text:
Mazzucco introduces his video, "9/11 – TAKE THE QUIZ" (@IMDb), [1] with the oft-cited official story: "19 Islamic hijackers armed with box-cutters take over four passenger planes flying in the American skies. Two of these planes are crushed against the Twin Towers in New York, the third plane hits the Pentagon, and a fourth one is crashed intentionally by the passengers in an open field in Pennsylvania. The Twin Towers later collapse due to structural failures caused by the impacts and the ensuing fires, killing some 3,000 people. This is, by-and-large, the official version of the events of 9/11, as told every year by the mainstream media all around the world."
He then asks: "But how much do you really know about what truly happened on September 11th? And I'm not talking conspiracy theories here. I'm talking about simple, verifiable facts that somehow seem to have gone unnoticed in the big narrative maelstrom that has been 9/11 ever since."
Next the viewer is presented with a multiple-choice series of 23 questions about what actually happened on 9/11. The correct answers, accompanied by evidence, are given as the 37 minutes unfolds.
For example, Question Nine asks: "How many policemen, firemen, and first responders have testified to the New York Times about hearing explosions just before and during the collapse of the Twin towers? – None? Just one? About a dozen? More than 100?"
The answer to this question, which is given in the video, was never reported in the corporate media.
At the end Mazzucco summarizes:
So now it's up to you to decide how important it is, for each and every one of us, to know what truly happened on September 11th … It's never too late to inform those who are less knowledgeable about what truly happened on September 11th, given that the mainstream journalists blatantly refuse to do what is supposed to be their job."
|The 9/11 Consensus Panel @consensus911
[e "QUIZ 11 settembre (vers. 2019)", et "QUIZ SUR LE 11 SEPTEMBRE" – editor's note]
An unpublished manuscript investigating the alleged cell phone calls from the 9/11 flights has recently been released by the well-known British writer and Consensus911 panelist, Rowland Morgan.
Morgan, a former columnist for London's The Guardian and The Independent, undertook an in-depth investigation of the 9/11 phone calls in his extraordinary manuscript, Voices, researched from 2008 to 2010. (He also co-authored, with Ian Henshall, Flight 93 Revealed, Carroll and Graf, 2006.)
Voices cites an Associated Press report on April 6th, 2006, that "much of what happened aboard Flight 93 is known because passengers used cell phones in flight to call their loved ones."
However, the US government's own telephone data presented at the Moussaoui trial in 2006 showed that Moussaoui prosecutor David Raskin "had not studied his own evidence, which claimed only two cellular telephone calls out of some 35 ostensibly heard from Flight 93."
Morgan goes on to reveal:
- The world-famous 9/11 telephone calls from TV-pundit Barbara Olson to her husband Theodore Olson at his office in the Department of Justice had never occurred. The U.S government's call data said she made a call but did not get through. This meant that the U.S. Solicitor-General, a key member of the Bush administration, had connived at, or been deluded about, a crucial deception, one that had placed 'hijackers' armed with 'cardboard-cutters' aboard Flight 77 ostensibly speeding towards the Pentagon.
- The world-famous 9/11 in-flight telephone call from Todd Beamer, the one in which an Airfone operator heard him shout the Pentagon's recruitment slogan 'Let's Roll', had never occurred. The U.S. government's fudged data said Beamer had made separate calls in the same second.
Because the existence of hijackers aboard the rogue planes partly relied on them, the collapse of these two vital telephone calls alone badly damaged the U.S. Government's 9/11 conspiracy theory."
The full manuscript for Rowland Morgan's brilliant study of all the alleged 9/11 cell phone calls, Voices, is available on the 9/11 Consensus Panel's website.
|The 9/11 Consensus Panel @consensus911
In the fullness of time, much key evidence concerning the 9/11 attacks has disappeared from the Internet and even retroactively from the Wayback Machine, which respects requests from websites to block their materials.
In an effort to preserve important evidence that is not easily available on the Internet, the 9/11 Consensus Panel is now offering a home for selected evidence that is of value to researchers who are investigating the events of that world-changing day.
The group of links restored to the Internet today include nine interviews with senior political and military figures on the first anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, September 11, 2002:
Andrew Card, Karen Hughes, Norman Mineta, Robert Mueller, General Richard Myers, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Karl Rove, and Donald Rumsfeld.
These people were all involved in the response that day.
Please Note: If any persons in the 9/11 research community are looking for a place to post other important links that are no longer available on the Internet AND on the Wayback Machine, the Consensus Panel will consider including them on this website. We may be contacted at email@example.com.
The 9/11 Consensus Panel mourns the loss of one of its most respected Honorary Panel Members, Ferdinando Imposimato, Honorary President of the Supreme Court of Italy, former Senator and presidential candidate (2015), and Grand Officer of the Order of Merit of the Italian Republic, who died in Rome on December 31, 2017.
Dedicated to the fight against corruption, he became one of Italy's most respected judges. He served on the Anti-Mafia Commission in three administrations and for over two decades investigated many important cases, among these the kidnapping of former PM Aldo Moro and the assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II.
Besides contributing numerous articles to other publications, he authored several books dealing with international terrorism, and not only participated in the "9/11 Toronto Hearings" (2011) but contributed a chapter to the "9/11 Toronto Report."
Judge Imposimato became involved in 9/11 matters soon after the attacks, assisting in counseling families of victims from Italy. He then became an outspoken critic of the official 9/11 story, and in a 2012 letter to "The Journal of 9/11 Studies" stated that
"The 9/11 attacks were a global state terror operation permitted by the administration of the USA, which had foreknowledge of the operation yet remained intentionally unresponsive in order to make war against Afghanistan and Iraq [and] the 9/11 events were an instance of the strategy of tension enacted by political and economic powers in the USA to seek advantages for the oil and arms industries."
He repeatedly suggested that the only possibility for achieving justice is to submit the case to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court.
The Consensus Panel – and many more – will miss this rare promoter of justice and truth. We are dedicated to carrying on his quest for justice for the thousands of victims of the attacks themselves, and the millions of the resulting global war on terror.
Off-Guardian, February 27, 2018
find it such an interesting phenomenon that of all the self-styled skeptics I have corresponded with or whose opinions are aired online, every single one swallows the miracles, told to us by NIST, of the three high rise steel frame building collapses on 9/11 being caused by fire when the evidence clearly shows that the collapses were caused by controlled demolition. Moreover, the $5,000 10-point Occam's Razor challenge on the cause of collapse of the third building, WTC-7, that I've issued personally to a significant number of these self-styled skeptics, has been very loudly ignored.
As Australian politician, Pauline Hanson, infamously said when asked if she were xenophobic, "Please explain".
Please explain why it is that the most prolific scholar – by far – on 9/11 is a Christian and Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies, David Ray Griffin, and why this scholar, highly-esteemed within and without his own academic field, does not swallow the collapse-by-fire miracles? He has written over 10 books on the subject of 9/11, his latest being Bush and Cheney: How They Ruined America and the World. He has also recently authored and co-authored two books on climate change. So he's on the same page as most of the self-styled skeptics (in no way referring to the so-called climate skeptics, of course) with climate change but not with 9/11.
As summarised by Edward Curtin in his review of Griffin's book, here are the 15 miracles that Griffin identified that the self-styled skeptics have swallowed:
The Twin Towers and WTC 7 were the only steel-framed high-rise buildings ever to come down without explosives or incendiaries.
The Twin Towers, each of which had 287 steel columns, were brought down solely by a combination of airplane strikes and jet-fuel fires.
WTC 7 was not even hit by a plane, so it was the first steel-framed high-rise to be brought down solely by ordinary building fires.
These World Trade Center buildings also came down in free fall – the Twin Towers in virtual free fall, WTC 7 in absolute free fall – for over two seconds.
Although the collapses of the of the WTC buildings were not aided by explosives, the collapses imitated the kinds of implosions that can be induced only by demolition companies.
In the case of WTC 7, the structure came down symmetrically (straight down, with an almost perfectly horizontal roofline), which meant that all 82 of the steel support columns had to fall simultaneously, although the building's fires had a very asymmetrical pattern.
The South Tower's upper 30-floor block changed its angular momentum in midair.
