The 9/11 Omission and the NIST Reports are well-known frauds. Many of the Sub-Contractors NIST employed in order to create their report were precisely those who were most likely to have been involved in 9/11 itself.

The current flavour of the month is that 'nukes' dunnit. I'm on record (here) as saying "Maybe, but I'm not convinced". I see other explanations perfectly possible for 'forensics' of the aftermath. And, even those forensics for which 'nukes' seem to be the logical conclusion, does not mean to say (a) The forensics aren't faked and/or (b) That there is no other technological explanation.

I repeat - as I have said elsewhere- To hang one's hat on nukes is shaky ground, and not even necessary

This video asks questions about Dr Steve Jones - why does he prefer to talk about Ad Hominem attacks rather than Physical Evidence? Why does he misquote research? Why does he dodge certain issues?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdzx85klMYk

This was submitted by TheSalGirl on 13th August, 2007:

http://www.911researchers.com/node/917

While, on the one hand, the points raised by the "Anonymous Physicist" are reasonble, he makes a number of (I think) serious omissions.

The characteristics of a nuclear explosion are:

(1) Ball of Fire (fireball) generally reaching a height dependent on the explosive yield.

(2) Brilliant flash of light that can cause midnight to appear as 'noonday'.

(3) Wilson Condensation Cloud as back-pressure causes atmospheric humidity to condense into water.

Honest members of the James Randi Educational Forum aka JREF are being played for fools by slick huckster William Seger, who posts under the name Wseger or WilliamSeger. William Seger is attempting to defend fake September 11, 2001 hoax videos and photos of a plane crashing into the World Trade Center.

This image from the CNN Ghostplane video cannot be taken anywhere on earth:

It

There appears to be a hierarchy to people's ability or willingness to unseat bits of what they have internalized and made a part of their belief structure. If you started by accepting the official story, the alternative that risks the least of your beliefs, such as real planes flown by remote control, is more attractive than the possibility that there weren't planes at all. That's probably why so many people were willing to step that small distance from the OBL narrative onto an early limited hangout.

I've been the studying Chopper 7 video, and analyzing the velocity the same way I did Chopper 5. I'm going to officially present my results at the Madison Conference, but I can say now without question that the motion of the plane in Chopper 7 is way too unstable to be authentic. It's even worse than Chopper 5.

Links removed at request of copyright owner.

Dont repost!

http://www.total411.info/2007/06/how-to-challenge-broadcast-license-of.html

How to challenge broadcast license of 9/11 tv-fakery stations

Federal Communications Commission licenses for New York and New Jersey television stations expired on June 1. Applications for license renewal by WABC-7 and by WNYW (FOX5) have been "accepted for filing" but, the license renewal has not yet been granted.