Poplawski and Prisonplanet

Richard Poplawski's best friend, Eddie Perkovic, an anti-semitic far-right extremist like Poplawski, has the following published on his MySpace page

DOCUMENTS I RECCOMEND YOU READ BY GOOGLE: "Civil War II" by Tom Chittum "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" "The Turner Diaries" by Dr. William Pierce "Jewish Supremacy" by Dr. David Duke ........
LINK

Following Poplawski's triple cop-killing homicidal episode, evidence began to emerge that Poplawski was a far-right extremist - a member and contributor to the neo-Nazi Stormfront and Alex Jones' Prisonplanet.

Alex Jones' Prisonplanet, seemingly perturbed by associations between Jones' Prisonplanet, Poplawski and the more obviously neo-Nazi, anti-semitic, racist and fascist Stormfront, set about attempting to distance themselves from Poplawski - even claiming that Poplawski "opposed the views" of Prisonplanet.

However, rather than turn-up any evidence that Poplawski "opposed" the views of Jones' Prisonplanet, the evidence actually showed that Poplawski had only said (at a Stormfront discussion about Alex Jones) he wasn't "100%" about Alex Jones. By reading the thread at Stormfront in which Poplawski (Braced for Hate) said this, it is clear Poplawski did not "oppose Alex Jones' views" but rather wasn't sure Alex Jones was actually anti-semitic. It needs to be understood that Stormfront, as a rabidly Nazi forum, considers "the jews" as responsible for all evils in the world and any public figure whom fails to share such conviction is considered 'suspect' - an agent of Zion itself. This was the context of the discussion at Stormfront in which Poplawski had said he wasn't "100%" about Alex Jones, and which Prisonplanet erroneously claimed showed Poplawski "opposed" Jones' views. It does not show opposition to Jones' views at all - it only shows that Stormfront Nazis debate whether Jones is fully onboard with their views or not.

Whilst Stormfront has no reservations about its own extreme anti-semitism and fascism, Alex Jones' Prisonplanet differs only in so far as it carefully substitutes age-old euphemisms in place of references to jews: Prisonplanet peddles an almost identical world-conspiracy schema, substituting euphemism for specific and blatant anti-semitism. IMO this is a deliberate use of euphemism so as to avoid accusations of obvious anti-semitism, which allows Jones to mainstream the same world-conspiracy as that propounded at Stromfront and Nazism in general (whilst avoiding the appearance of obvious Nazi sympathies and anti-semitism.) Euphemism aside, Stormfront and Prisonplanet both propound the same (Hitlerite) fantasy of (jewish) world-conspiracy.

Jones' use of standard anti-semitic euphemism is so successful at escaping blatant anti-semitism it allows him access to more mainstream and even left-wing audiences - a constituency unavailable to the more obvious extremists found at Stormfront etc. (even though they are saying essentially the same thing.)

That's the upside for Jones - access to audiences denied to more obvious far-right extremists. The downside, however, is that so successful are Jones' efforts at employing euphemism to avoid criticism for anti-semitism, he is considered "suspect" by the more obviously extremist fringe such as those found at Stormfront. This explains the debate Poplawski was engaged in about Alex Jones at Stromfront: it explains the scepticism towards Alex Jones found at Stormfront and explains exactly what Poplawski meant when he admitted he wasn't "100%" about Alex Jones.

Clearly, far from opposing Alex Jones' views, Poplawski and the other Stormfronters were debating whether Jones' euphemisms were genuinely anti-semitic or not, whether Jones' world conspiracy was the same Hitlerite Jewish world conspiracy, or not. This is what Poplawski wasn't "100%" about with regard to Alex Jones. To claim Poplawski "opposed" the views of Alex Jones is wilful distortion - Poplawski merely wasn't "100%" that Alex wholly shared the views of the extremists at Stormfront. That is not being opposed to Alex Jones' views.

So, back to Poplawski's best friend's MySpace page and his recommended list of reading material.

The first name in the list is "Civil War II" by Tom Chittum

Little surprise to find Tom Chittum extensively promoted and published at Alex Jones' Prisonplanet:

Report Suspicious Activity
Tom Chittum January 23 2004
http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_chittum.html

Ft. Dead Puking Buzzard
Tom Chittum December 19 2003
http://www.prisonplanet.com/121903chittum.html

Millions of Houses Worth Trillions of Dollars. PANT! Pant! Pant!
Tom Chittum December 9 2003
http://www.prisonplanet.com/120903chittum.html

Fighting Behind a Four-Foot High Wall of Body Bags
Tom Chittum December 3 2003
http://www.prisonplanet.com/chittum120303.html

The Nukes Are Falling
Tom Chittum November 25 2003
http://www.prisonplanet.com/chittum112503.html

Thinking About Russia and Nukes
Tom Chittum November 18 2003
http://www.prisonplanet.com/chittum111903.html

A Depression of Hitherto Unimaginable Severity
Tom Chittum November 6 2003
http://www.prisonplanet.com/chittum110603.html

What Great Man Will Lead Us?
Tom Chittum October 26 2003
http://www.prisonplanet.com/chittum102603.html

An Open Letter to Mr. Lyndon LaRouche
Tom Chittum September 30 2003
http://www.prisonplanet.com/chittum093003.html

BAWK! Mutinous National Guardsmen Go on Looting Spree
Tom Chittum September 22 2003
http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_chittum_092203_spree.html

BAWK! Chicken Little Was Right
Thomas Chittum September 15 2003
http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_chittum_091503_little.html

Sgt. Skull Opines on the Glorious Imperial Battle Plan
Tom Chittum September 8 2003
http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_chittum_090803_plan.html

Achtung! You Are Approaching the Secure Zone
Tom Chittum September1 2003
http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_chittum_090103_zone.html

Prisonplanet does not publish authors they disagree with - they do not publish critics - they do not publish opposition.