This 30 floor block then disintegrated in midair.
With regard to the North Tower, some of its steel columns were ejected out horizontally for at least 500 feet.
The fires in the debris from the WTC buildings could not be extinguished for many months.
Although the WTC fires, based on ordinary building fires, could not have produced temperatures above 1,800°, the fires inexplicably melted metals with much higher melting points, such as iron (2,800°) and even molybdenum (4,753°).
Some of the steel in the debris had been sulfidized, resulting in Swiss-cheese-appearing steel, even though ordinary building fires could not have resulted in the sulfidation.
As a passenger on AA Flight 77, Barbara Olson called her husband, telling him about hijackers on her plane, even though this plane had no onboard phones and its altitude was too high for a cell phone call to get through.
Hijacker pilot Hani Hanjour could not possibly have flown the trajectory of AA 77 to strike Wedge 1 of the Pentagon, and yet he did.
Besides going through an unbelievable personal transformation, ringleader Mohamed Atta also underwent an impossible physical transformation.
Now could it be that self-styled skeptics all over the Anglo world (Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins and Richard Saunders being notable examples) are suffering from a severe case of skeptic groupthink? You'd think one of them would deviate from the flock in their concept of truth, wouldn't you?
An example of the faulty reasoning used by skeptics is displayed by Michael Shermer in this interview where he employs a common logical fallacy of 9/11 argument, argumentum ad speculum, by putting forward the seemingly great implausibility of the conspirators' ability to lay explosives in the twin towers.
This hypothesis ignores the reality of how the buildings collapsed and also displays ignorance of information indicating how the task of laying explosives could have been achieved, as in Jeremy Rys's 45 minute film, Conspiracy Solved!
There is much study in social psychology on why people believe things and what approaches to take to help them out of their entrenched beliefs (see presentation In Denial of Democracy: Social Psychological Implications for Public Discourse on State Crimes Against Democracy Post-9/11, by neuroscientist, Laurie Manwell) but it truly baffles me that when you ask a self-styled skeptic to provide even just a single point to justify their belief and they fail, this stark confrontation with their inability to support their belief has no impact.
It truly astounds me. I'm not talking here about aggressive confrontation, in which case one can comprehend a psychological resistance. I'm talking about asking someone, with pretensions to operate in a realm of reason and logic, simply to provide support for their belief.
Occam's Razor is a tool of logic that can be applied in different ways. In my appplication I take the approach: what hypothesis fits the piece of evidence in question with the fewest questions and assumptions. It works like magic. If a self-styled skeptic cannot use the tool to support their belief nor poke a hole in the points provided for the opposing view, surely reason and logic dictate that the skeptic must change their mind. If not, their claim to skepticism is utterly fraudulent.
Interestingly, Griffin divides the world into three types of people:
Those guided by evidence,
Those guided by their paradigms of how the world is thus if 9/11 being a false flag does not fit into their paradigms of how the world works they simply will not consider the evidence,
Those guided by wishful-and-fearful thinking thus if the idea of their own government perpetrating an horrific crime on their own people is too awful to bear they simply will not believe the evidence.
Shouldn't self-styled skeptics, by definition, be of the first type? Apparently, not a one is. They seem to be all of the second type or possibly third.
The Australian Skeptics association defines skepticism as follows:
Skepticism is a dynamic attitude to the world around us. It is not a dogmatic approach restricted by "accepted wisdom", but a serious and sincere appraisal of claims of how the world works.
In response to my perfectly-reasoned emails, however, a leading Australian skeptic, (we'll call him "R"), simply dismissed me, without evidence or debate, as a "conspiracy theorist." Sadly, in his discourteous emails, "R" displays the opposite of genuine skepticism. He displays, only, that he could not be more indoctrinated by the most successful propaganda weapon of all time, the "conspiracy theory," meme promulgated by the CIA after the JFK assassination to silence and discredit those who questioned the lone gunman explanation.
From an article in the Observer about NYU Professor of Media Studies, Mark Crispin Miller:
The outspoken voice of public dissent considers [the term "conspiracy theory"] a "meme" used to "discredit people engaged in really necessary kinds of investigation and inquiry."
For Miller, those investigations include, among others: did the U.S. government have foreknowledge of the 9/11 terror attacks and choose to do nothing? Were Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others surreptitiously trying to dismantle the republic envisioned by the founding fathers? And is the CDC concealing links between the MMR vaccine and autism?
"It's one that you run into time and time again," Miller said on an October 11 episode of CounterPunch Radio. "To the point that I now believe that anyone who uses that phrase in a pejorative sense is a witting or unwitting CIA asset." [My emphasis.]
What sort of world do we live in when so many self-styled skeptics can watch the 6.5 second, beautifully symmetrical collapse of WTC-7 into its own footprint and accept the government report stating that it was caused by fire?
the collapse of WTC7 now acknowledged by NIST to be at free-fall
Unincinerated terrorist passport fluttering to the ground at the World Trade Centre and being handed in by anonymous passerby? BBC journalist stating that WTC-7 collapsed 20 minutes before it did? Owner of WTC-7, Larry Silverstein, speaking of how he suggested that perhaps the smartest thing to do was to "pull it" (term used originally for demolition by pulling a building down but now also used for controlled demolition using explosives)?
Do none of these puzzles excite even the barest curiosity in these so-called seekers after truth?
New York, December 16, 2017 – The co-founders of the 9/11 Consensus Panel, authors Dr. David Ray Griffin and Elizabeth Woodworth, today release the following statement regarding disputed evidence within the 9/11 research community.
Addressing Controversy Within the 9/11 Truth Community:
A Statement of Constructive Principles
Serious students of 9/11 tend to agree that the official story raises too many problems to hold together as a credible account.
However and unfortunately, there are areas of disagreement, especially with regard to the Pentagon, that threaten to undermine good will and mutual trust.
As co-founders of the 9/11 Consensus Panel, we offer the following observations and principles for consideration:
- At the four alleged airliner crash sites, odd phenomena and anomalies continue to cause speculation and disagreement. Some scholars can justifiably take one set of data as most important, while playing down the importance of another set, while other scholars can justifiably take the second set of data as most important.
- These differences of opinion can be justifiable until there is a theory that can take account of all the indisputable evidence.
- Based on an understanding that there are valid reasons for disagreement, the 9/11 research community can best be unified by respect and tolerance for contrary theories.
- Contributions seeking to solve contentious issues can only be made by assembling reliable evidence and by applying critical thinking and peer review according to the standard scientific process. This is the strength of science and the way it has progressed over centuries.
- In conclusion, we offer the "agree to differ" approach: to end an argument amicably while maintaining differences of opinion until there is an explanation that does justice to all the various types of evidence.
295 words
|The 9/11 Consensus Panel @consensus911
|Contact list:
PRESS RELEASE: New Song Profiles the Miraculous Claims of the Official 9/11 Story
New York, December 7, 2017 – The 9/11 Consensus Panel was impressed by the imagination and resourcefulness of a new 4-minute video song created by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
The song was inspired by 9/11 Consensus Panel co-founder David Ray Griffin's recent book, "Bush and Cheney: How They Ruined America and the World," (Interlink, 2017).
The song, a take-off on "I believe in Miracles," is titled, "I believe in 9/11 Miracles." Its sometimes hilarious content reflects and illustrates Griffin's statement:
"If journalists continue to endorse the official account of the destruction of the World Trade Center, they should begin their articles by saying: 'I believe in miracles—lots of them.'"
This snappy little song has been picked up the The Centre for Research on Globalization and may be heard here.
144 words
|The 9/11 Consensus Panel @consensus911
|Contact list:
PRESS RELEASE: The 9/11 Consensus Panel's Continuing Work at the 16th Anniversary
NEW YORK, September 8, 2017 – With the approaching 16th anniversary of September 11, 2001, and with the global war on terror still raging unabated, the 9/11 Consensus Panel continues its 7-year commitment "to provide a ready source of evidence-based research to any investigation that may be undertaken by the public, the media, academia, or any other investigative body or institution."
This year the 23-member Panel published two new Consensus Points, using its "best evidence" review model to analyse the official claims about 9/11. (The Panel has now reviewed 50 official claims and has found each to be a substantially flawed account.)
