameless blips now.

* What did the radar show of the planes' flight paths? We'll never see the real records, for sure. But in the spy movies, when the spy wants to lose a tail, he gets a double to lead the tail one way while the spy goes the other. If I were designing Operation 911, I'd do that: As each of the original jets is flying, another jet is sent to fly just above or below it, at the same latitude and longitude. The blips of the two planes merge on the radar scopes. Alternately, a plane is sent to cross the flight path of the original plane. Again, the blips merge, just like the little bees you're watching outside the hive. The original planes proceed to the military airfield and air traffic control is thoroughly confused, watching the wrong blips ...

That's probably close to the way it was managed. Like I say, we'll never see the radar records so we won't know exactly.

[For the alleged flight paths of the four jets, see
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/4flights.html
For names and locations of military airfields in the US, try
http://www.globemaster.de/bases.html
You can search for a listing of bases in 9-11 related states by using the search engine.]

* The remote controlled "Pseudo Flight 175," decked out to look like a United airlines passenger jet, is sent aloft and flown by remote control -- without passengers -- and crashed into the second tower.

Beautiful! Everyone has pictures of that.

Why did Pseudo Flight 175 almost miss the second tower? Because the remote operators were used to smaller, more maneuverable craft, not a big stubborn passenger jet. The operators brought the jet in on a tight circle and almost blew it because those jets do hairpin turns like the Queen Mary. They brought it in too fast and too close to do the job right and just hit the corner of the tower.

* Then another remote controlled commuter jet filled with incendiaries/explosives -- a cruise missile if you like -- hits the Pentagon, in the name of Flight 77.

* Eyewitnesses are a dime a dozen. Trusted media whores "witness" the Pentagon hit and claim it was an American Airlines Boeing 757, Flight 77. Reporters lie better than lawyers.

* Meanwhile, the passengers from Flights 11, 175, and 77, now at the military airfield, are loaded onto Flight 93. If you've put some of your own agents aboard, they stay on the ground, of course.

* Flight 93 is taken aloft.

* Flight 93 is shot down or bombed -- makes no difference which. Main deal is to destroy that human meat without questions. Easiest way to dispose of 15,000 lbs. of human flesh, and nobody gets a headline if they find a foot in their front garden. No mass graves will ever be discovered, either.

* The trail is further confused by issuing reports that Flight 77 was actually headed towards the White House but changed course.

* The trail is further confused by having the Washington Post wax lyrical about the flying skills of non-existent pilots on a non-existence plane (Flight 77).

* The trail is further confused with conflicting reports and artificial catfight issues, such as -- did The Presidential Shrub really see the first tower hit on TV while he was waiting to read the story about the pet goat ...

So we know the Boeing that used to be Flight 93 was blown up. The other three original Boeings (Flights 11, 175, 77) still exist somewhere, unless they were cut up for scrap.

The passengers and crews of Flights 11, 175, 77, and 93 died in an airplane crash, just like the newspapers said. Only for most of them, it was the wrong crash. But that's as close to the truth as the news media likes to get anyway, so it works.

The four original Boeings had conventional controls. The look-alike Boeing and the two small jets were drones, rigged with remote control. You called it Global Hawk, and that's good enough. The mimic planes could have been piloted or remote controlled.

Why not just install remote control in four passenger jets like you described in NO SUICIDE PILOTS? Here's why: You might get remote control gear installed on a passenger jet so pretty the pilot would not notice, but that would be more work, more time, and more people. Then you would have to control your special plane through maintenance dispatch and try to get it lined up for that day, that time, that flight. Then you would have to multiply those efforts by four. There would be too many chances of things going wrong. Plane substitution would be much simpler. You'd just need the NORAD insiders, the personnel at the military airfield, and maybe an agent or two inside the FAA air traffic control system to make sure things go smooth. That should not be too difficult because NORAD has sent lots of its people over to the FAA to work on the FAA radars.

[CV commens:
Gen. Eberhart, NORAD commander, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on October 25, 2001 that " . . . we've actually moved manpower on the order of about 200 people over the years to the FAA to operate these radars." Cited in Did NORAD Send The 'Suicide' Jets? Part 2. See Eberhart testimony at:
http://www.ngaus.org/newsroom/HomelandDefenseTrans cript.doc
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/eberhart-testimon y.html ]

You know Flight 175 was not on that system when it hit the south tower because it came in fast (they say) in a tight hooking circle that almost missed the tower. An autopilot wouldn't make that mistake. The crash of flight 175 was not a preprgrammed flight computer finding the optimum path. What you see there in the path of 175 is a real-time controller fighting the physics of flight - and almost losing it.

You've already dealt with the Joe Vialls Home Run explanation, so I don't have to analyze that again.

[ http://www.Public-Action.com/911/noradsend.html ]

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/03/07/gen.pentagon.pict ures/index.html

The Washington Post says: "The first photo shows a small, blurry, white object near the upper right corner -- possibly the plane just a few feet about the ground," but admits "the hijacked American Airlines plane is not clearly visible." ("New Photos Show Attack on Pentagon," March 7, 2002. )

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A566 70-2002Mar7.html

Yeah, right, you can believe that the American Airlines plane is not visible.

* Fireman's Video of First Crash. The NBC eyewitness said the plane that few into the North tower was small. This is corroborated by the fireman's video taken on September 11:

http://www.xemox.net/wtc/movies/first.plane.hits.g p.med.asf

[Note to reader: There are other versions of this clip on the Internet, but I have been unable to find one I can verify as the original clip. If you can find a verifiable copy, let me know. CV <SkyWriter@Public.Action.com>]

In that clip, the camera shows a fireman with other workers casually discussing some street work. The fireman looks up over his left shoulder, then behind him, as though he is following a sound. The camera follows his gaze, finds nothing at the original location, then quickly moves to a shot of the WTC, visible through another corridor in the surrounding buildings.

Why does the cameraman focus on the WTC? I can only guess he heard the impact of the plane. The camera does not show the plane in the air prior to impact, so I assume it has already crashed.

In the first frames we see a puff of smoke from the impact site that grows into a cloud and erupts into flame. After a few seconds, the flame dies down and the smoke dissipates. At that moment, the camera shows the huge S-shaped gash in the side of WTC North.

If the wings of a large jet made that gash, the gash should not be S-shaped. The gash should be a straight line like the wings of the jet. But more important: if the impact of the jet made
the gash, the gash should appear at the moment of impact when the camera is first drawn to the building. Instead, it appears AFTER the smoke and flame.

[ http://public-action.com/911/gamma.jpg
and
http://public-action.com/911/gamma2.jpg ]

It would be easy for the 9-11 planners to collect the names of people with Muslim-sounding names who were taking flying lessons around the country. Just before 9-11 happens, they are disappeared. Then mid-air phone calls are created, reporting hijackers who were never aboard the planes. That would work.

As you and many people have noticed, the Muslim names don't appear on the passenger lists of the four flights. The hijackers names don't even appear on the list of passengers released by United on September 12 -- the list of passengers on Flights 175 and 93.