ETA: Prisonplanet wrote:

There’s no doubt that Poplawski was a neo-nazi and a white supremacist who held distasteful opinions. The fact that such views are a complete 180 from what we write about every day......debunks the ridiculous notion that his shooting rampage was remotely influenced by anything he may have read on our websites.
LINK

Clearly Poplawski's views were not "180 from what Prisonplanet write about every day."

Here's what we can glean about Poplawski's views, which clearly mirror exactly what Prisonplanet "write about every day", minus the obvious anti-semitism of course:

Perkovic said Poplawski....grew angry recently over fears Obama would outlaw guns.
....
He said Poplawski feared America was "going to see the end of our times." LINK

Prisonplanet and Alex Jones make such claims frequently as do the public comments posted on the articles

[Poplawski] thought Obama had good press because of his race.

Again, a theme common at Prisonplanet.

This is from Poplawski's posts at the (world's leading) Nazi forum, Stormfront

1. The federal government, mainstream media, and banking system in these United States are strongly under the influence of- if not completely controlled by- Zionist interest.

This is exactly the same as what Alex Jones and Prisonplanet say - though Jones employs the vague and undefined term "New World Order" rather than Zionists. But the problem is, Jones and Prisonplanet never define quite what this New World Order means, and it operates as a substitute for zionsists/jews. Jones can claim it doesn't mean zionists/jews.....but why should we believe him when he links to and promotes Willis Carto's AmericanFreePress, employs AmericanFreePress's Jim Tucker, employs Michael Rivero of WRH, promotes Eustace Mullins, Christopher Bollyn, Tom Chittum, Reverend Pike etc. etc. All these connections and promotions of committed anti-semites (oh - anti-zionists! lol) are far more significant than any denials of anti-semitism Jones might make.

2. An economic collapse of the financial system is inevitable, bringing with it some degree of civil unrest if not outright balkanization of the continental US, civil/revolutionary/racial war, SHTF/TEOTWAKI scenario etc.

Well, that's Prisonplanet's output in a nutshell.

2A. This collapse is likely engineered by the elite Jewish powers that be in order to make for a power and asset grab.

Again, substitute NWO for zionist and we have a phrasing common to Alex Jones' Prisonplanet, indeed one that is ubiquitous to Jones' Prisonplanet, and one that commonly features amongst the readers' comments with the term zionist still attached. Such comments receive no public rebuke in Prisonplanet editorialisng nor in their comment moderation.

One can read the list of significant persons in government and in major corporations and see who is pulling the strings. One can observe the policies and final products and should walk away with little doubt there is Zionist occupation and- after some further research & critical thinking- will discover their insidious intentions.

Again, this is standard Prisonplanet fare, only with the vague and amorphous term NWO replacing Zionist.

I also don’t think there is too much debate about the eventuality of a collapse of economic and social order in this country. All signs seem to point to a once great nation in the midst its last gasp, suffocating under the weight fiscal irresponsibility. Poisoned by design by the moral decadence that is a direct byproduct of item 1.

Poplawski again sounding exactly like Alex Jones. Quotes from Poplawski at Stormfront, recorded here.

Clearly there is no "180" difference between Poplawski's views and those of Prisonplanet - it is difficult to see any essential differences, other than Jones and Prisonplanet employ the vague euphemistic term NewWorldOrder (NWO) instead of the blatant anti-semitism favoured by Poplawski.

Real Truth Online = Real Dodging Online

Larry from Real Truth Online claims:

Another tactic of yours is using certain arguments against ME (like saying youre not an architect) and then making "expert" claims in the very next sentence.

But Larry from Real Truth Online also says:

The ONLY thing that would cause a perfect symmetrical collapse is perfectly leveled weakness all around the building at the very same level and the very same time.

That seems like Larry aka Real Truth Online making an "expert claim". So I tried to find out Larry's relevant expertise.......

The following are all separate examples of 'Larry The Real Truth' avoiding answering the same simple question:

Are you an architect, Larry?
LINK

Still waiting for Larry to answer if he's an architect.
LINK

---Are you an architect?
LINK

Larry - are you an architect?
LINK

Are you an architect Larry?
LINK

Are you an architect Larry?
LINK

So, are you an architect or someone with relevant expertise, Larry?
LINK

Are you an architect Larry?
LINK

What's your expertise? Are you an architect?
LINK

What's your expertise? Are you an architect?
LINK

What's your expertise? Are you an architect?
LINK

how many times have you been asked if you are an architect?
LINK

I readily admit I am no architect and have no relevant expertise. As a non-expert I have no choice but to accept expert-opinion, which I am happy to do, unless given good cause to do otherwise.

Larry doesn't play by the same rules. His reasons for avoiding the question are obvious. If Larry answered he'd be guilty of what he accused me of ie

using certain arguments against ME (like saying youre not an architect) and then making "expert" claims in the very next sentence.

So, are you an architect Larry? Let's have the real truth online, for once, shall we?

And when you've answered that question, Larry, and perhaps get in the habit, maybe you'd like to address the other questions you have repeatedly avoided answering? Such as -

1) Why do you link to Willis Carto's AFP and other far-right jew-hating websites?

