 |
| How can you hate the perfection that is Captain Jack? Sure he needs a shower, but still... |
Roger Federer has claimed the season-endingATP World Tour title for a record-equalling fifth time
after a three-set victory over world number one Rafael Nadal .
The 29-year-old's attacking game carried the Swiss to a 6-3 3-6 6-1 win in one hour and 37 minutes in front of 18 thousand fans at London's O2 Arena.
Federer's victory ensured that an inconsistent year by his standards was bookended by wins at the Australian Open in January and now the ATP World Tour Finals in November.
Back to you !
Federer's not-often , infamous fall during the match .
I did it !Nadal had been hoping to land the only significant title to so far elude him, but a three-hour semi-final against Andy Murray on Saturday looked to have taken the edge off his game, and Federer proved the stronger in the closing stages.
And while Sunday's final never quite matched the heights of their last meeting in London - Nadal's epic 2008 Wimbledon final victory - it proved beyond doubt that Federer will be chasing hard on the world number one's heels next year.
Number One dethroned .
The Swiss also won the coveted year-end championships in 2003 ( d. Agassi ) and 2004 (d. Hewitt ) in Houston and again in 2006 ( d. Blake ) and 2007 (d. Ferrer) in Shanghai . He was also the runner-up in 2005 and has compiled a staggering 34-7 event record . He is the third player in the tournament’s 41-year history to win the title five times, joining Ivan Lendl and Pete Sampras .
As the undefeated champion of the world’s biggest indoor tennis tournament , Federer received 1 ,500 South African Airways 2010 ATP Ranking points and the maximum amount of $1,630 ,000 in prize money . It is the fourth time that he has been crowned the undefeated champion at the season finale , having dropped only one set this week .
During the epic-finale between Roger and Rafael , stars like HRH Princess Beatrice , Ronnie Wood , Diego Maradona and Thiery Henry were too spotted amongst the crowd .
Well playedThe Ultimate proof NIST is lying about WTC7
In raw footage from the upcoming film "911: Explosive Evidence - Experts speak out," produced by ae911truth.org, chemical engineer Mark Basile reveals that he has unequivocally confirmed the peer-reviewed work of an international group of scientists who report to have found remnants of the incendiary/explosive nano-thermite in dust from the WTC on 9/11 in April of 2009.
Basile states his interest was first peaked by official reports, namely Appendix C of the FEMA report that studied steel from the third tower to fall on 9/11 known as Building 7, which wasn't hit by a plane, and found "melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese."
Appendix C states, "the severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event... It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground... It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure."
In 2007 Basile attended a conference by physicist Steven Jones where he spoke of his preliminary findings regarding the nano-thermite. Basile approached Jones afterward and offered to independently look at a sample of dust that Jones had gathered from four NYC residents to either confirm or refute his findings.
Basile reports that the material "really shouldn't be there" and stresses that it "is not normal thermite" that "any kid" could make, but instead is "very very difficult to make" and contains ingredients such as nano-aluminum, which the government limits the sale of.
Basile notes that he obtained a completely independent sample of dust from a NYC museum, which wishes to remain anonymous. 9/11 "debunkers" questioned the chain of custody, which implies the scientists and citizens manufactured this material and faked evidence. I can see why the museum wouldn't want any part in being a conspirator in that crazy conspiracy theory!
This is how my blog treats the issues surrounding Silverstein, it's a fair look at both sides IMO:
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2009/11/larry-silverstein-wtc-7-and-pull-it.html
Andrew G. Benjamin:
Thanks Mr. Talboo. My understanding is that one wall of building 7 had previous to the building collapse had already collapsed, weakening the entire structure. Because I was also involved in the investigations of the first bombing at the WTC, specifically the bombers facility in South Jamaica, and in the redevelopment of the NYC Forensic Labs rather nearby on Jamaica Ave, my information is that no significant explosive material, detritus, remnants, or precursors or other, within any of the towers were detected. Much of the stories were predictably made up. Manufactured. There were government offices within the towers, weapons such as firearms and ammo are excepted.
The conventional materials for demolitions is bit thermite. Thermite is simply not used for the purpose. Moreover, the source of the materials the scientist analyzed is really unknown. The materials to manufacture thermite are available over the counter. No government permission required. It does not explode. Magnesium as actually better material for the purpose. To penetrate armor for example, magnesium copper shaped charges are used. Not thermite. The testimony does not connect thermite use to building 7, but what makes even less sense is that he did not specify building 7; the listener may be under the impression that he is speaking of the towers themselves. The planes hit the towers fully loaded with jet fuel. A few years ago a small plane hit an office building causing damage very similar to the Pentagon incident. I checked the specs on the plane. It was maybe 1% the weight of the jetliners using less than 4% the fuel.