[ http://www.Public-Action.com/911/uapassngerlist ]

Just to show you how scripted the Flight 93 hijacking thing was, think about the alleged phone calls from the passengers on Flight 93 to their next of kin in the moments before the crash. Supposedly, they learned of the attacks on the Pentagon and the WTC with their handy cell phones, and they figured out their own plane was hijacked for a similar purpose. So they decided to be heroes and take the plane away from the hijackers.

According to the Dallas Morning News : "The fourth time Thomas Burnett Jr. phoned his wife, Deena, he acknowledged up front: 'I know we're going to die. There's three of us who are going to do something about it.'"

[ Dallas Morning News, "Trapped in the skies, captives fought back," September 17, 2001.
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/dmnheroes ]

But why did it have to be suicide heroism? "They knew their deaths were inevitable, according to some family members with whom they spoke on the phone, and they didn't want thousands more to die with them." It makes a better story, of course. "Suicide Heroes Defeat Suicide Hijackers."

Why did they have to die? The crew was still alive and "herded at knife point to the back of the plane, where the passengers were being held," according to the same report. They weren't dead. If the passengers got control from the hijackers, couldn't the crew fly the plane? Why didn't those brave heroes say things like, "There's a chance we might save this boat"? But they said, "I know we're going to die."

Obviously, this script was concocted in midnight a bull sessions like they had in Dustin Hoffman's mansion in "Wag the Dog". And the American public has been trained on weak plots for decades on prime time TV, so they don't WANT to think their way out of a wet paper bag. It spoils the show.

Only the writers and producers of Operation 911 knew that the passengers of Flight 93 had to die. But the temptation was too much, so they put it in the passenger dialog, too. And that's how you know the cell phone calls are just theater, not fact.

By the way, if I was planning this operation, I'd put some fictitious names on the passenger list, so when the flight went down, the media could interview fake relatives. Like that Operation Northwoods plan in which a fake Cuban jet would shoot down a fake American passenger jet. Whoever planned that must have planned to use fake grieving relatives, too.

[ http://www.Public-Action.com//911/northwds.html ]

["The Final Moments of Flight 93," September 22, 2001, by Karen Breslau (NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE)
http://www.msnbc.com/news/632626.asp
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/finalmoments93 ]

The problem with people like you when you try to understand events like this, you are not a trained killer. When you come to wiping out the whoever, you shrink back. That's normal. That is one of the things you have to train out of a soldier.

But when a soldier plans something like this, he doesn't flinch at the killing. He just takes that into the plans like one more or one less egg in the omelet. If he has to kill the enemy or Americans or even
himself, it doesn't matter because sometimes he has to do that to win. He's trained that way.

The only thing that matters is the Objective. Whatever a soldier has to do to win the Objective, that is what he has to do. All of this false piety about suicide bombers is nuts. Well trained Americans would do that if you ordered them to. If they didn't, they weren't well trained.

So you have to kill a hundred, a thousand, or five thousand civilians, you just do it in the best way that will help the Objective.

March 10, 2002 -- Eureka! One of my readers, who calls himself "Snake Plissken," has put it together. He tells us why the passenger lists of the four September 11 "suicide" jets were so small, how remote control was used, why the transponders were turned off, why the radar tracks of the four planes were confused, why there was no Boeing 757 debris at the Pentagon
By George, I think he's got it!

My e-mail exchanges with Snake took place over a series of days. With Snake's agreement, I have consolidated the exchanges, inserted some reference URLs, and made minor edits. My comments and additions will be bracketed thus [ ]. As you read what Snake has to say, keep the following in mind:

Magic is the pretended performance of those things which cannot be done. The success of a magician's simulation of doing the impossible depends upon misleading the minds of his audiences. This, in the main, is done by adding, to a performance, details of which the spectators are unaware, and leaving out others which they believe you have not left out. In short a performance of magic is largely a demonstration of the universal reliability of certain facts of psychology.
(John Mulholland, The Art of Illusion, Charles Scribner & Sons, 1944.)

Carol,

You did some fine research on 9-11. You came within inches of solving the puzzle of the "suicide" jets, and now you need the rest of the story. Let me explain by making a suggestion.

Go visit a bumblebee hive some time, and try to keep your eye on just one bee. You can't do it. You get confused. Think of the 9-11 jets as bumblebees. Matter of fact, you could even call Operation 911 Flight of the Bumble Planes.

I've worked in cryptology and there are many ways of hiding the truth. Substitute information, omit information, scramble the information out of sequence, and add nonsense (random garbage). All four methods were used on the 9-11 incident. Let me lay out the clues and show you where they lead.

Second Clue -- First Report of First WTC Crash: The second clue comes from the first New York eyewitness on NBC. She had no question about what she saw. You could hear it in her voice. If she was the state's witness, the defense team would have their heads between their knees before she stopped talking.

What did she say? She heard an airplane coming in low and looked up. She saw a small private jet, and watched it fly into the first WTC tower, the North tower. She was certain in her description -- most people know the difference between a big round-nose commercial jet and a smaller plane.

[ CV cmments:
In his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on October 25, 2001, NORAD commander Ralph Eberhart said of the first September 11 report: "We were told it was a light commuter airplane. It didn't look like that was caused by a light commuter airplane."
http://www.ngaus.org/newsroom/HomelandDefenseTrans cript.doc
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/eberhart-testimon y.html ]

Third clue -- Pentagon Crash: The first report on NBC said there had been an explosion near the Pentagon heliport. No mention of a plane.

If you were watching ABC, the first reports cited eyewitnesses who said a business jet had crashed into the Pentagon. Notice that this description is similar to the first report about the WTC. A small plane, not a big, round-nosed passenger jet.

Then ABC interviewed some media executive who said he "saw the whole thing" from his car on the freeway. It was an American Airlines passenger jet. Good luck the road didn't need his attention while he was gawking. And of course it was a big passenger jet scraping the light poles with it's belly as it came in low. And that story paved the way for the official truth.

Fourth Clue -- No Boeing 757 Debris at Pentagon Crash Site : By now lots of people have realized there is something very wrong with the story of Flight 77's crash into the Pentagon. What's the problem? The wingspan of a 757 is about 125 feet, with about 35 feet between the two jet engines.

[CV comments: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757-200/ext.html
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/boeing757-200

The hole left by whatever hit the building was 70 feet across.

US News & World Report, December 10, 2001, pg. 31
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/usn011210-1.jpg ]

[CV comments:
I have studied TV footage taken contemporaneously by various networks and reviewed photos from news magazines published just after 9-11. After the smoke died down, no Boeing 757 debris was visible.