The first Point, "The Claim that the Hijackers were Devout Muslims," cites many media reports that the hijackers were engaged in "decidedly un-Islamic sampling of prohibited pleasures," including lap dancing in Las Vegas night clubs.
The second 2017 Consensus Point, "The Claim that Mohamed Atta Had Become a Fanatically Religious Muslim," explores the question asked by a member of the press to 9/11 Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste: "If Atta belonged to the fundamentalist Muslim group, why was he snorting cocaine and frequenting strip bars?" Ben-Veniste replied: "You know, that's a heck of a question." But it was a question that the 9/11 Commission never addressed.
These two Points build upon the already overwhelming evidence that 9/11, which has been used to justify America's imperialist agenda in the Middle East, was a deception across the board: the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, the hijackers, the phone calls from the planes, the fake security video exhibits, and the whereabouts of the political and military commands.
Consensus panelist Dr. Niels Harrit, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, has published more than 60 peer-reviewed papers in the top chemistry journals and has given more than 300 presentations about the World Trade Center demolitions, speaking in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Germany, Holland, France, Switzerland, Spain, United Kingdom, Canada, USA, China, Australia, Russia and Iceland.
Frances Shure, a licensed professional counselor on the 9/11 Consensus Panel, was interviewed on Progressive Spirit in August, 2017 about the extraordinary denial that continues to surround the events of 9/11. The title of her interview was "Why Do Good People Become Silent—Or Worse—About 9/11?"
Dr. Graeme MacQueen, Professor Emeritus of Peace Studies at McMaster University, has published a recent article with an entirely new slant, "9/11: The Pentagon's B-Movie," which re-awakens our sense of the horrific yet still-concealed nature of this world-changing deception.
Two other Panelists, physics teacher David Chandler and engineer Jonathan Cole, maintain a separate website, in which their independent research, which is also affiliated with the 2900-member Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and Scientists for 9/11 Truth, is documented.
Panel co-founder, Dr. David Ray Griffin, has recently released his 11th scholarly book on 9/11, Bush and Cheney: How They Ruined America and the World, perhaps his best-selling title to date. David's August 2017 interview with John Shuck may be heard here.
The Panel wishes to thank its fine team of voluntary translators, who continue to make best-evidence research about 9/11 much more widely available through other languages.
527 words
|The 9/11 Consensus Panel @consensus911
|Contact list:
By Graeme MacQueen
Global Research, August 31, 2017
The events that took place in the United States on September 11, 2001 were real and they were extremely violent. As David Griffin has recently shown in detail, they also had catastrophic real-life consequences for both the United States and the world. [1]
But these events were also deeply filmic (like a film) and they were presented to us through a narrative we now know to be fictional. This "9/11 movie" reveals itself to careful investigators as scripted, directed and produced by the U.S. national security state. The movie does not represent the real world. It violates the rules operative in the real world, including the laws of physics. Audiences will remain in thrall to the spectacle and violence of the War on Terror only as long as they remain mesmerized by the B-movie of 9/11.
The Filmic Nature of the September 11 Events
Many people caught a whiff of Hollywood on September 11, 2001. According to Lawrence Wright (screenwriter of The Siege),
"It was about an hour after the first trade centre came down that I began to make the connection with the movie, this haunting feeling at the beginning this looks like a movie, and then I thought it looks like my movie." [2]
Steve De Souza (screenwriter, Die Hard and Die Hard 2) has said:
"Well it did look like a movie. It looked like a movie poster. It looked like one of my movie posters." [3]
The 9/11 attacks were filmic in at least the following ways
- Given the complex and coordinated nature of these attacks, they had been scripted and given a timeline in advance;
- given the need to make decisions as the attacks progressed (for example, when an aircraft went off course or was delayed), it is clear that there was a director;
- given the overall vision, the need for funds, resources and international coordination over a period of years, it is obvious that there had been a producer;
- given the numerous roles played in this event (for example, by the "hijackers"), there were undoubtedly actors.
In addition, the event included the key dramatic elements of conflict, violence and spectacle. [4] The entire production was filmed from several angles, and the films, sometimes in the rough and sometimes cleverly edited, were shown many, many times all over the world.
Official U.S. sources rapidly acknowledged the remarkably filmic nature of these events. In October, 2001 some two dozen Hollywood writers and directors were assembled "to brainstorm with Pentagon advisers and officials in an anonymous building in L.A." [5] The Army's Institute for Creative Technologies was the lead organization. [6] The assembled group was assumed to have relevant expertise and was asked to brainstorm about what future attacks might look like so that the Pentagon could be prepared. ("We want some left-field, off-the-wall ideas; say the craziest thing that comes into your mind"). [7]
While the bare fact of this consultation was widely reported by news media, further details about the three-day consultation have been hard to come by. Reporters have had their FOIA requests denied. [8]
Beneath this consultation lay the "failure of imagination" hypothesis. Although the hypothesis emerged almost immediately after September 11, it was given especially clear expression in a BBC Panorama programme aired on March 24, 2002. [9] Steve Bradshaw interviewed representatives of Hollywood and of national security institutions. The Pentagon, we were supposed to believe, is a typical large bureaucracy characterized by inertia. It is unable to imagine, and to rapidly respond to, new and emerging threats. It is stuck in the past. It is also afraid to irritate the general population by appearing to be politically incorrect–by looking, in this case, at Islam as a threat. Fortunately, there are two sets of people with imagination and courage: a small number of people within the national security apparatus who were trying to warn the Pentagon but were ignored, and Hollywood screenwriters and directors, who had imagination, who had some contact with the national security dissidents, and who had the courage to risk being called Islamophobic. [10]
So the planes of September 11, when they burst on the scene, confirmed the imaginative prescience of Hollywood, supported the courageous faction of the national security apparatus, and embarrassed the national security bureaucracy, which had to lower itself in October, 2001 to meet with the purveyors of fiction in order to stimulate its sclerotic brain.
This failure of imagination hypothesis was supported by statements by George W. Bush [11] and, even more famously, by Condoleeza Rice:
"I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile." [12]
The hypothesis became more or less official when it was adopted by the 9/11 Commission in its report on the attacks. [13]
Of course, given the filmic nature of 9/11, it is clear that, according to these official U.S. sources, there was another group–beyond Hollywood and a few national security malcontents–that had imagination, namely al-Qaeda.
Robert Altman (director of MASH, McCabe and Mrs. Miller and many other films) said in 2002 that Hollywood was to blame for the 9/11 events.
"The movies set the pattern, and these people have copied the movies … Nobody would have thought to commit an atrocity like that unless they'd seen it in a movie." [14]
Presumably, by "these people" Altman meant al-Qaeda. Perhaps it was while munching popcorn and watching a Hollywood movie that Osama bin Laden and his high-level companions got the idea for 9/11? This is possible. But would it not make sense to ask if it is true that the Pentagon has no imagination, and that it was incapable of picturing attacks like those of the fall of 2001?
Collaboration between Hollywood and U.S. government agencies goes back at least as far as WW II. Indeed, a 1943 memo from the OSS (forerunner of the CIA) noted that,
"The motion picture is one of the most powerful propaganda weapons at the disposal of the United States." [15]
Many Hollywood films and TV programs have, therefore, been supported by the Pentagon, and some have been supported by the CIA. Such support can be crucial for films that require U.S. military assets such as planes and helicopters. But support is not automatic. The script must first be approved, and emendations may be demanded by the national security agency in question. In a recent book on this subject (National Security Cinema: The Shocking New Evidence of Government Control in Hollywood), authors Tom Secker and Matthew Alford list 814 films and 1133 TV titles that received DOD support. [16]
Since many of these films are highly imaginative constructions, how can it be that the national security agencies that have helped bring them to fruition have remained trapped in their grey, unimaginative world? Presumably, we are to believe that it is the nature of a bureaucracy to restrict these imaginative insights to one part of the organization–say, the Army's Institute for Creative Technologies–while neglecting to disseminate them to other parts of the national security state. But is this true?