The problem with these conspiracy theories is that the attack would require conspirators - I would think many - and none of whom stood up.
The testimony of these "scientists," and this is a general thought, I have no proof, is that they're grandstanding. For their five minutes of fame. Nothing will come of it. People so disposed will believe anything.
The fact is, al Q'aeda and associates involved with the first bombing admitted, nay, bragged about it and promised to return. They have.
As for our government, Clinton to be precise, knew about the upcoming attack, that is true. They knew because of the materials found during Operation Bojinka - again, I refer you to the link I sent. There were drawings of planes flying into tall towers. The place to where they intended to return. They have.
Clinton had the drawings. Whether or not he took them seriously is another issue. Even if he had, the problem was Jamie Gorelick whose memo prevented one intel agency from communicating with the other. Yes, we knew they were going to attack, there were field agents who were on individual terrorists' tails. We knew they were taking flying lessons...the tracks are all there.
Lastly, Silverstein did not blow building 7 up, nor order their being blown up; his insurance proceeds did not cover his losses. He's a very good businessman, not an idiot. His primary concern during the horror was to preserve lives.
No one I know got over this horror to this day.
Thanks for your info.
You need to be really skeptical about any of this. The paper and evidentiary trail leading to specific individuals, many of whom did not hesitate to admit to the crime, in fact threatened us with it before it happened, is conclusive. This story is the most documented crime in history. We know who did it and why they did it.
Personally I don't think any American was involved either in planning or the execution of it. More worrying is that today there are some Americans who wold do it!
AGB
I should have added, and no offense is meant, that the links sent are not "hard evidence." In fact they are the lowest class for testimony
http://mattweiner.net/papers/dissertation.html
And Nafeez Ahmed is a Marxist. Not a sin I guess, in and of itself, but it is in line with Marxist plans for unsettling Western civilization. Confusing people about reality. I know, I come from that other side. Escaped to be precise.
In any case, I have no investment in this matter having been there and done that. I tend to disregard "theories" when so many facts slap me across the face. - A
John-Michael P. Talboo:
First off, I think it is important to note that I do not doubt terrorists were involved in 9/11. When the alleged 9/11 plotters offered to confess at Guantánamo in December of 2008 many probably asked themselves: "What does it mean for the 9/11 truth movement?” The answer is nothing; many people make the mistake of only seeing the issues concerning 9/11 in black and white, as opposed to shades of grey. Even if we accept that bin Laden and gang were the masterminds of 9/11 it does not negate a slew of evidence indicating that they were allowed to succeed and had their results amplified. 9/11 very well could have been an inside and an outside job.
You state that your "understanding is that one wall of building 7 had previous to the building collapse had already collapsed, weakening the entire structure."
I don't know why that is your understanding.
Larry Silverstein stated that the North Tower's antenna sliced through WTC-7's south face and ruptured fuel lines in the building.
"This video shows the antenna tipping over towards East, maybe Southeast, definitely AWAY from WTC-7."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iA35icy2-c
Furthermore, here is what the NIST report had to say on the matter:
"...Fuel oil fires did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7." - (NCSTAR 1A, p xxxii)
"...The damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7." - NCSTAR 1A, p xxxii
"Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from the fires that the debris initiated." - NIST WTC 7 Q&A webpage
But most importantly they admitted that the building experienced a "freefall drop for approximately 8 stories." Previous to this admission in their final Nov '08 report, their Aug '08 draft report attempted to demonstrate that "there was no freefall." When lead NIST investigator Dr. Shyam Sunder was fielded a question by high school physics teacher David Chandler regarding the issue at a NIST press conference subsequent to the release of the draft report, Sunder stated that "freefall time would be an object that has no structural components below it." In essence, Sunder admitted that this is impossible absent some external force, i.e., explosives. I submit to you this is why NIST failed to mention their admission of freefall in their list of changes made in the final report. It's either that, or as NIST says, fires "similar" to those "experienced in other tall buildings," caused "the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building."
NIST's theory is at odds with a large body of historical precedent and the laws of physics. The evidence presented by those in the 9/11 truth movement is not.
You state that "thermite is simply not used for the purpose," that "the materials to manufacture thermite are available over the counter," that "no government permission required," and that "it does not explode."
However, Basile explicitly stated that the material he analyzed is not regular thermite, but rather nano-thermite, which contains nano-aluminum that the government limits the sale of. And it is explosive. The MIT article "Military Reloads with Nanotech," states that:
Researchers can greatly increase the power of weapons by adding materials known as superthermites that combine nanometals such as nanoaluminum with metal oxides such as iron oxide, according to Steven Son, a project leader in the Explosives Science and Technology group at Los Alamos.The scientists report that the material found in the WTC dust is mixed in a sol-gel matrix with organic components and as an April 2000 report by Gash et. al. about the sol-gel process states:
"The advantage (of using nanometals) is in how fast you can get their energy out," Son says. Son says that the chemical reactions of superthermites are faster and therefore release greater amounts of energy more rapidly.