See the following URLs at the website of the U.S. Army Military District of Washington, D.C., sent to me by researcher John DiNardo, <jadinardo@hotmail.com>. By the way, Mr. DiNardo suspects that inside explosives were used at the Pentagon on 9-11. Certainly the damaged section of the building had just been renovated; explosives would have been easy to install.

http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/911/pages / iretruck.html
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/pentagon6

http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/911/pages / apitolview.html
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/pentagon5

http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/911/pages / ars-damaged.html
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/pentagon2

The scenes depicted by the US Army photos are consistent with contemporaneously published photos in the popular press. See, for example, US News and World Report, September 14, 2001, pg. 40.

http://www.Public-Action.com/911/usn010914-1.jpg

and the photo that appeared in Newsweek's 2001 "Extra" edition, pgs. 26, 27.
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/nwkxtr-1.jpg

This photograph below, with caption, appeared on the US Army Military District of Washington site. It unwittingly demonstrates that there was no Boeing 757 wreckage. Think now: a hundred thousand pounds of seats, framework, skin plates, engine parts, flaps, wheels, luggage, interior panels, electronics, and this little out-of-context scrap of God-knows-what was shown by the Pentagon.

http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/911/pages / lanepiece.html
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/pentagon0

In the last several months, largely as a result of Mr. DiNardo's work, there has been growing Internet discussion of the lack of Boeing 757 debris outside the Pentagon. Now, magically, new photos of "Boeing 757" Pentagon wreckage are beginning to appear. Check out the websites of Mike Rivero <whatreallyhappened.com> and Joe Vialls for copies of these fakes. Rivero and Vialls, by endorsing them as real, have surely identified themselves as members of the fake opposition.

OK. Now back to Snake Plissken]

[http://www.Public-action.com/911/robotplane.html ]

Yet the Washington Post described the maneuvers of Flight 77 before it hit the Pentagon. The huge jet took a 270 degree hairpin turn to make its target. The Post said Flight 77 had to be flown by expert pilots.

Something is wrong here. Now "dumb and dumber" are expert pilots. That is your fifth clue.

Sixth Clue -- Transponders Turned Off: As you point out, the "hijackers" turned off the transponders which transmit information showing the airline names, flight numbers, and altitude. But the FAA also uses conventional radar, so the "hijackers" must have known the planes were still visible. Why would the "hijackers" shut the transponders off, you asked? You are looking at your sixth clue.

[ Did NORAD Send The 'Suicide' Jets? Part 1
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/noradsend.html ]

Eighth Clue -- Second WTC Tower Barely Hit : Have a look at the footage of the second WTC tower being hit. The plane almost missed the tower and just managed to hit the corner. Yet the first plane struck its target dead center. That's your eighth clue.

[See diagrams from Wag the WTC website at:
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/psyopnews/Extra/1 / outhtowerpath.jpg ] HERE'S WHAT HAPPENED

* The number of the passengers on each flight was kept artificially low that day. Easy to do. Just monkey with the airline computers and show the fights full so no more tickets are sold. Include some of your own operatives in each flight, maybe.

* After the planes are in the air, the transponders must be shut down. There are a few ways to do this, maybe, but the simplest is this: Have one of the NORAD insiders call the pilots and say: "This is the North American Aerospace Defense Command. There is a national emergency. We are under terrorist attack. Turn off your transponders. Maintain radio silence. Here is your new flight plan. You will land at [name] military air base."

* The pilots turn off the transponders. The FAA weenies lose the information which identifies the airline, the flight number, and the altitude of the planes. Of course the planes can still be seen on conventional radar, but the planes are just nameless blips now.

* What did the radar show of the planes' flight paths? We'll never see the real records, for sure. But in the spy movies, when the spy wants to lose a tail, he gets a double to lead the tail one way while the spy goes the other. If I were designing Operation 911, I'd do that: As each of the original jets is flying, another jet is sent to fly just above or below it, at the same latitude and longitude. The blips of the two planes merge on the radar scopes. Alternately, a plane is sent to cross the flight path of the original plane. Again, the blips merge, just like the little bees you're watching outside the hive. The original planes proceed to the military airfield and air traffic control is thoroughly confused, watching the wrong blips ...

That's probably close to the way it was managed. Like I say, we'll never see the radar records so we won't know exactly.

[For the alleged flight paths of the four jets, see
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/4flights.html
For names and locations of military airfields in the US, try
http://www.globemaster.de/bases.html
You can search for a listing of bases in 9-11 related states by using the search engine.]

* The remote controlled "Pseudo Flight 175," decked out to look like a United airlines passenger jet, is sent aloft and flown by remote control -- without passengers -- and crashed into the second tower.

Beautiful! Everyone has pictures of that.

Why did Pseudo Flight 175 almost miss the second tower? Because the remote operators were used to smaller, more maneuverable craft, not a big stubborn passenger jet. The operators brought the jet in on a tight circle and almost blew it because those jets do hairpin turns like the Queen Mary. They brought it in too fast and too close to do the job right and just hit the corner of the tower.

* Then another remote controlled commuter jet filled with incendiaries/explosives -- a cruise missile if you like -- hits the Pentagon, in the name of Flight 77.

* Eyewitnesses are a dime a dozen. Trusted media whores "witness" the Pentagon hit and claim it was an American Airlines Boeing 757, Flight 77. Reporters lie better than lawyers.

* Meanwhile, the passengers from Flights 11, 175, and 77, now at the military airfield, are loaded onto Flight 93. If you've put some of your own agents aboard, they stay on the ground, of course.

* Flight 93 is taken aloft.

* Flight 93 is shot down or bombed -- makes no difference which. Main deal is to destroy that human meat without questions. Easiest way to dispose of 15,000 lbs. of human flesh, and nobody gets a headline if they find a foot in their front garden. No mass graves will ever be discovered, either.

* The trail is further confused by issuing reports that Flight 77 was actually headed towards the White House but changed course.

* The trail is further confused by having the Washington Post wax lyrical about the flying skills of non-existent pilots on a non-existence plane (Flight 77).

* The trail is further confused with conflicting reports and artificial catfight issues, such as -- did The Presidential Shrub really see the first tower hit on TV while he was waiting to read the story about the pet goat ...

So we know the Boeing that used to be Flight 93 was blown up. The other three original Boeings (Flights 11, 175, 77) still exist somewhere, unless they were cut up for scrap.

The passengers and crews of Flights 11, 175, 77, and 93 died in an airplane crash, just like the newspapers said. Only for most of them, it was the wrong crash. But that's as close to the truth as the news media likes to get anyway, so it works.

The four original Boeings had conventional controls. The look-alike Boeing and the two small jets were drones, rigged with remote control. You called it Global Hawk, and that's good enough. The mimic planes could have been piloted or remote controlled.

Why not just install remote control in four passenger jets like you described in NO SUICIDE PILOTS? Here's why: You might get remote control gear installed on a passenger jet so pretty the pilot would not notice, but that would be more work, more time, and more people. Then you would have to control your special plane through maintenance dispatch and try to get it lined up for that day, that time, that flight. Then you would have to multiply those efforts by four. There would be too many chances of things going wrong. Plane substitution would be much simpler. You'd just need the NORAD insiders, the personnel at the military airfield, and maybe an agent or two inside the FAA air traffic control system to make sure things go smooth. That should not be too difficult because NORAD has sent lots of its people over to the FAA to work on the FAA radars.