Those familiar with the History Commons research project on 9/11 will know that it is not true at all. Here are 16 titles from that project (selected from a much longer list) that refer to pre-9/11 exercises and simulations by U.S. government agencies: [17]
- November 7, 1982: Port Authority Practices for Plane Crashing into the WTC
- (1998-September 10, 2001): NORAD Operations Center Runs Five 'Hijack Training Events' Each Month
- 1998-2001: Secret Service Simulates Planes Crashing into the White House
- October 14, 1998: 'Poised Response' Exercise Prepares for Bin Laden Attack on Washington
- Between 1999 and September 11, 2001: NORAD Practices Live-Fly Mock Shootdown of a Poison-Filled Jet
- Between September 1999 and September 10, 2001: NORAD Exercises Simulate Plane Crashes into US Buildings; One of Them Is the World Trade Center
- November 6, 1999: NORAD Conducts Exercise Scenario Based around Hijackers Planning to Crash Plane into UN Headquarters in New York
- June 5, 2000: NORAD Exercise Simulates Hijackers Planning to Crash Planes into White House and Statue of Liberty
- October 16-23, 2000: NORAD Exercise Includes Scenarios of Attempted Suicide Plane Crashes into UN Headquarters in New York
- May 2001: Medics Train for Airplane Hitting Pentagon
- June 1-2, 2001: Military Conducts Exercises Based on Scenario in which Cruise Missiles Are Launched against US ["Osama bin Laden is pictured on the cover of the proposal for the exercise"]
- July 2001: NORAD Plans a Mock Simultaneous Hijacking Threat from inside the US
- Early August 2001: Mass Casualty Exercise at the Pentagon Includes a Plane Hitting the Building
- August 4, 2001: Air Defense Exercise Involves the Scenario of Bin Laden Using a Drone Aircraft to Attack Washington
- September 6, 2001: NORAD Exercise Includes Terrorist Hijackers Threatening to Blow Up Airliner
- September 9, 2001: NEADS Exercise Includes Scenario with Terrorist Hijackers Targeting New York
It is not necessary to find an exercise here that perfectly matches the attacks of the fall of 2001. The point is that there is far too much imagination and far too much similarity to the actual attacks of the fall of 2001 to support the "failure of imagination" hypothesis. Hollywood participants in the October, 2001 brainstorming exercise, who thought they were being tapped for their imagination, were conned.
Who was better prepared, through both imagination and logistical capacity, to carry out the attacks of the fall of 2001–Bin Laden's group or the U.S. national security state? The latter had been practising steadily, in relevant scripted training operations, for years, and it had the power and resources to bring the imaginative scenarios to reality. Al-Qaeda was not remotely its match.
Not Just Filmic, But Exclusively Filmic
The violent destruction of the North Tower
If this business of the filmic nature of the September 11 attacks involved only Hollywood scriptwriters we might be tempted to regard it as nothing but a minor distraction. But what we find is that even members of the Fire Department of New York, risking their lives at the scene, were shocked by the filmic nature of what they witnessed. [18]
- "I thought I was at an event at Universal Studios, on the side, watching a movie being taped." (EMS Chief Walter Kowalczyk)
- "I remembered hearing Lieutenant D'Avila coming over the radio and saying Central be advised, a second plane just went into the second tower. We ran out and we saw the second plane. It was like watching a movie. It really was." (EMT Peter Cachia)
- "I looked over my shoulder and you could see the whole top of the south tower leaning towards us. It looked like it was coming over. You could see the windows pop out just like in the picture, looked like a movie. I saw one floor of windows pop out, like poof, poof. I saw one and a half floors pop out." (Chief Steve Grabher)
- "The building started collapsing, the north tower started collapsing. It tipped down first and then the thing fell within itself. It was an amazing sight to see. It was really unbelievable. I thought I was watching a movie with special effects." (EMT Michael Mejias)
- "As I'm looking up at this stuff that's going on up there now, I just like — I'm saying to myself I've seen this in a movie. My whole recollection is going back to a movie or something I saw. I just saw this before." (Fire Marshal Steven Mosiello)
- " … it looked like a bomb, of course, had gone off, almost like a nuclear bomb. That's all I could think of. I've never been at war. I equated it to being like when I saw something like when I was a kid and I saw Godzilla in the movies or something, when he crushes those buildings and stuff like that, that's what it looked like to me." (Firefighter Edward Kennedy)
- "I'm standing on top of the rig between the bucket and the cab, between the ladder and the cab. People were blessing themselves in this gloominess of going down. It was like out of a movie. I couldn't believe what was going on." (Firefighter Tiernach Cassidy)
- "I just recall that those first — those first minutes from the time that sound started, the rumbling started to occur and the dust started to fall and then stopped to get gear and equipment from the fire truck and then continue down to West Street and getting there and seeing the crushed fire trucks, crushed cars, vehicles on fire. It was like a movie set." (Firefighter Daniel Lynch)
- "Then like a Godzilla movie, everybody that had been standing in that little park there across from One Liberty Plaza and had been just looking up and watching the north tower burn just started running eastbound like they were being chased by someone." (Battalion Chief Brian Dixon)
- "Then, you started to run, your [sic] helping people, helping them run. You saw it, it was amazing … like out of a movie, you know, the cloud's just chasing you. As you look back, you see it engulf people." (EMP Peter Constantine)
- " … as I turned on Albany I looked over my shoulder and I saw the big cloud of dust that was already on the ground like just making its way down the block, just like a movie." (EMS Captain Frank D'Amato)
- "The first thing came in my mind was the movie Armageddon, and this was reality, with the black smoke 30 floors high, debris falling everywhere … .Because I have never seen anything like that in 21 years of emergency work." (EMT Russell Harris)
- "Then as soon as we got over there, as soon as we got off of the Brooklyn Bridge, the people were running like it was a Godzilla movie, and we had to stop there for a while. People were overcome, were shaken, were scared … " (EMT Christopher Kagenaar)
- "But I ran and ran, and finally I could see the light. When I got to where the tunnel was, I'm looking everywhere. It was just like that movie the day after with the atomic bomb. They drop it and nobody's left and I'm the only one." (Paramedic Robert Ruiz)
- "I remember seeing the rubble, seeing the rubble fall and actually start to chase down the street, and, you know, it's strange because you wouldn't expect — you wouldn't expect debris to do that, but it literally traveled, like, you would see these movies with like a tidal wave that flows through the streets and hits down any path it can." (Rosario Terranova)
These comments, selected from a wider set of similar comments, are intriguing, but what is their significance? As we examine them closely we recognize that the September 11 event was not just filmic but exclusively filmic. By this I mean that the narrative presented to us by authorities could not have unfolded outside of a film.
Since at least as early as 1902, when the French film A Trip to the Moon (Le Voyage dans la Lune) took its viewers into space, audiences have been enjoying the ability of movies to deliver dramatic action through special effects, and especially by suspending, fictionally, the laws of physics. This is part of the power of film and there is nothing inherently wrong with it. But it is important to know when we are in the theatre and when we are not.
In the original 1933 film, King Kong, director Merian Cooper was determined to make the appearance of his monster dramatically powerful, and to this end was prepared to change the monster's size repeatedly to fit particular scenes.
"I was a great believer in constantly changing Kong's height to fit the settings and the illusions. He's different in almost every shot; sometimes he's only 18 feet (5.5 m) tall and sometimes 60 feet (18.3 m) or larger … but I felt confident that if the scenes moved with excitement and beauty, the audience would accept any height that fitted into the scene." [19]
Cooper understood what mattered in a movie. But imagine what would happen if audiences remained convinced by the suspension of the laws of physics after they left the theatre? This, it seems to me, is what has happened with the events of September 11, 2001. Many people are still deceived by the special effects. They are still captured by the movie of 9/11.
Consider two of the most traumatizing elements in the attacks, the disappearance of the Twin Towers and the ensuing debris cloud.
The destruction of the Twin Towers stunned first responders. Their previous experiences, including experiences with high-rise fires, did not lead them to suspect these buildings would come down.