2) How do you justify working for publisher Alex Jones (Prisonplanet) when he has close relationships and promotes Willis Carto's publications?

3) Jones and yourself attack Obama for being fascist, but you're both silent about your own links to Willis Carto whom has close ties to genuine Nazis and fascists. Why? How do you justify this?

4) What is your explanation for the building collapses on 911? Demolition? Who What When How?

911 (again) - Freefall? Topple? Collapse Initiation

For a long time I felt the building collapses were suspicious - because to me, they looked suspicious. And of course, right after 911 there was a dearth of evidence for any explanation. As time has progressed, evidence has accumulated, and I now longer consider the buildings' collapses remotely suspicious.

There are several issues which frequently arouse suspicion, including whether the buildings fell at speed of gravity (freefall), whether the buildings should have toppled, rather than suffering total collapse. These were avenues I explored as much as I could following 911 and the years after - I no longer believe they need be cause for suspicion.

First, the amount of energy imparted by a large jet plane, loaded with fuel, was greater than that released by the recent N Korean nuclear bomb-test. That's before the release of energy from the fires initiated by the fuel explosions.

---The argument for demolition is that there was insufficient destructive power from the plane impacts, the explosions and subsequent fires. That raises the question of how much explosives would be required to exceed the destructive capacity of jetplanes, explosions and fires. Think about it? If the planes, explosions and fires were insufficient to destroy the WTC, then how much explosives would have been needed? The more explosive required, the greater the problem of explaining how they got there - the greater the size, scope and complexity of any conspiracy. Likewise - if it is argued it would only require "a small amount" of explosives, then how can jet-planes, explosions and fires be discounted?

To exceed the energy from plane crashes, explosions and fires would require an enormous amount of explosives. Jetfuel has about 18 times the energy content of TNT. So how much energy from explosives would be required if the energy from planes, explosions and fuel initiated fires was insufficient? The implication is an enormous amount of explosives. The evidence for any explosives is zero. Who What When How? There is absolutely zero evidence for this scenario - it is only based on peoples' a priori sense that the planes, explosions and fires could not have done it. Beyond that, there is nothing to sustain the claims as there is no evidence whatsoever.

Secondly, the collapses initiate at exactly the spot one would have expected them to if the collapses were caused by the plane impacts, explosions and subsequent fires.



--If the buildings were demolished by explosives, how did those responsible know exactly where the planes would hit the towers? Also, how did the (huge amount) of explosives not get triggered in the plane impacts and explosions and fires? How did the detonation system survive impacts and fires - and still allow collapses to be initiated right at the point of impact - twice.



Thirdly, the collapses of the WTC1+2 most certainly do not occur at freefall speed. Watch the above videos - and watch how the debris falls faster than the collapse point. As the building collapses, material is ejected sideways and forms an umbrella or mushroom around the collapse point as it proceeds down the towers. If the collapse point was moving at freefall, it could not have been obscured by the material which had been earlier ejected - the collapse point would not have been obscured as it would have fallen at the same rate as the ejected material which certainly was in free-fall and which obscures the collapse point (because it fell faster than the collapse point). Regardless - the collapse is progressive - once started it continues because resistance is only offered by the floor/s immediately below the collapse. How is one floor, or several support members supposed to withstand the weight of the building which is falling? The physics of moving mass is quite different to static loads. Once moving there is far greater force being applied. Of course it is going to proceed quickly - and that speed adds to the energy, increasing the likelihood the remaining floors are going to collapse.

--On the other hand there is zero evidence for any method of collapse through demolition and explosives. Absolutely zero.

Should the buildings have toppled? This struck me as peculiar - surely they would topple, and not collapse straight down? Having read an explanation of large building dynamics by a NASA dude, I am happy to accept my intuition was totally wrong - it is effectively impossible for the top of a large building to topple over.

I'm no physicist - nor an architect or building engineer. However, the principle seems relatively straightforward: when the building above the impact zone starts to rotate because of failed support members, there is a fulcrum around the centre. As one side of the block sinks as support fails, the other side obviously lifts. So, as the building sinks towards the failed supports, it rotates around the fulcrum, and severs the supports at the opposite side to the failed members - as the opposite side of the rotating mass lifts. As the sinking part of the rotating block begins to meet resistance, the opposite side will begin to sink. Once initiated, this process continued all the way down, with the top essentially rocking back and fore, and crushing wach floor as it falls. Once collapse begins, the forces involved are massive compared to the static load. The NASA dude obviously explains it better than I can, and it seems perfectly feasible. I've seen other physics professors explain it, and they aren't surprised by the collapse (so far as the physics of it goes)

Ryan Mackey is a research scientist at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

The NIST hypothesis of collapse initiation does not require all of the columns to fail at the same instant. This is clearly explained in NCSTAR1-6, and even quoted by Dr. Griffin on page 187. Since Dr. Griffin has apparently misinterpreted NIST’s comments, the author explains, in his own words, why a slightly more gradual failure is predicted:

The total load on the structure is approximately constant up to the moment of collapse. The structure supporting this load is slowly weakening, through a combination of loss of material strength (caused by heating and annealing), a loss of strength in individual members (caused by creep and inward pulling leading to an increase in strain), and a loss of system capacity (caused by inward pulling leading to eccentric loading, reducing the columns’ maximum strength before buckling). Not all structural supports are affected to the same degree or at the same time.

The critical moment of collapse is called the loss of stability. Up until this time, an individual structural support can fail without causing a collapse. The load formerly borne by a failing support is redistributed to other supports, usually those nearby, in milliseconds. Any support that “fails” at this time will sag slightly, but will still be attached, and from a distance appears to still be carrying its load, when in reality its strength will be only a small fraction of what it was previously.