[CV commens:
Gen. Eberhart, NORAD commander, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on October 25, 2001 that " . . . we've actually moved manpower on the order of about 200 people over the years to the FAA to operate these radars." Cited in Did NORAD Send The 'Suicide' Jets? Part 2. See Eberhart testimony at:
http://www.ngaus.org/newsroom/HomelandDefenseTrans cript.doc
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/eberhart-testimon y.html ]

You know Flight 175 was not on that system when it hit the south tower because it came in fast (they say) in a tight hooking circle that almost missed the tower. An autopilot wouldn't make that mistake. The crash of flight 175 was not a preprgrammed flight computer finding the optimum path. What you see there in the path of 175 is a real-time controller fighting the physics of flight - and almost losing it.

You've already dealt with the Joe Vialls Home Run explanation, so I don't have to analyze that again.

[ http://www.Public-Action.com/911/noradsend.html ]

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/03/07/gen.pentagon.pict ures/index.html

The Washington Post says: "The first photo shows a small, blurry, white object near the upper right corner -- possibly the plane just a few feet about the ground," but admits "the hijacked American Airlines plane is not clearly visible." ("New Photos Show Attack on Pentagon," March 7, 2002. )

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A566 70-2002Mar7.html

Yeah, right, you can believe that the American Airlines plane is not visible.

* Fireman's Video of First Crash. The NBC eyewitness said the plane that few into the North tower was small. This is corroborated by the fireman's video taken on September 11:

http://www.xemox.net/wtc/movies/first.plane.hits.g p.med.asf

[Note to reader: There are other versions of this clip on the Internet, but I have been unable to find one I can verify as the original clip. If you can find a verifiable copy, let me know. CV <SkyWriter@Public.Action.com>]

In that clip, the camera shows a fireman with other workers casually discussing some street work. The fireman looks up over his left shoulder, then behind him, as though he is following a sound. The camera follows his gaze, finds nothing at the original location, then quickly moves to a shot of the WTC, visible through another corridor in the surrounding buildings.

Why does the cameraman focus on the WTC? I can only guess he heard the impact of the plane. The camera does not show the plane in the air prior to impact, so I assume it has already crashed.

In the first frames we see a puff of smoke from the impact site that grows into a cloud and erupts into flame. After a few seconds, the flame dies down and the smoke dissipates. At that moment, the camera shows the huge S-shaped gash in the side of WTC North.

If the wings of a large jet made that gash, the gash should not be S-shaped. The gash should be a straight line like the wings of the jet. But more important: if the impact of the jet made
the gash, the gash should appear at the moment of impact when the camera is first drawn to the building. Instead, it appears AFTER the smoke and flame.

[ http://public-action.com/911/gamma.jpg
and
http://public-action.com/911/gamma2.jpg ]

It would be easy for the 9-11 planners to collect the names of people with Muslim-sounding names who were taking flying lessons around the country. Just before 9-11 happens, they are disappeared. Then mid-air phone calls are created, reporting hijackers who were never aboard the planes. That would work.

As you and many people have noticed, the Muslim names don't appear on the passenger lists of the four flights. The hijackers names don't even appear on the list of passengers released by United on September 12 -- the list of passengers on Flights 175 and 93.

[ http://www.Public-Action.com/911/uapassngerlist ]

Just to show you how scripted the Flight 93 hijacking thing was, think about the alleged phone calls from the passengers on Flight 93 to their next of kin in the moments before the crash. Supposedly, they learned of the attacks on the Pentagon and the WTC with their handy cell phones, and they figured out their own plane was hijacked for a similar purpose. So they decided to be heroes and take the plane away from the hijackers.

According to the Dallas Morning News : "The fourth time Thomas Burnett Jr. phoned his wife, Deena, he acknowledged up front: 'I know we're going to die. There's three of us who are going to do something about it.'"

[ Dallas Morning News, "Trapped in the skies, captives fought back," September 17, 2001.
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/dmnheroes ]

But why did it have to be suicide heroism? "They knew their deaths were inevitable, according to some family members with whom they spoke on the phone, and they didn't want thousands more to die with them." It makes a better story, of course. "Suicide Heroes Defeat Suicide Hijackers."

Why did they have to die? The crew was still alive and "herded at knife point to the back of the plane, where the passengers were being held," according to the same report. They weren't dead. If the passengers got control from the hijackers, couldn't the crew fly the plane? Why didn't those brave heroes say things like, "There's a chance we might save this boat"? But they said, "I know we're going to die."

Obviously, this script was concocted in midnight a bull sessions like they had in Dustin Hoffman's mansion in "Wag the Dog". And the American public has been trained on weak plots for decades on prime time TV, so they don't WANT to think their way out of a wet paper bag. It spoils the show.

Only the writers and producers of Operation 911 knew that the passengers of Flight 93 had to die. But the temptation was too much, so they put it in the passenger dialog, too. And that's how you know the cell phone calls are just theater, not fact.

By the way, if I was planning this operation, I'd put some fictitious names on the passenger list, so when the flight went down, the media could interview fake relatives. Like that Operation Northwoods plan in which a fake Cuban jet would shoot down a fake American passenger jet. Whoever planned that must have planned to use fake grieving relatives, too.

[ http://www.Public-Action.com//911/northwds.html ]

["The Final Moments of Flight 93," September 22, 2001, by Karen Breslau (NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE)
http://www.msnbc.com/news/632626.asp
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/finalmoments93 ]

The problem with people like you when you try to understand events like this, you are not a trained killer. When you come to wiping out the whoever, you shrink back. That's normal. That is one of the things you have to train out of a soldier.

But when a soldier plans something like this, he doesn't flinch at the killing. He just takes that into the plans like one more or one less egg in the omelet. If he has to kill the enemy or Americans or even
himself, it doesn't matter because sometimes he has to do that to win. He's trained that way.

The only thing that matters is the Objective. Whatever a soldier has to do to win the Objective, that is what he has to do. All of this false piety about suicide bombers is nuts. Well trained Americans would do that if you ordered them to. If they didn't, they weren't well trained.

So you have to kill a hundred, a thousand, or five thousand civilians, you just do it in the best way that will help the Objective.

March 10, 2002 -- Eureka! One of my readers, who calls himself "Snake Plissken," has put it together. He tells us why the passenger lists of the four September 11 "suicide" jets were so small, how remote control was used, why the transponders were turned off, why the radar tracks of the four planes were confused, why there was no Boeing 757 debris at the Pentagon
By George, I think he's got it!

My e-mail exchanges with Snake took place over a series of days. With Snake's agreement, I have consolidated the exchanges, inserted some reference URLs, and made minor edits. My comments and additions will be bracketed thus [ ]. As you read what Snake has to say, keep the following in mind:

Magic is the pretended performance of those things which cannot be done. The success of a magician's simulation of doing the impossible depends upon misleading the minds of his audiences. This, in the main, is done by adding, to a performance, details of which the spectators are unaware, and leaving out others which they believe you have not left out. In short a performance of magic is largely a demonstration of the universal reliability of certain facts of psychology.
(John Mulholland, The Art of Illusion, Charles Scribner & Sons, 1944.)

Carol,

You did some fine research on 9-11. You came within inches of solving the puzzle of the "suicide" jets, and now you need the rest of the story. Let me explain by making a suggestion.