"Whoever in their right mind would have thought that the World Trade Center would ever fall down … Nobody in the world, nobody ever would ever have thought those buildings were coming down." (EMS Captain Mark Stone) [21]
Investigations over the last 16 years have demonstrated that the first responders' surprise was justified. The explanations offered by official U.S. agencies have been shown to violate basic laws of physics. [22]
Awed by the spectacle of the Twin Towers coming down, and by the later fall of World Trade 7, we are supposed to forget our high school physics. We are not supposed to notice that the official explanations given to us leave these spectacles every bit as peculiar as King Kong's ever-changing size.
So this central dramatic element, as edited for TV, interpreted by ponderous official voices, and played repeatedly for a world audience, belonged to the 9/11 movie. Behind the scenes the director had ordered that explosive charges be set in the buildings.
Well over one hundred members of the Fire Department of New York witnessed explosions at the beginning of the so-called collapses of the Twin Towers. [23] Their testimony fits with the controlled demolition hypothesis and does not fit with the script of the 9/11 movie. Since promotion of the government's movie would have been difficult if these voices were heard, they were suppressed.
The second deeply impressive event of September 11, which appears repeatedly in the FDNY musings about the filmic nature of what they witnessed, was the cloud of material that rushed through the streets of Manhattan in the wake of the destruction of each of the Towers. Several films are mentioned by name in this connection, including those featuring Godzilla, King of Monsters, created for Japanese films less than ten years after the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a deliberately provocative meditation on the forces of the nuclear age. [24]
The FDNY World Trade Center Task Force interviews give a lively sense of what it felt like to be trapped in this debris cloud. [25]
Everything was pitch-black. You couldn't see anything. All I saw was big bolts of fire, fire balls. I could feel the heat around me. It was pitch-black. I couldn't see anything at all. My lungs, my airways, everything filled up with ash. I couldn't breathe." (EMT Renae O'Carroll)
"All of a sudden the noises stopped, the sound of the building falling stopped. We all turned around and it was dark now. We really couldn't see … The cloud was in there. All eating the cloud, whatever it was like, very thick. I keep saying it was like a 3 dimensional object. It wasn't smoke. It was like everything. It was like a sand storm." (Firefighter Timothy Burke)
"So I'm running, and people are running in front of me. They stop. They turn around. I think everything's over with. So I stop, all of a sudden the thing is coming at us. It was like in dark hell, like a nuclear blizzard. I couldn't explain it. You couldn't see in front of you. You couldn't breathe. You're inhaling. You're coughing. You're running. You can't see anything." (EMT Mary Merced)
"You still can't see it because it's dark as a mother. You can't breathe. It's so heavy with smoke and dust and ash.
I can't breathe. I have, for lack of a better term, dust impaction in my ears, in my nose. I was coughing it out of my mouth. It felt like I had a baseball in my mouth. I was just picking it out with my fingers." (Paramedic Louis Cook)
People on 9/11 running from the debris cloud
As is clear from these testimonies, words like "smoke" and "dust" do not do justice to the cloud in which people were trapped. That is because the clouds were the Towers. Each Tower was converted in less than 20 seconds from a powerful, massive structure over 415 metres (1362 feet) high into cut steel and pulverized matter. While the steel lay on the ground, much of the remainder was rapidly propelled through the streets of Manhattan.
Just as the dramatic tale of building destruction involved deception, so did the equally dramatic tale of this engulfing cloud. This cloud was not the result of a gravitational collapse caused by Muslim terrorists flying planes into buildings. It was the result of an explosive building demolition.
That this cloud could not have been caused in the manner claimed by the official narrative has been argued several times, beginning at least as early as 2003. [26] The demonstrations are independent of the proofs of explosive destruction of the buildings.
Credible scientists have calculated the amount of potential gravitational energy in the Twin Towers–the only major form of energy available, according to the official narrative, at the time of the "collapse" since the energy contributed at that point by the fires was minimal and indirect–and have compared it to the amount of energy that would have been required to create the pulverized debris cloud.
Professor emeritus of civil engineering, Robert Korol has recently discussed this issue. [27] He has calculated the gravitational potential energy of each of the Towers at 508.4 x 109 joules. He has calculated the energy required to pulverize the concrete of each Tower at 857.5 x 109 joules; the energy to destroy the perimeter columns at 219 x 109 joules; and the energy to destroy the core columns at 178 x 109 joules. The total energy required for the concrete and columns is 1,254.5 x 109 joules.
Simply put, these figures suggest that it would have taken about two and a half times the amount of energy available through gravity to have destroyed the Towers as witnessed.
Professor Korol's calculations are based on experimental work he has done in the laboratory, the results of which have been published in peer-reviewed journals. He has pulverized concrete. He has buckled and crushed columns. He has measured the force required in each case. His calculations with respect to the Twin Towers are extremely conservative in that they do not attempt to include all forms of destruction attested, such as pulverizing of walls, furniture and human bodies.
If, moreover, we were to add to his calculations the energy required to propel the pulverized buildings in all directions through the streets of Manhattan, as some authors have done, we would find the impossibility of the official narrative even more striking. [28] The comment by the FDNY's Terranova, quoted earlier–"you wouldn't expect debris to do that–" is an understatement.
We cannot avoid the conclusion that the gravity-caused debris cloud was exclusively filmic just like King Kong's fluctuating height. Both honoured the rules of dramatic action by violating the laws of physics.
The apparently fanciful references to Godzilla by first responders are actually perceptive. Gravity was aided by an extremely muscular destructive force. But in Godzilla movies the monster is visible, while the monster of the 9/11 movie was invisible and must be made visible through investigation.
Our Challenge
In the 1958 trailer for the B-movie, The Blob, film-goers are shown sitting in a theatre as a horror movie begins. [29] They are frightened, but only in the distant way that film audiences allow themselves to feel frightened by fictional representations. Then we notice the monster ("the Blob") oozing into the theatre itself. As the movie-goers wake up to this reality and sense the real danger, they tear their eyes from the screen and run from the theatre.
As audiences today watch the War on Terror, hypnotized by the extremist evil-doers, a pitiless oligarchy creeps unseen into the room. Our challenge is to break the spell of the B-movie of 9/11. Only when people sense the genuine danger and leave behind fiction and special effects will they be in a position to deal with the real monster that confronts us.
Bush and Cheney: How They Ruined America and the World (Northampton, MA: Olive Branch Press, 2017)
"September 11: A Warning from Hollywood," BBC Panorama (BBC, March 24, 2002).)
Spectacle, the visual aspect of dramatic action, was included in Aristotle's Poetics as an essential element of drama. As for conflict and violence, see Lew Hunter, Lew Hunter's Screenwriting 434 (New York: Perigee, 1993), pp. 19, 22 ff.
"Hollywood: The Pentagon's New Advisor," BBC Panorama (BBC, 2002); Sharon Weinberger, "Hollywood's Secret Meet," Wired, March 16, 2007.
Weinberger, "Hollywood's Secret Meet."
"Hollywood: The Pentagon's New Advisor."
Weinberger, "Hollywood's Secret Meet."
George W. Bush, "President Addresses the Nation in Prime Time Press Conference," (U.S. government archives, April 13, 2004).
Condoleezza Rice, "Press Briefing by National Security Advisor Dr. Condoleezza Rice," (U.S. government archives, May 16, 2002).
Alec Russell, "9/11 Report Condemns 'failure of Imagination,'" Telegraphly 23, 2004. [The 9/11 Commission Report credits Rumsfeld with this phrase (on p. 336, pdf: 353), giving the "DOD memo Wolfowitz to Rumsfeld, 'Were We Asleep?'" of Sept. 18, 2001 as souce. – editor's note]
Sean Alfano, "Iconic Director Robert Altman Dead At 81," CBS/AP, November 21, 2006.
"The Motion Picture As A Weapon of Psychological Warfare." Matthew Alford, National Security Cinema: The Shocking New Evidence of Government Control in Hollywood (Drum Roll Books, 2017), p. 31.
The New York Times, having obtained the World Trade Center Task Force Interviews from the City of New York through a lawsuit, hosts the documents on its website. The interviews are in the form of separate PDF files. Each file is identified by the interviewee's name.
"World Trade Center Task Force Interviews" (City of New York, 2002 2001)
From an interview with Cooper quoted in "King Kong," Wikipedia, accessed August 6, 2017.
