Your email address:

Powered by FeedBlitz


Blog powered by Typepad
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported

« Commission Confidential | Main | Civics Lesson »

02 February 2008



'Work helping untangle the mysterious popularity of conspiracy theories' is made impossible by statements such as "When a monumental event occurs that transcends the power of the courts to uncover the truth, the US government turns to special commissions—most recently for the investigation into the 9/11 terror attacks."
[5. Presidential Commissions & National Security/Kenneth Kitts, Lynne Rienner, 2006:]

"When a monumental event occurs that transcends the power of the courts to uncover the truth..."

I beg our pardon. But when and by what process did the high crime of 9/11 become an event 'transcending' the reach of criminal law?

Where is 'power' and 'transcendence' defined, allowing material fact and legal contest of physical evidence 'unrecoverable?'

Where is the legal precedent establishing the criminal law courts of the United States of America unable to properly process evidence properly found ?

If there is evidence to argue the crime, how can the crime transcend the law?

To the question of 'untangling popular conspiracy theory' as opposed to 'untangling evidence of crime':

Why is the discovery, collection and presentation of evidence of advanced grade incendiary materiel [nanothermite] found in the dust of 9/11, not openly contested in the US justice system ?

Why is the unprecedented speed and destruction of 3 complex steel framed high rises not properly tested in courts, if there is material/materiel evidence to argue it ?

Why is the 'critical fail' algorithm created by the National Institute of Standards and Technology [NIST] to explain a 'new phenomenon' in physics and building science, hidden behind states secrets privilege? And not available for peer-review in the proper and usual course of science? If over 2300 registered architects and engineers state the buildings destruction was, prima facie, demolition?
Experts in their field wish to properly test the algorithm as is proper in scientific peer-review.

Why are the over one hundred eyewitnesses to the crime testifying to explosive events in the WTC complex before, during and after airstrike never given due process in the courts of law ? Is it beyond the capability of persons trained in law and evidence in the United States to untangle the testimonies of first responders and survivors to these accounts ?

Why was the hasty and protected removal of steel not investigated as a crime in and of itself? The existence of molten metal/concrete in the pile also—forensic evidence of extreme temperatures far beyond ordinary building fire capability—-all easily contestable and within capability of law to adjudicate.

In fact, the sudden total free-fall destruction of an 81 columned 47 storied steel framed high-rise [WTC7] in 6.5 seconds, remains completely unreported—-and therefore a mystery—-in the popular imagination. Not even mentioned in the 9/11 Commission report itself, thus 'adding' to the 'mystery'; to the tangle.

Forensic contest of airspeed; passenger manifest anomalies; no hi-jack alerts; FBI court evidence establishing Barbara Olsen's lengthy phone call describing events on flight 77 at 0 [zero] seconds duration, Norman Manetta's revelation of Cheney's order allowing Pentagon airspace violation by 77 have all been placed outside the public 'right to know' through a political process, not a judicial or scientific, one.

After all, fraud is no mystery to the American legal system. The law has vast experience dealing with fraud and fraudsters.

As well as it has with evidence of incendiary materiel in fire-insurance claims.


9/11 as False Flag:

Why International Law Must Dare to Care

Amy Baker Benjamin*

Abstract: At the heart of contemporary international law lies a paradox: The attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 have justified nearly fifteen years of international war, yet the official international community, embodied principally in the United Nations, has failed to question or even scrutinize the U.S. government’s account of those attacks. Despite the impressive and serious body of literature that has emerged to suggest that 9/11 was a classic (if unprecedentedly monstrous) false-flag attack, international statesmen, following the lead of scholars, have acted as if there is no controversy whatsoever. This disconnect between the growing (alternative) evidentiary record of state responsibility for the attacks and the focus of international institutions is impossible to sustain if those institutions are to maintain any semblance of viability and meaning.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Washington Decoded