Go visit a bumblebee hive some time, and try to keep your eye on just one bee. You can't do it. You get confused. Think of the 9-11 jets as bumblebees. Matter of fact, you could even call Operation 911 Flight of the Bumble Planes.

I've worked in cryptology and there are many ways of hiding the truth. Substitute information, omit information, scramble the information out of sequence, and add nonsense (random garbage). All four methods were used on the 9-11 incident. Let me lay out the clues and show you where they lead.

Second Clue -- First Report of First WTC Crash: The second clue comes from the first New York eyewitness on NBC. She had no question about what she saw. You could hear it in her voice. If she was the state's witness, the defense team would have their heads between their knees before she stopped talking.

What did she say? She heard an airplane coming in low and looked up. She saw a small private jet, and watched it fly into the first WTC tower, the North tower. She was certain in her description -- most people know the difference between a big round-nose commercial jet and a smaller plane.

[ CV cmments:
In his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on October 25, 2001, NORAD commander Ralph Eberhart said of the first September 11 report: "We were told it was a light commuter airplane. It didn't look like that was caused by a light commuter airplane."
http://www.ngaus.org/newsroom/HomelandDefenseTrans cript.doc
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/eberhart-testimon y.html ]

Third clue -- Pentagon Crash: The first report on NBC said there had been an explosion near the Pentagon heliport. No mention of a plane.

If you were watching ABC, the first reports cited eyewitnesses who said a business jet had crashed into the Pentagon. Notice that this description is similar to the first report about the WTC. A small plane, not a big, round-nosed passenger jet.

Then ABC interviewed some media executive who said he "saw the whole thing" from his car on the freeway. It was an American Airlines passenger jet. Good luck the road didn't need his attention while he was gawking. And of course it was a big passenger jet scraping the light poles with it's belly as it came in low. And that story paved the way for the official truth.

Fourth Clue -- No Boeing 757 Debris at Pentagon Crash Site : By now lots of people have realized there is something very wrong with the story of Flight 77's crash into the Pentagon. What's the problem? The wingspan of a 757 is about 125 feet, with about 35 feet between the two jet engines.

[CV comments: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757-200/ext.html
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/boeing757-200

The hole left by whatever hit the building was 70 feet across.

US News & World Report, December 10, 2001, pg. 31
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/usn011210-1.jpg ]

[CV comments:
I have studied TV footage taken contemporaneously by various networks and reviewed photos from news magazines published just after 9-11. After the smoke died down, no Boeing 757 debris was visible.

See the following URLs at the website of the U.S. Army Military District of Washington, D.C., sent to me by researcher John DiNardo, <jadinardo@hotmail.com>. By the way, Mr. DiNardo suspects that inside explosives were used at the Pentagon on 9-11. Certainly the damaged section of the building had just been renovated; explosives would have been easy to install.

http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/911/pages / iretruck.html
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/pentagon6

http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/911/pages / apitolview.html
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/pentagon5

http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/911/pages / ars-damaged.html
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/pentagon2

The scenes depicted by the US Army photos are consistent with contemporaneously published photos in the popular press. See, for example, US News and World Report, September 14, 2001, pg. 40.

http://www.Public-Action.com/911/usn010914-1.jpg

and the photo that appeared in Newsweek's 2001 "Extra" edition, pgs. 26, 27.
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/nwkxtr-1.jpg

This photograph below, with caption, appeared on the US Army Military District of Washington site. It unwittingly demonstrates that there was no Boeing 757 wreckage. Think now: a hundred thousand pounds of seats, framework, skin plates, engine parts, flaps, wheels, luggage, interior panels, electronics, and this little out-of-context scrap of God-knows-what was shown by the Pentagon.

http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/911/pages / lanepiece.html
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/pentagon0

In the last several months, largely as a result of Mr. DiNardo's work, there has been growing Internet discussion of the lack of Boeing 757 debris outside the Pentagon. Now, magically, new photos of "Boeing 757" Pentagon wreckage are beginning to appear. Check out the websites of Mike Rivero <whatreallyhappened.com> and Joe Vialls for copies of these fakes. Rivero and Vialls, by endorsing them as real, have surely identified themselves as members of the fake opposition.

OK. Now back to Snake Plissken]

[http://www.Public-action.com/911/robotplane.html ]

Yet the Washington Post described the maneuvers of Flight 77 before it hit the Pentagon. The huge jet took a 270 degree hairpin turn to make its target. The Post said Flight 77 had to be flown by expert pilots.

Something is wrong here. Now "dumb and dumber" are expert pilots. That is your fifth clue.

Sixth Clue -- Transponders Turned Off: As you point out, the "hijackers" turned off the transponders which transmit information showing the airline names, flight numbers, and altitude. But the FAA also uses conventional radar, so the "hijackers" must have known the planes were still visible. Why would the "hijackers" shut the transponders off, you asked? You are looking at your sixth clue.

[ Did NORAD Send The 'Suicide' Jets? Part 1
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/noradsend.html ]

Eighth Clue -- Second WTC Tower Barely Hit : Have a look at the footage of the second WTC tower being hit. The plane almost missed the tower and just managed to hit the corner. Yet the first plane struck its target dead center. That's your eighth clue.

[See diagrams from Wag the WTC website at:
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/psyopnews/Extra/1 / outhtowerpath.jpg ] HERE'S WHAT HAPPENED

* The number of the passengers on each flight was kept artificially low that day. Easy to do. Just monkey with the airline computers and show the fights full so no more tickets are sold. Include some of your own operatives in each flight, maybe.

* After the planes are in the air, the transponders must be shut down. There are a few ways to do this, maybe, but the simplest is this: Have one of the NORAD insiders call the pilots and say: "This is the North American Aerospace Defense Command. There is a national emergency. We are under terrorist attack. Turn off your transponders. Maintain radio silence. Here is your new flight plan. You will land at [name] military air base."

* The pilots turn off the transponders. The FAA weenies lose the information which identifies the airline, the flight number, and the altitude of the planes. Of course the planes can still be seen on conventional radar, but the planes are just nameless blips now.

* What did the radar show of the planes' flight paths? We'll never see the real records, for sure. But in the spy movies, when the spy wants to lose a tail, he gets a double to lead the tail one way while the spy goes the other. If I were designing Operation 911, I'd do that: As each of the original jets is flying, another jet is sent to fly just above or below it, at the same latitude and longitude. The blips of the two planes merge on the radar scopes. Alternately, a plane is sent to cross the flight path of the original plane. Again, the blips merge, just like the little bees you're watching outside the hive. The original planes proceed to the military airfield and air traffic control is thoroughly confused, watching the wrong blips ...

That's probably close to the way it was managed. Like I say, we'll never see the radar records so we won't know exactly.

[For the alleged flight paths of the four jets, see
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/4flights.html
For names and locations of military airfields in the US, try
http://www.globemaster.de/bases.html
You can search for a listing of bases in 9-11 related states by using the search engine.]

* The remote controlled "Pseudo Flight 175," decked out to look like a United airlines passenger jet, is sent aloft and flown by remote control -- without passengers -- and crashed into the second tower.