When the stability point is reached, there is no longer enough reserve capacity locally to prevent a larger scale motion of the building. At this point, when a structural element fails, the nearby elements do not have enough capacity to take the added load. Some of these elements will also fail. Supports close to the local failure will either buckle or tear free. Supports far away from the local failure will also see some increase in their load, and some of these may fail as well, but in others including the WTC case, these elements remain – for a little while.

Local instability leads to local motion, and the upper structure begins to sag in the area of the failure. The surviving structural elements, away from the local failure, begin to see rotation in addition to their increased static load – this rotation creates the “plastic hinges” described in Bazant and Zhou [21]. Supports closer to the rotation will experience a greater share of the remaining load, and a greater twisting motion as the upper structure rotates, and these will fail next. As these supports fail, the load is redistributed further and further away, and soon every support will fail. Twisting will either cause the columns to break free at their connections, or to buckle leaving the connection relatively intact, depending on the relative strength of the connection and the column itself. In either case, the amount of twisting that these columns can survive is not large – structural steel typically flexes only about 3% before strain hardening begins, and rotation can lead to a significant leverage effect in the connections. All such connections will fail before the far corner of the structure descends by a single floor. This means that the local collapse leads to a global collapse in a period of less than one second.

In order for the structure to actually topple over sideways, the upper structure would have to rotate by, say, 45 degrees, which would put the centroid of the WTC 1 upper block approximately at the edge of the lower block. Recall that the structure was 208 feet across. Rotation by 45 degrees means that, if the hinge point is along one exterior wall, the opposite side of the upper block must fall “through” about 163 linear feet of the structure below. If the hinge point is at the center, the descending side must crush through 82 feet, while the ascending side must somehow rise, breaking all of its supports through tension. Despite this damage, the supports at the hinge must continue to support the full load of the upper block as it rotates. Even assuming the upper block and the hinge would survive this behavior, it is therefore impossible for the upper block to topple over without first “falling vertically” through an enormous part of the lower structure. For this reason, claims that the Tower should have toppled instead of collapsing vertically are nonsensical – you cannot have toppling without some vertical collapse, although you can have vertical collapse without toppling. The toppling collapse also requires this crushing to be asymmetric, only occurring on one side, which is simply not plausible – as the leading edge of the rotating block crushes structure below, the crushed structure resists, and this reactive force will tend to keep the upper block centered, meaning the likely outcome is either a downward collapse or no collapse at all. For these reasons, in a structure of these dimensions, the vertical collapse is strongly favored energetically, even discounting the fact that the upper structure also tends to break up under its own weight when rotated.

If all the supports had failed simultaneously, as Mr. Hoffman insists, neither of the WTC Towers would have displayed the rotation seen above. In reality, both Towers did rotate a few degrees, which is precisely what we expect in a gradual collapse mechanism. There is, therefore, no reason to believe the supports failed simultaneously, or that they must in the NIST model. NIST never makes this claim.

Dr. Griffin still insists that his belief is “obvious,” again shirking the burden of proof
LINK

--Just to restate - there is no positive evidence whatsoever for any other method of collapse. To suggest explosive demolition is to imply the conspiracy was massive: including all the engineers, physics professors, architects, investigators, firemen, recuse workers, clean-up workers etc etc - they were lying, or 'in' on the conspiracy? Then you have to explain how the buildings were fitted with such an amount of explosives as to dwarf the energy imparted to the buildings by 500mph jets, full of fuel and weighing 100 tons. (18 times the energy in fuel as TNT). Also it needs explaining how the collapse was initiated at the exact right place; how the explosives didn't trigger at impact, nor in the subsequent explosions, nor during the fires. None of this has any plausible explanation, and there is just no evidence for any of it.

To an objective observer, there is only one remotely plausible explanation - and it isn't demolition.

Conpiracists like to disparage the obvious explanation by saying "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". But in fact it is conspiracism that makes the extraordinary claim - and yet there is absolutely no evidence for conspiracy - let alone any of extraordinary quality. Whereas the obvious explanation has mountains of positive evidence.

Ultimately, we have to ask "Why believe something for which there is absolutely no evidence, whilst discarding the obvious explanation for which there is massive amounts of evidence?" Why? What is the reason to do so? It isn't because of the evidence - because there is none for demolition, and there's huge amounts for the obvious explanation. So why believe it?

You can continue forever saying "I simply don't believe it!" Fine - but until there is some reason to believe the super-extraordinary claims of conspiracy - there is simply no reason TO believe it. 911 Conspiracy might be right - but until such time as there is very good evidence for it, and very good evidence to give reason to disbelieve the obvious explanation, then there is simply no reason to do so.

Some further excerpts from Ryan Mackey's paper:

The Seattle Kingdome was imploded by Controlled Demolition, Inc., using roughly 4,700 pounds (2,200 kg) of explosives and 21.6 miles (35 km) of detonating cord [147]. For sake of comparison, the DELTA group [148] estimated the gravitational energy of the Towers at 5 x 1011 J, or 2.5 x 1011 J released in each of the two collapses, which is equivalent to the energy output of roughly 60,000 kg of TNT per tower. (Our own rough estimate, presented in Appendix B, is slightly higher at 100,000 kg TNT per tower.)