"World Trade Center Task Force Interviews." See note 18.
Ibid. See note 18.
The best summary in recent years is Ted Walter, BEYOND MISINFORMATION: What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7 (Berkeley, California: Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Inc., 2015) (free pdf; free e-version).
Graeme MacQueen, "118 Witnesses: The Firefighters' Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers," Journal of 9/11 Studies, August 2006.
Tim Martin, "Godzilla: Why the Japanese Original Is No Joke," The Telegraph, May 15, 2014.
"World Trade Center Task Force Interviews." See note 18.
The earliest attempt I know of is by Jim Hoffman. See "The North Tower's Dust Cloud: Analysis of Energy Requirements for the Expansion of the Dust Cloud Following the Collapse of 1 World Trade Center, Version 3.1," 9-11 Research, October 16, 2003.
Ted Walter, BEYOND MISINFORMATION: What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7 (Berkeley, California: Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Inc., 2015) (free pdf; free e-version). Full references to Korol's articles are given in Adnan Zuberi's compilation accompanying "9/11 in the Academic Community: Academia's Treatment of Critical Perspectives on 9/11—Documentary" [which is available on YouTube – editor's note].
Trailer, The Blob, 1958, YouTube.
Images in this article are from the author.
The original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright ? Graeme MacQueen, Global Research, 2017
Review of Prof. David Ray Griffin's Book by Elizabeth Woodworth, co-founder, ; originally published on globalresearch.ca
As a prominent Whitehead process theologian, scholar David Ray Griffin attracted much attention when the first of his ten books about 9/11 came out ("The New Pearl Harbor," 2004).
Since the appearance of that book – which built on the work of several scholars and analysts – a worldwide movement has grown up challenging the official account of 9/11 and its tragic sequelae, Islamophobia and the all-consuming "war on terror."
In his new book, Griffin updates the evidence from his last book ("9/11 Ten Years Later," 2011), and points to extensive new research on the Twin Towers from a large body of architects and engineers, and also to the investigations of the international 22-member 9/11 Consensus Panel.
From 2012-2014, Griffin turned to a full analysis of the climate crisis. His 2015 book, "Unprecedented: Can Civilization Survive the CO2 Crisis?" was described by an expert reviewer from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as "the best book today on the issue of all issues of all time."
Griffin's new book on the Bush-Cheney administration shows that both 9/11 and the climate crisis derive from the neoconservatives who came to power in 2000 as the Bush-Cheney administration.
Using the great lie of 9/11, and never ceasing to drill into the pubic the fear of terrorism, the neocons and their media have metastacized into a full-blown "neoconservative movement" that has gradually come to dominate both the Republican and Democratic parties.
Looking more deeply than the captured media, Griffin shows that the neoconservatives have been "the major source of the violence, illegal regime change, killings, and dislocations of millions of people since the attacks of September 11, 2001" – including the destruction of Iraq and Libya.
Yet for more than 15 years, the 9/11 attacks have enabled a primitive neocon/media drumbeat telling us that we should fear the aggression of Iran and the Muslim world. Most recently we are urged to fear the "unsubstantiated claims that Putin interfered in the US presidential election."
This is all propaganda serving America's war for the "greater Middle East," which began in 1953 and has led to global chaos.
The public needs protection from the increasingly incoherent media lies so that democracy can once again stand on a platform of truth.
Dr. Griffin's new book is a reliable and readable tool for people who want to base their thinking on solid evidence and lucid scholarship.
Title: Bush and Cheney: How They Ruined America and the World
Author: David Ray Griffin
Publisher: Olive Branch Pr (August 16, 2017)
The original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright ? malaysia gambling law, Global Research, 2017
NEW YORK, SEPTEMBER 10, 2016 – Italian film-maker Massimo Mazzucco, a member of the 9/11 Consensus Panel, has just released an elegant summary of his classic 5-hour 2013 documentary, September 11: The New Pearl Harbor.
Mazzucco writes, "The original film contains the entire history of the debate on 9/11, seen from both sides of the aisle – the 9/11 Truth Movement and the 'Debunkers' worldwide. This summary is intended only as an introduction to the complete film, and not as a stand-alone piece on 9/11."
To show the quality of the original film, we include parts of a 2013 review by Dr. David Ray Griffin, co-founder of the 9/11 Consensus Panel:
For those of us who have been working on 9/11 for a long time, this is the film we have been waiting for.
Whereas there are excellent films treating the falsity of particular parts of the official account, such as the Twin Towers or WTC 7, Mazzucco has given us a comprehensive documentary treatment of 9/11, dealing with virtually all of the issues.
Because of his intent at completeness, Mazzucco has given us a 5-hour film. It is so fascinating and fast-paced that many will want to watch it in one sitting. But this is not necessary, as the film, which fills 3 DVDs, consists of 7 parts, each of which is divided into many short chapters.
These 7 parts treat Air Defence, The Hijackers, The Airplanes, The Pentagon, Flight 93, The Twin Towers, and Building 7. In each part, after presenting facts that contradict the official story, Mazzucco deals with the claims of the debunkers (meaning those who try to debunk the evidence provided by the 9/11 research community).
The Introduction, reflecting the film's title, deals with 12 uncanny parallels between Pearl Harbor and September 11.
The film can educate people who know nothing about 9/11 (beyond the official story), those with a moderate amount of knowledge about the various problems with the official story, and even by experts. (I myself learned many things.)
Mazzucco points out that his film covers 12 years of public debate about 9/11. People who have been promoting 9/11 truth for many of these years will see that their labors have been well-rewarded: There is now a high-quality, carefully-documented film that dramatically shows the official story about 9/11 to be a fabrication through and through.
429 words
|The 9/11 Consensus Panel @consensus911
|Contact list:
NEW YORK, September 8, 2016 – With the approaching fifteenth anniversary of September 11, 2001, and with 9/11 wars and terrorism continuing unabated, the 9/11 Consensus Panel redoubles its commitment "to provide a ready source of evidence-based research to any investigation that may be undertaken by the public, the media, academia, or any other investigative body or institution."
This year the 23-member Panel published two new Consensus Points, using a "best evidence" medical reviewing model.
The first Point, "The Claim of Widespread Infernos in the South Tower vs the FDNY Radio Transcript," refutes the official claim that the floors in the area where the plane hit were "infernos," allegedly causing the melting of steel and the collapse of the Tower.
The second 2016 Consensus Point concerns the omission of evidence in the official narrative that two senior New York City employees reported a massive explosion deep inside World Trade Center (WTC) 7 on the morning of 9/11, which trapped them in a stairwell for 90 minutes.
These two Points build upon the already overwhelming evidence that 9/11, which has been used to promote a "clash of civilizations" with the Muslim world, was a deception across the board: the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, the hijackers, the phone calls from the planes, the fake security video exhibits, and the whereabouts of the political and military commands.
Once this imperialistic 9/11 strategy is understood, many people, including academics, find that they cannot continue to live in its illusory matrix, and devote their time to the task of educating others. Accordingly, some members of the Consensus Panel have promoted the facts about 9/11.
For example, Dr. Niels Harrit, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, had published more than 60 peer-reviewed papers in the top chemistry journals when he learned, in 2007, of the uncanny collapse of World Trade Center 7. He has since given more than 300 presentations about the World Trade Center, speaking in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Germany, Holland, France, Switzerland, Spain, United Kingdom, Canada, USA, China, Australia, Russia and Iceland. In May, 2016, he spoke in London, and in August, 2016, at the World Social Forum in Montreal.
Frances Shure, a licensed professional counselor with a specialty in "depth psychology," explained on Colorado Public Television in August, 2016, the substance of her groundbreaking series, "Why Do Good People Become Silent—Or Worse—About 9/11?"
Dr. Graeme MacQueen, Professor Emeritus of Peace Studies at McMaster University, has published an analysis of the anthrax scare following 9/11 entitled The Anthrax Deception: The Case for a Domestic Conspiracy. During 2016, he gave lectures on 9/11 in Montreal, San Francisco, and NYC.
Two other Panelists, physics teacher David Chandler and engineer Jonathan Cole, maintain a separate website, in which their independent research, which is also affiliated with the 2600-member Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and Scientists for 9/11 Truth, is documented.