"Superthermites can increase the (chemical) reaction time by a thousand times," Son says, resulting in a very rapid reactive wave.
Sullivan stated that he knew from the first day that the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7 on 9/11 was a classic controlled implosion. Asked how he thought it might have been done he posited, “looking at the building it wouldn’t be a problem -- once you gain access to the elevator shafts…then a team of expert loaders would have hidden access to the core columns and beams. The rest can be accomplished with just the right kind of explosives for the job. Thermite can be used as well.”Two days after I sent this reply Civil Engineer Jonathan Cole published a video of experiments he carried out proving that thermite variants can demolish vertically standing steel beams.
The building was designed to have a fully loaded [Boeing] 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.The small difference between a 707 and 757 is surely compensated for if we are to believe this statement. And even if we dismissed it, the difference is more than compensated for due to the fact that the anticipated scenarios made calculations for a 707 traveling at 600 mph, whereas the 767s that hit the WTC towers were said, according to liberal figures, to be traveling at 470 and 590 mph, and according to conservative figures at 440 and 540 mph.
The original 9/11 Commission inquiry became an exercise in bureaucratic ass-covering and obfuscation of accountability.You bring up Operation Bojinka; I think oilempire.us said it best:
I had no intention of joining the ranks of 'whistle blowers'. In 2003, when I made my disclosure to the 9/11 commission regarding the existence of a pre 9/11 offensive counter-terrorism operation that had discovered several of the 9/11 terrorists a full year before the 9/11 attacks my intention was to simply tell the truth, and fulfill my oath of office. Unfortunately, this was a minority view.
Instead of supporting the search for the truth, members of the Bush/Rumsfeld Department of Defense did everything within their power to destroy my 20 year career as a clandestine intelligence operative simply to try to discredit me and my disclosure.
While the “blowback” thesis is tempting to believe, given the intense anger that US policies have created in the Middle East over many decades, blowback is inadequate to explain the actual events of 9/11. Blowback still assumes that 9/11 was a surprise attack.Thanks for the discussion. Can you ask Larry who he was speaking to on 9/11 because this is what FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro (fire department commander) on 9/11 had to say.
A precursor plot to 9/11, Operation Bojinka, was stopped in 1995 when terrorists in the Philippines were caught planning simultaneous hijackings of up to a dozen planes. Bojinka was probably merely blowback -- but whether it was more than this or not, it clearly shows that the US "intelligence community" knew about the threat of a 9/11 type event years before it happened.
Never mind that extensive polling data indicates that the majority of the more than one billion Muslims in the world have an opposite interpretation of the Quran. If they didn't they would be a whole lot scarier than peanuts, but they're not! And never mind that according to professor of political science Robert A. Pape, the first complete database of suicide terrorism around the world from 1980 through early 2004 showed that over half the terrorists were secular and over 95% were trying to compel a modern democracy to withdrawal combat forces from their country.
Really never mind numbers often cited concerning how many people Muslims have killed in the last 1,000 years, because not only are they greatly exaggerated, but completely irrelevant.
The pertinent statistics are ones such as these, which estimate that one million plus Muslims have been killed by the U.S. in the past 30 years, many times arguably without justification, which equates to over 100 Muslim fatalities for every American lost, and those numbers do no not take into consideration many things that would make the figures even more heavily slanted. Furthermore, the larger issue at hand is U.S. empire-building.
As the hip-hop group Dead Prez states:
you wanna stop terrorists?
start with the u.s. imperalists
ain't no track record like america's, see
bin laden was trained by the c.i.a
but I guess if you a terrorist for the u.s
then it's okay
So how can this notion be applied to the 9/11 truth movement? The following is a common example of special pleading (e.g., How can the govt. continue to conceal the conspiracy if literally thousands of people were involved? Special plead: you don’t understand the concept of compartmentalization within the government).Much of what I'm about to say here is going to be in my post after this one, but since Pat focused in on it, I will as well.This argument is special pleading because it avoids having to answer the real problem, namely that even with compartmentalization there still remain thousands of people who have to remain silent. Lets take the people who set up the demolition charges for instance. If they were only given instructions to set charges and nothing else, then I find it a little odd that not a single one of them has come forward with this information. The notion of compartmentalization fails when we realize that if one link in the chain fails, then the entire conspiracy fails.