When Dr. Griffin claims that the WTC Towers contained more explosives than were used at the Kingdome, this means his theory requires over 2,200 kg per tower. However, since he has also stated that the gravitational energy was insufficient to create the dust, and that explosives must have been responsible, this raises the bar much higher – his theory now requires that more than 60,000 kg of explosives were detonated in each tower. This is greater than the payload capacity of two B-52 heavy bombers per tower.

60,000 kg of high explosives – 60 metric tons – is an enormous amount by any measure. Historically, there have only been a handful of non-nuclear detonations of this size or larger, all creating enormous fireballs and shock waves strong enough to visibly compress water vapor from the atmosphere. Despite the extremely unusual nature of such a large event, Dr. Griffin has no conclusive evidence of explosives – no sounds, no flashes, no shockwaves, no shrapnel, no chemical residue, no seismic activity, and no physical remains of any explosives. Hundreds of thousands of people would have personally witnessed this. Glass windows sheltered from debris were not shattered, helicopters flying nearby were not destroyed, and a few lucky survivors were even pulled alive from the lower levels after the collapse had ended. Dr. Griffin provides no explanation of how this is possible. He also has produced no explanation of how such a staggering amount of explosives could have been smuggled into the Towers without detection, how it could have been placed without being seen, how many individuals would have been required to plant it all, or how long this process would have taken. Just one of the hurdles would have been wiring the explosives – using the Kingdome as a reference, this explosion would have required almost 1,000 km of detonating cord to be strung in each tower.

Dr. Griffin’s claim also drives a wedge between his own theory and that of Dr. Steven Jones. Earlier in Dr. Griffin’s book [8], he left open the possibility of “incendiaries” rather than explosives, but incendiaries do not create dust. Because Dr. Griffin claims the dust was created by “controlled demolition,” he has no alternative to explosives except to propose that explosives were used in addition to incendiaries, or unless he embraces a theory involving science-fiction weaponry such as that proposed by Dr. Wood.

On the basis of the analysis above, it is now clear why Dr. Griffin refuses to present any details of his controlled demolition theory. The details that may be inferred from his conclusions prove its absurdity, even if there was no ready alternate hypothesis available, such as the NIST Report provides.
........

....if large pieces of steel were propelled by explosives, then smaller pieces should have traveled further still – as a material shrinks in size, its surface area to volume ratio rises. A piece of steel scaled down by 50% would experience four times less impulse, but would weigh eight times less, and thus receive twice as much initial velocity. This means that, if explosives had propelled steel fragments, we would see small pieces propelled much further than large pieces – and this is not the case. If explosives had driven a large fragment 600 feet, then very small pieces would have been ejected like shrapnel, damaging buildings and killing onlookers at distances of hundreds or even thousands of meters; this too did not happen.

In contrast, in the gravity-driven ricochet model, all pieces fall at the same rate regardless of their size, and therefore can ricochet similar distances; in this case larger pieces will travel slightly farther as they are less susceptible to drag. This is consistent with observations, and with the NIST theory.
..........
NIST estimates that the inventory recovered in this fashion, almost entirely from WTC 1 and 2, is between 0.25 percent and 0.5 percent of the 200,000 tons of structural steel used in the Towers. This agrees with Dr. Griffin’s estimate. However, what he fails to appreciate is that the total above is the amount that was collected, not the amount that was examined. The overwhelming majority of structural steel was examined in the search, and discarded simply because it did not meet the criteria above – the remaining steel, in the professional opinion of the engineers, displayed no unusual or important characteristics needed for the investigation.

Furthermore, of the NIST inventory, a considerable fraction is in the form of “coupons,” or small pieces removed from larger steel elements to facilitate easier storage and protection from the elements. Because of this, the NIST inventory represents a larger fraction of the original steel than its raw weight would indicate. But in any event, Dr. Griffin’s assertion that the steel was all shipped off to Asia “before it could be properly examined” is simply wrong.

Dr. Griffin also repeats the commonly echoed misconception that “removing any evidence from the scene of a crime is a federal offense.” This is similarly misleading. It would be illegal for an anonymous individual to remove material from the collapse site, of course, but the search and rescue operation, followed by the recovery and firefighting efforts, followed by reclamation, were always under the control of the Federal Bureau of Investigations and FEMA. Such removal of potential evidence lay within their jurisdictions.
..........

Summary

We find that Dr. Griffin has failed to provide any positive evidence of explosives. In examining his claims closely, we have been able to assign some numerical limits to his explosives hypothesis, adding some detail that he refuses to provide.

Dr. Griffin, however, states that it is the absence of evidence that matters:

NIST claimed that it “found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001.” How exactly that statement should be interpreted is not clear: NIST might have simply meant that it found no such evidence because it did not look for it. Or NIST might have meant that it was already aware of such evidence, so there was no need to find it. But this statement should not, in any case, be taken to mean that no such evidence exists.

The author can clarify that statement for Dr. Griffin: NIST is not and never has been aware of any such evidence. Evidence for explosives does not exist. The NIST study proves that the collapses were expected, in the manner and timing they were observed, without explosives being involved in any way. Furthermore, if there had been explosives, the collapses would not have taken place in the way that they did. In discussing Dr. Griffin’s claims, we have consistently compared the evidence that he feels is significant, holding up to both the NIST and his own explosives theory. Without exception, the evidence is either irrelevant or actually confirms the NIST account.

Having examined all of Dr. Griffin’s claims, we can now confidently state that no such evidence exists. And since Dr. Griffin has also not found any problems with the NIST hypothesis, as we saw in the previous section of this report, Dr. Griffin has no valid reason – either because he believes he has evidence, or because he believes there is an absence of evidence – to suspect explosives.

