So I went to American Sniper last night. It's a good movie, just like everybody says.

In the context of this blog, it deals first with the U.S. Embassy attacks, and then 9/11 as motivating factors for Chris Kyle to join the Navy Seals and avenge these attacks. It should be mentioned at this juncture that the movie was directed by Clint Eastwood, who's about as right wing as right wing gets, so either he's a closet truther, or this got slid by him.

http://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/2jepvm/on_september_11_2001_there_was_one_american_in/

WASHINGTON -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says that as an engineer he's sure the twin towers were not brought down by jetliners.

Ahmadinejad, in an interview with The Associated Press, says it would have been impossible for two jetliners to bring down the towers simply by hitting them. he says some kind of planned explosion must have taken place.

Ahmadinejad stopped short of saying the United States staged the disaster 10 years ago. But he says there are questions the world should resolve, and noted there are doubters in the United States as well.

Ahmadinejad was denied his request last year to visit the site of the World Trade Center collapse. He says he's not making another attempt this year. He's in New York City for the U.N. General Assembly.

Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/22/ahmadinejad-twin-towers-c_n_977039.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/22/ap/business/main20110455.shtml
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=140724738

I wanted to pass along that the 9//11 Doomsday plane story is back up on CNN.com. It's essentially a re-posting of what was up a couple of months ago, but interesting nonetheless.

And while "news" that the U.S. Government had an emergency command center in the air on 9/11 isn't a smoking gun for the truth movement, I still maintain that it is a victory of sorts for we truthers. There is far more than a hint of suspicion in the CNN commentary, and it very clearly states that the goverment denies it was one of their planes, despite the obvious U.S. flag on the tail and the communications dome on top of the aircraft.

And ANY time the Mainstream Media is bold enough to question the U.S. Goverment about a 9/11 lie, it's a sign to me the tide is turning.

Go CNN!

One constant point of misunderstanding I run into when speaking 9/11 truth is that the non-scientific sheeple think that impossible things could have happened on 9/11 because; "The towers were so tall", "Way up in the sky", etc.

All 9/11 truthers should take note of the following: We need to begin to reference them as not only 1300 some feet tall, but also approximately the same distance ABOVE SEA LEVEL. Now, they aren't so high at all, are they? In fact, a close geographic reference I found was Sibley, IA. Noted for being the highest point in Iowa, and also noted as being located in an area not known to be mountainous, nor particularly rife with strange phenomenon involving the Laws of Physics and the Principles of Metallurgy. At 1670 feet, it's nearly a dead ringer for the North Tower's spire, which was 1727 feet tall. Doesn't sound very exotic at all anymore, does it?

Now, let's have a little fun while I show you an example that got a hard core skeptic right out of his chair.

We only need:

7 Amtrak Passenger cars. (Aluminum skin over steel frame, with windows, carpet and seats, and some wiring. Sound familiar?)

I recently received this (6 MB) Power Point slide show of 9.11 photos. They are apparently from an Italian or Spanish news helicopter. I saw some pictures in here that I had never seen, and would note the following:

WTC 7, from many different aerial angles, looking remarkably pristine for a building that "collapsed due to raging fires".

WTC 6, with the huge steel beam that was ejected into it, from angles I had never seen before.

WTC 1 & 2 structural steel, being loaded onto semi-trailers. Horseshoe shaped steel everywhere, and twisted and melted spandrel plates. Just a hydro-carbon fire here folks, nothing to see. Move along. Right.

And, "bands" of sooty damage, on the North Tower, just below the airplane impact site. This ties in neatly with the recently discovered footage of the dynamic explosive event at the North Tower that happened as the South Tower was struck by aircraft.

Would also appreciate any additional discoveries or observations any of you might have.

Each day I am astonished to meet people that have never heard of the 9.11 Truth Movement, and never heard that there are any doubts about the government's version of events. But on the other hand I am proud that I am meeting them.

Why you ask? Because I speak the "truth" frequently. I find it amazing that we truthers will go so far as to hand a flyer or DVD to a total stranger, but we don't consider all the people we hold in our "sphere of influence". We've probably all told our good friends, and most of our family. Bravo. But have you told your insurance man, mortgage broker, banker, dentist or postal worker?

I'm serious. I made a decision to contact everyone I dealt with in my day. I sent them all a simple letter or email that asks them to be willing to look at the evidence. Face it, your cable guy or realtor isn't going to fire you for having a view point. My point is, each of us know many people we can spread the word to and haven't yet. We are at a critical mass of awareness nationwide, it's time to kick it up a notch, people.

Here's a chunk of my letter you can start with, add your own bits to make it yours and hit the send button tonight:

As the amazing and previously undiscovered properties of Jet Fuel A continue to mount, I find the enclosed photgraph to be one that tops them all. I just love showing this picture to "clingers of the official fairy tale". I ask them how Jet Fuel can burst the lobby of the World Trade center in a purported huge fireball, yet leave not a trace of smoke or soot, then leap across the street and do significant damage to an adjacent structure, prior to any collapse mechanism, or any apparent fire of the WTC tower it supposedly came from.