Panel co-founder, Dr. David Ray Griffin, has written an eleventh book on 9/11, Bush and Cheney: How They Ruined America and the World, which will be out in November. In the first part of the book, he lays out many ways in which the Bush-Cheney administration has weakened the U.S. Constitution and caused havoc in the Greater Middle East, which has spilled over into Europe. In the second part, he explains that the official account of 9/11 cannot possibly be true, because it entails at least 13 miracles – things that violate the laws of physics.
Elizabeth Woodworth, the other Panel co-founder, gave a PowerPoint presentation to August's World Social Forum in Montreal, discussing the development of the Consensus Panel, and some of its lesser-known – albeit shocking – evidence. An hour will be given to this evidence on cable TV this September in British Columbia.
The Panel wishes to thank its fine team of voluntary translators, who have made its scrupulous evidence available in six languages.
651 words
|The 9/11 Consensus Panel @consensus911
|Contact list:
Who planned and conducted the attacks that took place on 9/11?
New evidence tells us that the official explanation cannot possibly be true.
Unveiling the truth about 9/11 will shatter the pretext that plunged the world into 'endless war.' It could be a 'game changer' in the fight against existing and future interventions, militarism, and the progressive curtailment of civil and human rights. Establishing the truth about 9/11 will give enormous impetus to the global fight for social, economic and environmental justice for years to come.
Speaking the whole truth to power will showcase the work of three key members of the 9/11 Consensus Panel, a 23-person team of science academics, engineers, attorneys, commercial pilots, journalists, and others. In some of its 48 Consensus Points, the Consensus Panel has unearthed new evidence refuting the official claims about 9/11.
Elizabeth Woodworth is the Coordinator and co-founder of the 9/11 Consensus Project and has been researching 9/11 evidence since 2006. A retired health science librarian, Elizabeth has coordinated the 'best evidence' medical methodology to refute 48 of the official claims made regarding the events of 9/11.
Graeme MacQueen is the former director of the Centre for Peace Studies at McMaster University. He is known for having collected more than 150 eyewitness accounts suggesting the Twin Towers were demolished with explosions on 9/11. He is the co-editor of the Journal of 9/11 Studies and author of The 2001 Anthrax Deception.
Niels Harrit was the lead researcher in a peer-reviewed paper published in 2009 that described the detection of active thermitic material in the dust of the Twin Towers and World Trade Center 7. Harrit is emeritus professor at the University of Copenhagen's Department of Chemistry. Since 2007 he has been actively involved in the global movement for 911-truth, and has made more than 300 presentations on 9/11 in 15 countries.
The session will be moderated by Sean Sweeney, labor educator and activist, based in New York.
- News
- Dedication
- About us ↓
- What is "Best Evidence?"
- Methodology
- The 9/11 Consensus Points ↓
- General Points ↓
- Twin Towers ↓
- Point TT-1
- Point TT-2
- Point TT-3
- Point TT-4
- Point TT-5
- Point TT-6
- Point TT-7
- Point TT-8
- Point TT-9
- Building WTC 7 ↓
- Point WTC7-1
- Point WTC7-2
- Point WTC7-3
- Point WTC7-4
- Point WTC7-5
- Point WTC7-6
- Point WTC7-7
- Point WTC7-8
- Pentagon ↓
- Point Pent-1
- Point Pent-2
- Point Pent-3
- Point Pent-4
- Flights ↓
- Military Exercises ↓
- Military and Political Commands ↓
- Point MC-Intro
- Point MC-1
- Point MC-2
- Point MC-3
- Point MC-4
- Point MC-5
- Point MC-6
- Point MC-7
- Point MC-8
- Point MC-9
- Point MC-10
- Hijackers ↓
- Point H-1
- Point H-2
- Point H-3
- Point H-4
- Phone Calls ↓
- Point PC-1
- Point PC-1A
- Point PC-2
- Point PC-3
- Point PC-4
- Video Evidence ↓
- Archived News
- Press Releases
- References, Evidence-Based
- Links
search in current language:
Donate to Consensus 911


text:
Lubbock Attorneys at McCleskey, Harriger, Brazill & Graf
The attorneys at McCleskey, Harriger, Brazill & Graf are, first and foremost, in the relationship business. It's not enough to win a lawsuit or close a deal; our goal is to help our clients succeed and prosper, long after their legal disputes are over. By providing a full array of exceptional legal services to the businesses and individuals who make our community strong, we're helping to ensure that West Texas remains a great place to call home.
For more than 90 years, McCleskey has been honored to provide personalized, knowledgeable legal services to businesses and individual clients throughout Texas and New Mexico.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Please choose from one of the options below:
Thank you for your interest in contributing and producing content for co-opTV. We need to know a little bit about you, so please fill out the form. We will contact you shortly.
A test is not compulsory as we understand if you do not have the resources. We look foward to hearing from you.
Please fill out this form and we will get in touch with you shortly - Team co-opTV
Thank you for your interest in sponsoring a co-op. You can download our rate card here.
Please note we are in a beta phase. We may have received concurrent bids. Our terms & conditions can be found on the co-opTV website.


text:
Sara M necesitaba un nuevo diseño de logotipo y lanzó un concurso de diseño en 99designs.
Un ganador ha sido elegido entre 40 diseños de 13 diseñadores freelance.
DevRight is an idea development company for the dental industry. We already have a logos, but now we want a molar tooth design to use with our logos on different formats.
Ideally we are just looking for a cool looking molar tooth design. We want the winner to place the green leaves from our attached logo of PURE dental(attached) in the middle of the tooth (and 2 other logos as well that we have after we choose a winner) when you send us the final files. This will allow us to connect our different companies that already have existing logos together within the same tooth design.
Would also like to see an option with text on the bottom reading "Another idea made possible by DevRight"
This should be an easy contest for a seasoned graphic artist
Modern, hi-tech, educated...
MUST BE in eps format. Please put the green leaves from the Pure logo attached inside the tooth design. Try to match the colors of the attached logo
Like the idea of the tooth being in a kinda ball that is suspended above the white backdrop with a shadow below to give depth. just to try some things.
Tooth needs to be less whimsical, more rounded.
Eye catching
blues and greens that match the PURE logo
Cartoony tooth
Descubre cómo funciona un concurso de diseño u obtén más información sobre nuestros servicios de diseño de logo.


text:
Our natural resources including our soil, water, plants and animals are of great importance to the people of South Australia. They are fundamental to our health, wellbeing and way of life, and provide the foundation for the state's prosperity.
Primary producers, industry, business, councils, non-government organisations and community groups work with the South Australian and Australian governments to conserve our natural resources and manage how they are used.
At the heart of this collaborative approach is the partnership between the South Australian Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources and the natural resources management boards in each of the regions shown above.
The boards are made up of local people who understand their region's needs. Board members help ensure that our natural resources are managed in a way that is not only sustainable but also benefits landholders and the broader community, now and in the future.
Find out more at www.environment.sa.gov.au.
© Copyright, Department for Environment and Water 2013 | Disclaimer | Privacy | Accessibility | Updated 25 Jun 2014


text:
Microsoft released Bing -- meant to be the great challenger to Google's ubiquitous search engine -- in June 2009.
Five years later, it's clear that Bing has not been the Google challenger Microsoft hoped it would be. Not even close.
Microsoft's search engine hasn't gained much market share in its five years, but it also hasn't slipped from its -- albeit distant -- second-place position to Google's dominant spot. And Microsoft is moving beyond using Bing for more than just public search.
"Bing has to be a huge disappointment for Microsoft these days," said Dan Olds, an analyst with The Gabriel Consulting Group. "I don't see Microsoft giving up on Bing, but I also haven't seen much in the way of new features or big announcements, either. I think Bing is too big and makes enough money so that Microsoft won't drop it. But, it's not big enough to present a significant challenge to Google."
Microsoft launched Bing, the home-grown search engine it had poured a lot of time, money and engineering muscle into, as more of a "decision engine" than a search engine.
Microsoft wanted to gain a foothold in the market by positioning Bing as a way to help people search the Web more intelligently and to simplify everyday tasks such as getting directions.