Prisonplanet - "adverts disguised as news"

This is what Prisonplanet's "advertise" page used to say, back in April 2007:

TEXT ADS

Text ads are disguised as news headlines near the top of the "general" or "police state" section on Prison Planet.com and get guaranteed massive immediate hits.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/advertise.html

Nice to know they treat their readers with such respect, eh?

The page is available at webarchive: HERE and yes, it does say "Text ads are disguised as news headlines....."

9/11 Conspiracism and Sibel Edmonds

Alex Jones appears to do everything to prevent the words "Saudi Arabia" appearing in context with Sibel Edmonds.

Here, there is a whole page at Prionplanet about Sibel Edmonds, and her claims of "foreign government" and "criminal" involvement with 9/11. But throughout the entire page there is no mention of Saudi Arabia.

Of course Jones takes the least suggestion of "inside job" as vindicating his hypothesis.....but what about at least mentioning Saudi Arabia? Furthermore, Edmonds' claims seem to revolve around Al Qaeda being responsible - Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. Why Jones downplays AQ and completely omits to mention Saudi seems obvious - it doesn't fit with his preconceived notions, and it doesn't fit with all his friends' views that the "foreign government" involved was Israel. Why else would AJ avoid mentioning Saudi and instead refer to just "foreign governments" and "criminal elements". (Of course 'criminal elements' were involved! They hijacked planes and flew them into huge office buildings!)

Here, there's a prisonplanet page on Alex Jones' interview with Sibel Edmonds......and not a mention of "Saudi Arabia". The transcript provided says "partial transcript"......and fails to mention Saudi Arabia, but it does feature Alex trying to get Sibel Edmonds to say "inside job". It's headlined

Foremost 9/11 Whistleblower Discusses Possibility Attack Was Inside Job

Edmonds agrees weight of evidence leans towards criminal complicity

Doesn't mention Al Qaeda, Saudi Arabia.....just "inside job". Alex Jones knows his audience will read that as Israel?

Rivero of whatreallyhappened,com certainly must know that his audience will suspect Israeli involvement at the merest mention of the phrases "inside job", "government complicity", "foreign government involvement" etc. he does everything he can to make sure his audience thinks like that. Purposefully avoiding mentioning Saudi can only help create such impressions in his audience's mind.

Whatreallyhappened has this on Sibel Edmonds:

....if she is to be believed, a treasonous plot to embed moles in American military and nuclear installations and pass sensitive intelligence to Israeli, Pakistani, and Turkish sources was facilitated by figures in the upper echelons of the State and Defense Departments. Her charges could be easily confirmed or dismissed if classified government documents were made available to investigators.
LINK

No mention of Saudi Arabia at all. But Israel appears in the list, of course. Maybe Israel deserves to be in the list, in this case, but why not Saudi Arabia? It seems a concerted, or at least subconcious, effort at avoiding mentioning Saudi and AQ, unless it is in terms of "government contact" with AQ. But anyway, government contact with Al Qaeda in no ways means the government intended Al Qaeda to attack America.

Another reference at WRH to Edmonds says:

How many House or Senate Republicans have you heard screaming, or even better, calling for an investigation? The right wing remains silent. Some may have their hand, directly or indirectly, in the same AIPAC cookie jar.
LINK

Israel (AIPAC) again, but nothing about Saudi Arabia.

It's funny - try to find a mention about Saudi Arabia amongst the far-right connected 911-conspiracy crowd and there's absolutely nothing. Indeed, the far-right has a record of tactically embracing Islam, with the intent of making common cause against their shared enemy - Israel.

Sibel Edmonds appears frequently amongst the far-right 911-conspiracist crowd - but her claims are edited, and waved around only to confirm the meme that "foreign governments" were involved with 911. Nothing is mentioned about Saudi or about Islam.

Amongst such a morass of stories and commentary that "Israel did it!", Sibel Edmonds' quotes about "foreign government involvement", shorn of any implicatory mention of Saudi, are clearly meant to implicate Israel - and that's how the far-right 911 conspiracy sites employ her quotations.

Sibel Edmonds and 911

Why do all the 911 conspiracists cite Edmonds as giving support to their notion that "Israel" was behind 9/11?

Here's a few paragraphs from her own website, dating back to 2006. I draw attention to the fact she implicates Al Qaeda - and Saudi Arabia.

Senator Graham’s Revelation

It has been established that two of the 9/11 hijackers had a support network in the U.S. that included agents of the Saudi government, and that the Bush administration and the FBI blocked a congressional investigation into that relationship.

In his book, "Intelligence Matters," Senator Bob Graham made clear that some details of that financial support from Saudi Arabia were in the 27 pages of the congressional inquiry's final report that were blocked from release by the administration, despite the pleas of leaders of both parties in the House and Senate intelligence committees.

Here is an excerpt from Senator Graham’s statement from the July 24, 2003 congressional record on the classified 27 pages of the Congressional Joint Inquiry into 9/11: “The most serious omission, in my view, is part 4 of the report, which is entitled Finding, Discussion and Narrative Regarding Certain Sensitive National Security Matters. Those 27 pages have almost been entirely censured [sic]….The declassified version of this finding tells the American people that our investigation developed information suggesting specific sources of foreign support for some of the September 11 hijackers while they were in the United States. In other words, officials of a foreign government are alleged to have aided and abetted the terrorist attacks on our country on September 11, which took over 3,000 lives.”