First off, it can't be the fallacy of special pleading because we have unrefuted peer-reviewed science on our side. Therefore, Mr Rational's typical "debunker" a priori objection, according to The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, falls into the category of a priori fallacies because one cannot "base knowledge of fundamental synthetic truths on anything other than empirical evidence."
As Debunking the Debunkers blog contributor Steve Weathers put it:
"It does not matter what problems we face with other details of the attacks, we KNOW, from the key forensic evidence, that the WTC buildings were brought down using explosives."
The idea that government complicity in the attacks would require large numbers of people with full knowledge of the operation is a notion largely debunked by the intelligence technique of compartmentalization, but does this still leave thousands knowing pieces of the puzzle?
In fact, this assertion is itself using the logical fallacy of necessity where "a degree of unwarranted necessity is placed in the conclusion based on the necessity of one or more of its premises." One part of the premise here is that controlled demolitions require large numbers of people, which leads to the conclusion that controlled demolitions on 9/11 would require the same.
However, as 911review.com points out:
"A demolition that is planned as part of a covert operation to fit a narrative of events that attributes the total destruction of the building to a different cause (such as a jetliner crash and consequent fires) has a very different set of requirements than a demolition that is planned to legally remove a building in an urban setting."
Beyond this, the intricacies of the evidence indicate a plethora of ways in which the number of people intimately involved in all aspects of the plot could have been significantly decreased, but we'll get there in a second.
The next part of Mr Rational's premise relies on the fallacy of assumption where "someone assumes the very thing they are trying to prove." He simply assumes somebody would have talked in such a conspiracy, and since they haven't there was no conspiracy.
However, as professor David Ray Griffin stated:
...How could one know this? If some big operations have remained secret until now, we, by definition, don’t know about them.Another great example is Operation Gladio set up by the CIA and NATO. Although Gladio was eventually exposed, it was not just a single event, but an ongoing operation that remained secret for decades, in which hundreds of innocent people were killed and injured in terrorist attacks that were blamed on other groups.Moreover, we do know about some big operations that were kept secret as long as necessary; such as... the war in Indonesia in 1957 which the United States provoked, participated in, and then kept secret until 1995.
Many more examples could be given.
Now that I've put this claim of fallacy from a three time offender in perspective, let's wrap this thing up.
In regard to how the NORAD stand-down was achieved, many have speculated that inaction by an intentionally AWOL chain of command was combined with deliberate confusion via the four wargames that were conducted on 9/11, which seem to have included live-fly simulations of hijackings, and NORAD radar screens, which displayed false tracks throughout the attacks. But no matter how it might have been achieved, one thing is clear, it would have only required the complicity of a few high level officials.
Pat states that:
"No matter how compartmentalized the work was, there would be a hell of a lot of people who would say, 'You know, I wonder if those weird ceiling tiles I installed at the WTC had anything to do with the collapse.'"
He is referring to Jim Hoffman's hypothetical blasting scenario. If this is how the demolition was carried out the ceiling tiles would not look weird at all.
As Hoffman's website 911research.wtc7.net states:
"Explosive devices could have been disguised as or concealed within legitimate equipment, such as smoke alarms or ceiling tiles, and installed by workers oblivious to their surreptitious function. Numerous such possibilities are afforded by the properties of energetic materials."
And these numerous possibilities are beyond the hypothetical. Civil Engineer Jonathan Cole recently published a video of experiments he carried out proving that thermite variants, such as were found in samples of WTC dust, can demolish vertically standing steel beams. One possibility hinted at in the video is that nano-thermite was sprayed on or in beams and activated with a micro-detonator. If this were the case, the operation still would not have required large numbers of people as there wouldn't be any need for running miles of det cord through the building. The fact that this could be done unnoticed is evinced by the Citicorp Tower in New York, which underwent a secret structural retrofit that was unknown to the building's tenants and went almost unnoticed by the general public. Furthermore, in 2009 it was reported that drills were successful in planting bombs in ten high-security federal buildings.
Now, why have we not seen any of this small group of operators come forward, well Mr Rational, because that would be irrational!
People rarely do things opposed to their own self interest. Hence, conspirators usually rat on their co-conspirators only to receive lesser sentences. They rarely pop up out of the blue and say, "would you please give me a lethal injection." In fact, with this mass murder, it is likely that many of the operatives have already received one without asking for it! A real investigation into the events of 9/11 is yet to take place. If and when this occurs, the lesser conspirators or accomplices may be granted immunity, or granted favorable plea bargains in return for turning state’s evidence, leading to convictions of numerous others.
With all that being said, it would still be expected that people not directly involved who caught wind of suspicious goings-on would probably talk, and in fact, they have.
"Some people will never believe us no matter how many tests are run. They wouldn't believe in the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center even if Mark Loizeaux produced a signed confession."
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