Usually they mutter something about gas mains rupturing, but gas mains are just that, mains, (they run down the center of a street in a utilities chase), and then branch off into various metered lines to serve customers. In summary, I've never seen an entire fire brigade park on top of a ruptured gas main.

So, short of an explosive device, what other mechanism expains the damage to the adjacent structure?

So, here goes craniac launching into more uncharted territory. It is truly rewarding for me to have fellow bloggers from this esteemed body tell me things like "I've never seen that photo before" or ""When you put it that way, I guess it makes sense". I became a truther at roughly 2:00 MST on September 11, 2001. I've poured over every facet of research I could find since then. Some of it is outlandish, some is not mainstream, some is glaringly obvious evidence of criminal wrongdoing and flies directly in the face of the Government Fairy Tale. Some of what I found early on has been scrubbed from the Internet for a very long time. It's great to find a venue to share it in.

Let me start today's blog by echoing a comment from dz posted in my last thread. I am truly pleased at the healthy tone and genuine debate that has accompanied my recent entries. Thank you all. We're all involved in this to bring the truth to the general population, and on that basis alone, we deserve to extend to each other a proper debate forum and no name-calling.

After reviewing Erin S. Meyers terrific blog about the destruction of evidence indicating probable culpability and criminal activity, it brought me back to the blog I wrote yesterday about the airborne object hitting the Pentagon. I admit this is a red hot topic, and one that can quickly divide truthers.

So, what physical evidence, in the public domain, that was found at the Pentagon scene does or does not corroborate with a 757 heavy?

Positively identified items;

A landing gear strut can be proven with reasonable certainty to be that of a 757.
A seperate rim and tire assembly can also be corroborated thusly.

Disputable items:

Several pieces of aluminum fuselage. Much research has been done to discredit these pieces. I won't delve into it any further than to label them "disputed" today.

Conflicting items:

By manner of introduction, this topic was my original smoking gun into the 9/11 truth movement. On the day of the attacks, I was viewing network news of the events. It was announced that footage of the Pentagon crash scence was to be shown, where "a 757 had just struck the Pentagon".

I viewed this footage and said "Where?".

Many of us in the truth movement feel we have an enormous burden to bear because so many of the events in question "never happened" before. As such, we are left citing Newton's Laws of Physics about how things are supposed to behave, and/or pointing out forensic evidence in video or photographic sources.

However, a modern commercial jet liner HAS hit a solid, earth fixed, masonry structure in recent times. I cite Northwest Airlines Flight 255, Detroit to Phoenix, August, 1987. Although it was a DC-9, and not a 757, and the terminal velocities were different (757 purported at maximum speed, vs. DC-9 at maximum take-off roll), neither event would be in the realm of "vaporized metal", calulated by physicists I trust to be in the neighborhood of 15 times the speed on sound.

So, what was the result of the bridge impact in urban Detroit? Scorched Earth. Massive Debris Fields. Luggage. Corpses. Seats. LARGE Pieces of Fuselage. Just what you'd expect. I knew people on this flight. The vivid images are forever seared in my mind, and not easily dismissed by the Gov't fairy tale about the little hole and the bright green lawn at the Pentagon. Call me a "no brainer", I really don't care. I don't today, nor have I ever, seen remotely credible evidence of a widebody commercial aircraft impact at the Pentagon.

I had a great deal of time on my hands over the past four days, and have come to the following conclusions. I thought I'd share them with this body of truthers for comment or debate. My thesis is this: If you allow Controlled Demolition, you must ascribe to MIHOP, all the way. The basis for this theory is as follows. If you were an "agent of LIHOP", and you knew that on a certain date a certain action was to take place, your actions would most likely be engineered to improve the shock value and/or believability of said action or event. In the case of September 11, as this agent of LIHOP, your intelligence would indicate that several hijacked airliners would be used as weapons against certain important civilian and military establishments. Your mission would be to increase the visbility of, the impact of, or the credibilty of said events. Possibly also the successful execution of said events.

The problem with LIHOP in the case of controlled demolition of the WTC towers is that too much would be left to chance for this to be a believable scenario. I guess I should step back for just a moment and explain where I stand on the whole CD issue. There were far too many laws of physics broken, far too many forensic clues in the evidence, and far too many video, audio, seismic and witness testimonies of the explosions for me to be any where else on this issue. Add to that the avenues for placement of the explosives created by the power downs on the towers, the stonewalling by the Bush administration of the investigations, the unprecedented collapse of three steel frame buildings in one 12 hour period, and the ridiculous 9.11 omission and NIST studies , I just can't be elsewhere on this debate.