In his book Graham reveals, “Our investigators found a CIA memo dated August 2, 2002, whose author concluded that there is incontrovertible evidence that there is support for these terrorists within the Saudi government. On September 11, America was not attacked by a nation-state, but we had just discovered that the attackers were actively supported by one, and that state was our supposed friend and ally Saudi Arabia.” He then cites another case, “We had discovered an FBI asset who had a close relationship with two of the terrorists; a terrorist support network that went through the Saudi Embassy; and a funding network that went through the Saudi Royal family.”

The most explosive revelation in Graham’s book is the following statement with regard to the administration’s attitude on page 216: “It was as if the President’s loyalty lay more with Saudi Arabia than with America’s safety.” Further, he states that he asked the FBI to undertake a review of the Riggs Bank records on the terrorists’ money trail, to look at other Saudi companies with ties to al-Qaeda, to plan for monitoring suspect Saudi interests in the United States; however, Graham adds: “To my knowledge, none of these investigations have been completed…Nor do we know anything else about what I believe to be a state-sponsored terrorist support network that still exists, largely undamaged, within the United States.”

What Graham is trying to establish in his book and previous public statements in this regard, and doing so under state imposed ‘secrecy and classification’, is that the classification and cover up of those 27 pages is not about protecting ‘U.S. national security, methods of intelligence collection, or ongoing investigations,’ but to protect certain U.S. allies. Meaning, our government put the interests of certain foreign nations and their U.S. beneficiaries far above its own people and their interests. While Saudi Arabia has been specifically pointed to by Graham, other countries involved have yet to be identified.

In covering up Saudi Arabia’s direct role in supporting Al Qaeda, the 9/11 Commission goes even a few steps further than the congress and the Executive Branch. The report claims "there is no convincing evidence that any government financially supported al-Qaeda before 9/11." Their report ignores all the information provided by government officials to Congress, as well as volumes of published reports and investigations by other nations, regarding Muslim and Arab regimes that have supported al Qaeda. It completely disregards the terrorist lists of the Treasury and State Departments, which have catalogued the Saudi government's decades of support for Bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

Why in the world would the United States government go so far to protect Saudi Arabia in the face of what itself declares to be the biggest security threat facing our nation and the world today?
LINK

Errrr, excuse me, but that all points to Saudi Arabia, if anywhere. Edmonds, like everyone else, has been exploited by the anti-Israeli goons? Where did they get the idea from that she was on about Israel? Her claims have been used to accuse Israel, haven't they?

And who knows if she's even honest?

Odd Sponsor (?) of WhatReallyHappened.com

What an odd website.

But what an especially odd website to be sponsoring other peoples' websites.

These people appear to be advertising at WRH. Maybe Rivero gives advertising space away? Or maybe conspiracycards just have more money than they know what to do with? Or maybe it's something else........

The website is http://conspiracycards.com

It's registered through every hokey site's favourite proxy registrar - godaddy. Never have guessed, would you? [For those that don't know, godaddy allows registration of domain names via a proxy - so unlike any other regular registrar, nobody can tell who actually registered the sire name. Good for keeping your anonymity.....but why would anyone really want that?]

Check out the website - it's just weird. The basic premise appears to be selling "information cards" - with information about various conspiracies. They claim these are useful aids to conversations.....or something.

Click on the CARDS link, and it says

We hope this page will showcase published Conspiracy Cards sometime in the near future.
LINK

So the cards are not even available yet. But it does say

Sign up now and we'll let you know when these cards become commercially available or buy the CD which has over 150 cards in both high quality ready to print yourself and optimized JPGs to email to friends. We all need to get the word out...be a Truth Trooper now and help yourself by helping others and the people you care about wake up. Good Luck !

This is a limited time offer. Buy your cards on CD now while you still can. $22.50

The image admits they're "concept form" only:


Packaging Concepts for Conspiracy Cards (Work in Progress)

Soooooo, why would you even want these cards?

They say:

We realize after much research that in order to reach people with crucial information they need know it is essential to be armed with more than just your word. As you may have experienced it can be quite difficult to engage conversation within these topics. You can hand someone a DVD, but they may never watch it. You can recommend particular books, but they may never read them. What better way to illustrate your concerns than to hand them a card on whatever topic you need to introduce or would like to debate? We don't expect people to just suddenly believe simply by reading a few controversial facts on these cards. It is our intent that these powerful cliff notes will initiate their curiosity to look in to these facts even further for themselves. No doubt some people may refute these facts at first and will try to debunk them...this is good, and may just encourage them to actually research for themselves and consequently leading them on their own road to awakening.

If you're a Truther and are trying hard to wake people up... be prepared and arm yourself with ConspiracyCards.
LINK

Errr......right. Brilliant concept - lol - and not even up and running properly. Yet. But some time soon. They hope.

Until they get their card concepts fully worked up, what can you do in the meantime??

But What Can I Do?

This is probably the most common reply when people first wake up. Well you made the first step towards making a difference by educating yourself and arming yourself with the truth. If everyone knew what was really going on we wouldn't be in this predicament.

if you're visiting this site for the first time...learn !!! Then tell two friends and tell those friends to tell two friends and guess what? We'd all know this shit by now and *Their* New World Order agenda would crumble like a house of Cards. So please spend as much time as you'd like on this site and learn, but don't stop there...spread the word, It's our only hope.

Bookmark this site and send the link to 2 friends...let's start our own pyramid for truth!

Wow! Wake up - and.....bookmark the site. Hmm. Radical man. Not exactly a fully worked-out plan, is it?

They also say:

If you like what we do, please donate $1-$5-$10-$20. We try to survive from donations. Any amount helps and is appreciated.