Beautiful! Everyone has pictures of that.

Why did Pseudo Flight 175 almost miss the second tower? Because the remote operators were used to smaller, more maneuverable craft, not a big stubborn passenger jet. The operators brought the jet in on a tight circle and almost blew it because those jets do hairpin turns like the Queen Mary. They brought it in too fast and too close to do the job right and just hit the corner of the tower.

* Then another remote controlled commuter jet filled with incendiaries/explosives -- a cruise missile if you like -- hits the Pentagon, in the name of Flight 77.

* Eyewitnesses are a dime a dozen. Trusted media whores "witness" the Pentagon hit and claim it was an American Airlines Boeing 757, Flight 77. Reporters lie better than lawyers.

* Meanwhile, the passengers from Flights 11, 175, and 77, now at the military airfield, are loaded onto Flight 93. If you've put some of your own agents aboard, they stay on the ground, of course.

* Flight 93 is taken aloft.

* Flight 93 is shot down or bombed -- makes no difference which. Main deal is to destroy that human meat without questions. Easiest way to dispose of 15,000 lbs. of human flesh, and nobody gets a headline if they find a foot in their front garden. No mass graves will ever be discovered, either.

* The trail is further confused by issuing reports that Flight 77 was actually headed towards the White House but changed course.

* The trail is further confused by having the Washington Post wax lyrical about the flying skills of non-existent pilots on a non-existence plane (Flight 77).

* The trail is further confused with conflicting reports and artificial catfight issues, such as -- did The Presidential Shrub really see the first tower hit on TV while he was waiting to read the story about the pet goat ...

So we know the Boeing that used to be Flight 93 was blown up. The other three original Boeings (Flights 11, 175, 77) still exist somewhere, unless they were cut up for scrap.

The passengers and crews of Flights 11, 175, 77, and 93 died in an airplane crash, just like the newspapers said. Only for most of them, it was the wrong crash. But that's as close to the truth as the news media likes to get anyway, so it works.

The four original Boeings had conventional controls. The look-alike Boeing and the two small jets were drones, rigged with remote control. You called it Global Hawk, and that's good enough. The mimic planes could have been piloted or remote controlled.

Why not just install remote control in four passenger jets like you described in NO SUICIDE PILOTS? Here's why: You might get remote control gear installed on a passenger jet so pretty the pilot would not notice, but that would be more work, more time, and more people. Then you would have to control your special plane through maintenance dispatch and try to get it lined up for that day, that time, that flight. Then you would have to multiply those efforts by four. There would be too many chances of things going wrong. Plane substitution would be much simpler. You'd just need the NORAD insiders, the personnel at the military airfield, and maybe an agent or two inside the FAA air traffic control system to make sure things go smooth. That should not be too difficult because NORAD has sent lots of its people over to the FAA to work on the FAA radars.

[CV commens:
Gen. Eberhart, NORAD commander, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on October 25, 2001 that " . . . we've actually moved manpower on the order of about 200 people over the years to the FAA to operate these radars." Cited in Did NORAD Send The 'Suicide' Jets? Part 2. See Eberhart testimony at:
http://www.ngaus.org/newsroom/HomelandDefenseTrans cript.doc
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/eberhart-testimon y.html ]

You know Flight 175 was not on that system when it hit the south tower because it came in fast (they say) in a tight hooking circle that almost missed the tower. An autopilot wouldn't make that mistake. The crash of flight 175 was not a preprgrammed flight computer finding the optimum path. What you see there in the path of 175 is a real-time controller fighting the physics of flight - and almost losing it.

You've already dealt with the Joe Vialls Home Run explanation, so I don't have to analyze that again.

[ http://www.Public-Action.com/911/noradsend.html ]

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/03/07/gen.pentagon.pict ures/index.html

The Washington Post says: "The first photo shows a small, blurry, white object near the upper right corner -- possibly the plane just a few feet about the ground," but admits "the hijacked American Airlines plane is not clearly visible." ("New Photos Show Attack on Pentagon," March 7, 2002. )

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A566 70-2002Mar7.html

Yeah, right, you can believe that the American Airlines plane is not visible.

* Fireman's Video of First Crash. The NBC eyewitness said the plane that few into the North tower was small. This is corroborated by the fireman's video taken on September 11:

http://www.xemox.net/wtc/movies/first.plane.hits.g p.med.asf

[Note to reader: There are other versions of this clip on the Internet, but I have been unable to find one I can verify as the original clip. If you can find a verifiable copy, let me know. CV <SkyWriter@Public.Action.com>]

In that clip, the camera shows a fireman with other workers casually discussing some street work. The fireman looks up over his left shoulder, then behind him, as though he is following a sound. The camera follows his gaze, finds nothing at the original location, then quickly moves to a shot of the WTC, visible through another corridor in the surrounding buildings.

Why does the cameraman focus on the WTC? I can only guess he heard the impact of the plane. The camera does not show the plane in the air prior to impact, so I assume it has already crashed.

In the first frames we see a puff of smoke from the impact site that grows into a cloud and erupts into flame. After a few seconds, the flame dies down and the smoke dissipates. At that moment, the camera shows the huge S-shaped gash in the side of WTC North.

If the wings of a large jet made that gash, the gash should not be S-shaped. The gash should be a straight line like the wings of the jet. But more important: if the impact of the jet made
the gash, the gash should appear at the moment of impact when the camera is first drawn to the building. Instead, it appears AFTER the smoke and flame.

[ http://public-action.com/911/gamma.jpg
and
http://public-action.com/911/gamma2.jpg ]

It would be easy for the 9-11 planners to collect the names of people with Muslim-sounding names who were taking flying lessons around the country. Just before 9-11 happens, they are disappeared. Then mid-air phone calls are created, reporting hijackers who were never aboard the planes. That would work.

As you and many people have noticed, the Muslim names don't appear on the passenger lists of the four flights. The hijackers names don't even appear on the list of passengers released by United on September 12 -- the list of passengers on Flights 175 and 93.

[ http://www.Public-Action.com/911/uapassngerlist ]

Just to show you how scripted the Flight 93 hijacking thing was, think about the alleged phone calls from the passengers on Flight 93 to their next of kin in the moments before the crash. Supposedly, they learned of the attacks on the Pentagon and the WTC with their handy cell phones, and they figured out their own plane was hijacked for a similar purpose. So they decided to be heroes and take the plane away from the hijackers.

According to the Dallas Morning News : "The fourth time Thomas Burnett Jr. phoned his wife, Deena, he acknowledged up front: 'I know we're going to die. There's three of us who are going to do something about it.'"

[ Dallas Morning News, "Trapped in the skies, captives fought back," September 17, 2001.
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/dmnheroes ]

But why did it have to be suicide heroism? "They knew their deaths were inevitable, according to some family members with whom they spoke on the phone, and they didn't want thousands more to die with them." It makes a better story, of course. "Suicide Heroes Defeat Suicide Hijackers."