Donate? What for? To help sustain their crappy website? Which sells "conspiracycards"? Which don't exist yet? Buy, or donate? Eh?

They say

"Click here to see the first prototype cards"

The prototype cards? So they don't exist? But you can buy a CD with them on........for $22.50........and it's a non-profit website? Eh?

they have a link to seemingly buy a Mike Rivero action figure:


Note it says "concept". And when you go to the page it says:

Mike Rivero is based in Hawaii and is a well know Truther who has been fighting the New World Order and revealing the truth on many crucial topics for more than fifteen years. Needless to say Mike most definitely deserves his own Action Figure as well as a Patriot Pack Card. These images below are Photoshop concepts I created to honor Mike Rivero as the Truth Trooper Hero he truly is. No they are not real, but maybe someday ... who knows? Enjoy !
LINK

EH? So they're just "concept artwork"? And the point of that is what? These people are having a love-in for Rivero, AND they sponsor his website? Is that for real? LOL

Clicking "about us" brings this message:

ConspiracyCards.com is a small outfit dedicated to revealing the truth behind many conspiracies pertaining chiefly to the New Word Order. Our staff will Bend Over backwards to ensure the information presented in these cards is accurate and up to date as best we can. Should new evidence come forward...we will not hesitate to make the proper corrections. Our only goal is simply the pursuit of truth and to inform the public on how they can best prepare or avoid any possibilities that might endanger their lives.

We are not coerced, paid or bribed to bring you this crucial information. We have a genuine concern for the state of our world today and hope that the information we present can awaken the public to the secret agendas that intend to destroy our quality of life as we know it.

Our focus is to offer concise information concerning issues that may effect your immediate or long term health. It is not our intention to confuse the issues with topics for sheer entertainment value. Many of these topics are controversial and we strongly encourage everyone to research fully and from as many sources as possible.

Eh? If people pay for the cards then conspiracycards.com surely are being paid to bring people this information?

Don't you love the "accurate and up to date.....as best we can..."? LOL.

The usual guff is in there - global warming is a hoax, they're coming to get your guns, 911 - of course, etc etc etc.

Some of the adverts are perhaps more revealing - Gun Owners of America - Alex Jones' Prisonplanet - Midas Resources (Ted Anderson/Alex Jones gold selling shenanigan)

But remember, you can buy a CD, with the jpgs on! Woohoo. Amazing. Print them out yourself! Hmmm. WTF? For $22.50? Who in hell is gonna buy them? And yet they are sponsoring WRH?

This rubbish is generating funds sufficient to sponsor other peoples' websites?

How? It's just not credible?

It looks amateurish as hell. It has a page on getting off the grid. Go to the page and it says

"More tips on how you can survive off the Grid coming soon"

And just a load of hokey videos off of ....youtube. And some more adverts for various conspiracy site junk. Hmmm.

It says :

ConspiracyCards.com is more than just cards for curious entertainment. It's an Awakening center with Conspiracy Cards of crucial information that can save your life. Open your mind and learn what the Illuminati don't want you to know concerning their Depopulation agenda using False Flag operations to herd you and your family to a FEMA camp to be executed or injected with a lethal Vaccine that will give you the Avian/Swine Flu rather than prevent it. Learn about the Bilderberg Group and how JFK warned people before he was assassinated for not going along with the New World Order.

These factual Conspiracy Cards are specifically designed to inform you of very important issues to which you may not be aware. But don't expect to see these topics discussed or debated in traditional media such as TV or newspapers. Most all media sources are owned by very powerful groups who have no intention of divulging the truth. Why?...well we hope to clarify their agenda and explain their motives with these factual cards... that may just save your life.

This site does not require a membership nor any fees to access the crucial information within. All we ask is that you learn and share the information. This is a non profit venture done out of urgent concern for the future of mankind. However donations are very much appreciated and would help fund the continuation of this project. Thank You !
LINK

Non-profit? Hmmm. I bet it is. So how can they sponsor WhatReallyHappened? They sell "conspiracycards - which aren't available yet, only on CD as jpegs - and yet they're "non-profit"? Do they know they aren't going to make a profit on the cards? What if the cards (heaven forbid) actually took off and they made a fortune? Eh? Doesn't make sense.

They have a pile of adverts, sorry I mean information, which lead to naturalnews.com - frequent and prolific sponsors of Alex Jones' Prionplanet.

Cannabis cures cancer! Reich's Orgone! Quantum nonsense! Pages and pages of such rubbish......

Who We Are links to a page with a picture of Ron Paul, Aaron Russo and Alex Jones. Eh?

If you have learned valuable information that served as a warning or that may have enhanced your life or health...what is that worth ?
$1 - $10...every donation counts and is appreciated to help sustain this website and our efforts. Thank You !

Sheesh.......what information?

For more information feel free to look into it for yourself.

Oh - thanks! Look into it yourself! What is this crap? Why are adverts for it at WhatReallyHappened?

What springs to my mind are the claims made my NewYorkTimes about fake grassroots websites which resurfaced recently in light of the anti-Obama campaign to prevent healthcare reform.

It seems to me to be a pretty obvious way to channel funds to "conspiracy" (read right-wing extremist) websites - take out advertising, for crap or non-existent products as a means to funnel money to politically sympathetic websites. How does anyone know who is behind the firms that sponsor all these far-right conspiracy websites? The websites are under no obligation to say.....and if the advertisers are registered through GoDaddy proxy registrar system, how could anyone find out who owns them or if they are legit?

Seems very odd.