Why did they have to die? The crew was still alive and "herded at knife point to the back of the plane, where the passengers were being held," according to the same report. They weren't dead. If the passengers got control from the hijackers, couldn't the crew fly the plane? Why didn't those brave heroes say things like, "There's a chance we might save this boat"? But they said, "I know we're going to die."

Obviously, this script was concocted in midnight a bull sessions like they had in Dustin Hoffman's mansion in "Wag the Dog". And the American public has been trained on weak plots for decades on prime time TV, so they don't WANT to think their way out of a wet paper bag. It spoils the show.

Only the writers and producers of Operation 911 knew that the passengers of Flight 93 had to die. But the temptation was too much, so they put it in the passenger dialog, too. And that's how you know the cell phone calls are just theater, not fact.

By the way, if I was planning this operation, I'd put some fictitious names on the passenger list, so when the flight went down, the media could interview fake relatives. Like that Operation Northwoods plan in which a fake Cuban jet would shoot down a fake American passenger jet. Whoever planned that must have planned to use fake grieving relatives, too.

[ http://www.Public-Action.com//911/northwds.html ]

["The Final Moments of Flight 93," September 22, 2001, by Karen Breslau (NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE)
http://www.msnbc.com/news/632626.asp
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/finalmoments93 ]

The problem with people like you when you try to understand events like this, you are not a trained killer. When you come to wiping out the whoever, you shrink back. That's normal. That is one of the things you have to train out of a soldier.

But when a soldier plans something like this, he doesn't flinch at the killing. He just takes that into the plans like one more or one less egg in the omelet. If he has to kill the enemy or Americans or even
himself, it doesn't matter because sometimes he has to do that to win. He's trained that way.

The only thing that matters is the Objective. Whatever a soldier has to do to win the Objective, that is what he has to do. All of this false piety about suicide bombers is nuts. Well trained Americans would do that if you ordered them to. If they didn't, they weren't well trained.

So you have to kill a hundred, a thousand, or five thousand civilians, you just do it in the best way that will help the Objective.

Why on earth would corrupt Texas oil men want to promote fuel efficient vehicles? Since most of the crude oil comes from overseas the big american oil companies make money based on how much oil they refine. If production or consumption slows, OPEC will simply raise the price of oil and keep the same profit margin. In fact it's in their best interest to slow production so they can keep the golden goose alive as long as possible.

Ok that covers Dick and Dumbya. Now as to government momentum as a whole is concerned. I have been starting to think that perhaps the strategy that the US government is taking is to use up all foriegn oil as soon as possible. The OPEC nations(sans venezuela) are all despotic regimes. As such they tend to spend a lot of money suppressing their people and retaining power. None of these countries seem to be planning for a future without oil. If the oil stoped flowing tomorrow, what would these countries do for income? Would the US be interested in holding Israel back any longer? All ambivalence about Israel would surely vanish and our "friendly" relations with the Saudis would evaporate as quickly. Let's look at the Saudi situation for a moment. People usually think the Saudis are extremely rich but what most people don't realize is that Saudi Arabia has been running a huge deficit.

The Saudi royal family has had to deal with a great deal of opposition in the last few years and it has been increaingly difficult to appease or suppress the public. Certainly their dealings with the west do not go over well with saudi subjects, yet their diplomats continue to tell us that they have their people's support. It's clear that they have conflicting desires, they need our money but they would also like to cut our throats. Likewise I think the US government is more interested in keeping the region only marginally stable, enough to keep the middle eastern leaders preoccupied while we buy up all the oil. And convince them to spend their profits on our weapons, to use on each other of course.

Cat

We know there were numerous warnings of the events to come on September 11th. . . . What did this administration know and when did it know it, about the events of September 11th? Who else knew, and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered? . . . What do they have to hide?

Catch that? "Why did they not warn the innocent people...who were needlessly murdered?" In other words, the Bush administration knew these people were going to be murdered and they did nothing about it. She also adds that "persons close to this administration are poised to make huge profits off America's new war." These are not complicated dots to connect. Ms. McKinney believes, or says she believes -- not necessarily the same thing, of course -- that the Bush administration is guilty of aiding and abetting the mass murder of American citizens for profit.

When confronted, McKinney backpedaled a few millimeters. In a statement she explained: "I am not aware of any evidence showing that President Bush or members of his administration have personally profited from the attacks of 9-11. A complete investigation might reveal that to be the case."

I see. Well, just let me just say that I am not aware of any evidence that Ms. McKinney has murdered several children or that she personally profited from sleeping with the entire defensive squad of the Atlanta Falcons. However, a complete investigation might reveal that to be the case.

Meanwhile, while we await the findings of that long-overdue investigation, I can add that there is ample evidence that Ms. McKinney is dumber than rock salt and more repugnant than Yasser Arafat's three-week-old underwear.

Note how that statement does not actually retract the truly hateful accusation. Ms. McKinney lets stand the suggestion that Americans were "needlessly murdered" because the Bush administration knew about the September 11 attack and willingly did nothing about it for purely selfish reasons. If this were true, Bush would certainly be impeached and might even be executed. Of course, it's not true. But truth isn't one of those things that come through too clear by way of the radio transmitters in McKinney's fillings.

She seems to think that for her to raise her own paranoid, America-hating, crypto-Marxist conspiratorial delusions is all we need to justify investigating them. "What is undeniable," she says, "is that corporations close to the administration have directly benefited from the increased defense spending arising from the aftermath of September 11th." "America's credibility, both with the world and with her own people, rests upon securing credible answers to these questions."

Actually, Ms. McKinney, your own credibility rests upon your securing serious and prolonged psychotherapy.

I thought this sort of thing went the way of Thomas Nast cartoons. But I guess Ms. McKinney actually sees a Bush White House consisting of fat cats in tuxedos exchanging bags of money with the four horsemen of the apocalypse. Alas, it is impossible to convince lefties that being rich often serves as the best insulation against greed. The idea that Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and George Bush would start a war in order to get an additional few million when they have plenty of millions already, only makes sense to lefties who believe being rich is a sin (unless, of course, you're a rich liberal).

McKinney's hypocrisy is so concentrated it could eat through metal. The only politician I know of who actively tried to profit from Sept. 11, was Cynthia McKinney herself. She's the one who went whoring after Saudi Arabia's blood money after the attacks.

Sen. Zell Miller caught another aspect of Ms. McKinney's hypocrisy: In a press release he said, "At first glance, it would be easy to pass this off as just another loony statement. But at second glance, it is more than that. It is very dangerous and irresponsible."

Senator Miller also noted: "I hope President Bush will remember that this is the same Congresswoman who -- during each of his State of the Union addresses -- arrives early to get a coveted aisle seat, then leans way over as Bush walks down the aisle, hoping he will give her a kiss for all to see on national TV."

Meanwhile another fellow Georgian came to her defense. "She's not as random as people think," McKinney's friend Jack Kingston (R., Ga.) says -- in her defense. "People always want to hear a political conspiracy theory." So, in other words, McKinney knows that this is just a conspiracy theory. And this is supposed to let her off the hook? For a representative to tell the American public, in order to help her own career, that the government murdered thousands of its own citizens for material gain is disgusting (it also will undoubtedly be picked up by our enemies in the Arab world, mark my words). Of course, it may not be as bad as the accusation that Bush killed thousands of Americans, but we at least know that accusation isn't true. Meanwhile, this accusation is the nicest thing her own friends can say about her.

What a truly awful woman.

In a recent interview with a Berkeley, Calif., radio station, McKinney said: "We know there were numerous warnings of the events to come on September 11th. . . . What did this administration know and when did it know it, about the events of September 11th? Who else knew, and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered? . . . What do they have to hide?"

In a recent interview with a Berkeley, Calif., radio station, McKinney said: "We know there were numerous warnings of the events to come on September 11th. . . . What did this administration know and when did it know it, about the events of September 11th? Who else knew, and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered? . . . What do they have to hide?"

Confusing the two is like confusing pedophilia with Catholicism.


Silence or complicity in wrongdoing is still wrongdoing.

According to the Washington Post the ANSWER is converging on D.C. to do an Anti-War protest. I'm sure there is room for some protesting against the anti-terrorism legislation...

Thanks for the comments on my review (although I really didn't expect it to draw a mention here, as opposed to my piece on the CBDTPA a week ago).

To answer a couple of points people have raised:

* Spell-checking: ThinkFree Office has a spell checker, but it doesn't flag misspellings as you type them, Word-style. You have to invoke the spell-checker "by hand." (My editor was afraid my description here might not have been clear enough. Guess he was right :)

* Importance of word count: Guilty as charged! I write for a living and I *need* this feature to do my job. Since a word count isn't exactly a difficult feature to support (as opposed to, say, revision tracking), I don't think it's out of line to expect it.

* Other Office alternatives: I left out AbiWord because it is a) just a word processor, not a full suite, and b) it's OS X compatibility is only available if you install an X11 server, which is a lot of work to ask of a home user (the target reader for my column).

I am planning on a review StarOffice whenever 6.0 ships, most likely as part of a comparison with OpenOffice.

Any other questions, y'all know where to reach me...

- R

Washington Post article. I think they're from the east coast, not CA.

Maybe Wil's working with the Borg like in this article.

Today, AOL doesn't have any MONEY.

For a real review of at least the last book in the series take a look at this

Extract: "Despite various flaws--too much overt moralizing, the unwarranted flip-flop in the fundamental character of Mrs. Coulter, not enough Serafina Pekkala--His Dark Materials is an overwhelming reading experience, brought to a sublime and touching close by The Amber Spyglass. In another time, this is a book that would have made the Index, and in still another era gotten its author condemned to the stake as a heretic. Even now some concerned parents may judge that Philip Pullman has gone Too Far in his plain-spoken critique of religious orthodoxy. But as Blake said, you never know what is enough until you know what is more than enough. His Dark Materials is a novel of electrifying power and splendor, deserving celebration, as violent as a fairy tale and as shocking as art must be. "

In a letter to the Washington Post, Jack Valenti wrote:

A recent survey revealed that 68 percent of all home computer users say they're satisfied with their normal 56K computer modem. It can download pretty much all that's on the Net, as not much (legal) material is out there that's chock full of graphics and in a consumer-friendly format to create the need for a cable modem or a digital subscriber line (DSL).

My unpublished reply:

Mr. Valenti's claim that "not much (legal) material is out there ... to create the need for a cable modem or a digital subscriber line (DSL)" is laughable.

Obviously, Mr. Valenti hasn't attempted to download a 650 MB Debian Linux Install CD.

Perhaps Adobe's After Effects video editing software is more his style. A 30-day trial version weighs in at a hefty 109 megabytes.

To put it in perspective: downloading this would take over four and a half hours on a "normal 56K computer modem" -- if you're lucky enough to live in a neighbourhood with good phone lines. If, like most people, Mr. Valenti is stuck at 33.6 Kbps, it would take closer to eight hours to finish. That's enough time to watch Erich von Stroheim's Greed in its entirety.

Paul

Actualy, is all about the OS being pre-installed.

Take a look at this article:
Linux for Mom and Dad

This article "kills" a myth: only geeks can use Linux.

When reality says: only an expert can install and configure Linux or Windows so anyone can use it

This is why Microsoft is so against Linux being pre-loaded on computers, as seen recently.

Shades of Vietnam! From the Washington Post: "[S]oldiers involved in the battle said the live video links gave them little useful information and were sometimes a distraction, encouraging higher-level military staffs to try to micromanage the fighting." Look here for the full article.

Shades of Vietnam! From the Washington Post: "[S]oldiers involved in the battle said the live video links gave them little useful information and were sometimes a distraction, encouraging higher-level military staffs to try to micromanage the fighting." Look here for the full article.

Dell has something to say on this matter. Read it here. Basically MS e-mails/memos released at the trial last week discussig "hitting the OEM [Dell] harder than in the past with anti-Linux actions," while other e-mails urged Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer to remind Dell "of the meat of why it's smart to be partnered with Microsoft."

Dell's response? A spokesman for Dell, Mike Maher, declined to comment on the case but said the company sells computer equipment with the Linux operating system installed if requested.

"We still offer [Linux] on the [corporate] side and as needed as customers ask for it," he said.

Naturally, this shows a fear of retribution, but shortly after the emails, Dell stopped offer linux on the desktop.

Have you heard anything about this news? It was news to me when I read it a couple days ago in the Post, but apparently all the rosey economic news that's been coming from China the last few years is starting to smell a bit fishy.

Because Bill Clinton gave Loral (large campaign donner) Washington Post Story permission to sell this technology to our good friends the Chinese, they'll soon be able to deliver highly enriched Uranium right to your doorstep! The Democrats and Europeans think that playing defense is unsportsmanlike and that a shield is unnecessary. Thankfully Bush,Rumsfeld et al think differently and were are moving ahead on the project.

Quoted from The Washington Post:

Among other things, the states would require that Microsoft to auction off a license to Linux re-sellers to carry the Office package of programs, which would make Linux more attractive to computer makers and users.

This is an interesting proposal that I hadn't heard about before. Does anybody have a complete list of what the unsettling states have asked for?

We can't suddenly start censoring reality because something horribly happened.

From today's Washington Post, in reference to a new "anti-terror" bill being passed in Maryland:
"I realize that this bill basically says you can tap someone's phone for jaywalking, and normally I would say, 'No way,' " said Del. Dana Lee Dembrow (D-Montgomery). "But after what happened on September 11th, I say screw 'em."

If that freedom is taken away then all is lost, the initials U-S-A mean nothing, the terrorists will have won.

The terrorists don't give a damn one way or the other about American freedoms, they want the U.S. out of the Middle East.

for human computer interfaceing, there is a more direct method for gathering movement information: These guys at Brown University have gotten this information from a monkey by monitoring very few neurons directly in the brain(I as few as 20). Looks like the monkey are always going to be one step ahead of us:)

Anyway, my story was cooler because it included the great closing line from the article,

"Will I use it in the wrong way?" he said. "No."
Then he paused. "But then again, what is to stop the next guy?"