Over the next few years, Microsoft and Google tried to one-up each other -- adding users' likes and comments, social networking posts and local business reviews. Both also tweaked their search engines to function better on burgeoning mobile platforms.
Microsoft even bested Google in setting up key partnerships. Twitter inked a deal early on to let Bing search users' tweets.
Bing also got a boost when Microsoft created an alliance with Yahoo to have Microsoft's Bing search engine power Yahoo's sites.
However, despite those efforts, Bing never snagged much market share from Google. In March, Internet tracker comScore Inc. reported that Google held 67.5% of the search market, while Bing had 18.6% and Yahoo, 10.1%.
Users around the world have created a habit of using Google when they want to search for anything from the cause of headaches to big game scores, celebrity hairstyles and how companies are using the cloud.
It's proven hard for Bing to break users' Google habit.
David Schubmehl, a research director at IDC, said that he's not sure what's in store for the search engine now that Satya Nadella has replaced Steve Ballmer as Microsoft's CEO. "In the new regime, I'm not sure where Bing fits, to be honest with you," he said. "Bing's not part of the enterprise story, so the question is if they'll continue to move it along or are they going to sell it off to somebody? I just don't know if it's the focus of the current management team."
Microsoft marked Bing's anniversary this week by looking back and by looking to the future.
"On June 3rd 2009, we debuted to the world with a fresh approach to search..., " wrote the Bing team in a blog post. "A lot has happened since that debut."
The first Bing homepage was an image of Polychrome Pass overlooking Denali National Park. (Image: Microsoft)
The blog pointed out the first Bing homepage and amassed a gallery of their homepage favorites over the past five years.
The Bing Team is also talking about the Bing Platform.
"Finally, so many pieces of technology and talent have come together to where we can begin to realize our science fiction dreams of invisible computing, carefully guiding us, helping us, and making us better in ways that matter to us," the team wrote. "People used to interact with digital interfaces in one way -- on [a] computer monitor. Now, there are dozens of ways with varying levels of capability. We want to reduce these interaction barriers."
Bing, for instance, is being used to put advanced intelligence in Cortana, the fictional artificial intelligent character in the Halo video game series. It's also behind multi-lingual abilities in Facebook and Twitter, and even powers Siri, Apple's intelligent personal assistant for the iOS platform.
"The idea of launching a browser, going to a website, and typing in a search box? That's so 2009," wrote the Bing Team. "As the world of devices constantly changes and new form factors come into play, there will be a need to better use information, either by seeking it out or having it pushed to you, and take action. Bing has shifted its focus to be in position to be the search for this new, changing world."
Olds sees this as a smart move for Microsoft.
Being able to integrate Bing into existing Microsoft offerings, like Windows and Xbox, gives Bing an edge in some ways, according to Olds.
"However, this is dwarfed by the number of ways that Google search has been incorporated into Google services and most other websites," he added. "Microsoft might have a point about search being more about integration and other form factors these days. However, that just highlights another Google strength. Google is a far larger presence in phones and tablets than Microsoft. And Google search is baked into a huge number of apps that require search capability."
If you just look at Bing's public search share, it's certainly not doing so well. However, search is becoming more important to Bing's whole organization.
"If you take a broader view, search is an important technology to the enterprise," said Schubmehl. "Think of Bing as a loss leader in terms of public search, but it provides investment and learning they can use in Windows phone, Xbox and Windows itself."
Sharon Gaudin covers the Internet and Web 2.0, emerging technologies, and desktop and laptop chips for Computerworld. Follow Sharon on Twitter at @sgaudin, on Google+ or subscribe to Sharon's RSS feed. Her email address is firstname.lastname@example.com.
See more by Sharon Gaudin on Computerworld.com.
Read more about internet search in Computerworld's Internet Search Topic Center.


text:
FREE delivery on ALL items until further notice
- Description
A 2½" leather guitar strap with foam padding and garment leather backing. Adjustable from 37" to 50".
- Tech Specs
Additional Information
Colour Burgundy Manufacturer Levy's Specification No Product Condition New
- Delivery & Returns
We aim to ship all orders received before 2:00PM on the same day. Orders received later in the day or at the weekend will ship on the next working day. All orders over £100 ship with free next working day delivery with a one hour delivery window.
Orders over £49.99 but below £100 qualify for free shipping which generally takes 2-3 days to arrive or can be upgraded to express for a small charge.
Alternatively all orders can be collected from our Derby store by choosing Click & Collect at the checkout. Please note these details are for UK delivery only, non-mainland orders may take longer and/or incur an additional charge, for international orders please contact us.


text:
TNR Gold - McEwen Shifts Course At El Gallo II And Runs Up 19% Following Gold. MUX, TNR.v
"This new move by Rob McEwen can be very positive for the company and means that now Los Azules will not be up for the fire sale just to finance the El Galo II and the proper bids for the projects will be welcomed by end of Q2. El Galo II can now be developed without throwing out the Los Azules to the first buyer coming alone. PEA is due in Q3 and we can have dramatically different markets by then as well.
In the big economic picture Yen was rising against the US dollar from overnight and, as we have twitted before - Watch The Gold Now. Gold has it fireworks today and is UP 35 dollars or 2.6%. Over-shorted stocks like McEwen Mining do not need a second reminder about the explosive nature of Junior Mining - company is on fire today with 5.5 million shares traded only in US (Canada was closed today) and is UP 18.9% to 2.33 dollars. Tomorrow will be interesting day with Canadian markets open - we need the follow through action now with Gold and Miners to confirm the April Gold Low.
Meanwhile TNR Gold insiders continue to accumulate:"
TNR Gold Corp. Advises of McEwen Mining's Increased Resource Estimate for Los Azules Copper Project TNR.v, MUX
TNR Gold - McEwen Mining's Los Azules Copper Project Continues to Grow! MUX, TNR.v
"Los Azules is a large undeveloped copper porphyry system located in western
San Juan Provincewithin a belt of porphyry copper deposits that straddles the Chilean/Argentine border. This belt contains some of the world's largest copper deposits, including Codelco's El Teniente and Andinamines, Anglo American's Los Bronces mine, Antofagasta PLC's Los Pelambres mine and Xstrata'sEl Pachón project, among others. Los Azules is one of the world's largest, highest grade, undeveloped copper-porphyry deposits not owned by a major base metals company."
TNR Gold - McEwen Mining: Drilling Expands New Central Zone at El Gallo 1 Mine MUX, TNR.v
TNR Gold: McEwen reckons gold stocks will rise in 2013 MUX, TNR.v
"Action with McEwen Mining was quite interesting this week and, particularly, on Friday. Stock has refused to follow the Gold that day and stubbornly was climbing higher all day. Rob McEwen was making some of his magic on Thursday at the conference call after the Q1 update and McEwen Mining Shareholders meeting will be taken place next week. Chief Owner has promised release from one of the exploration program before it and Los Azules new resource estimate is due by the end of May. According to his facebook page, Rob was on the road last few weeks talking to numerous Investment Banks..."
TNR Gold - McEwen Mining: "Los Azules Copper final bids are due late Q2" MUX, TNR.v"Now you can slice and dice it: what will be the price for Los Azules and what will be the effect on McEwen Mining and, particularly, TNR Gold valuations and market caps. All slides are from McEwen Mining presentations."
PI Financial Corp. Engaged as Financial Advisor for Sale of TNR Gold's Back-in Right to the Los Azules Copper Project, Argentina TNR.v, MUX
TNR Gold Corp. Files Technical Report on Shotgun Gold Project, Alaska
Vancouver B.C., May 30, 2013: TNR Gold Corp. (the "Company" or "TNR") has filed on SEDAR a Technical Report (effective date May 27, 2013) supporting the recently completed resource estimate on the Shotgun Gold project in Alaska. Nicholas Van Wyck, Ph.D. CPG of Sisyphus Consulting, an independent qualified person as defined by NI 43-101, is the primary author of the report with Allan Armitage, Ph.D., P.Geol of Geovector Management, also an independent qualified person, responsible for the resource calculation at Shotgun Ridge, an area of gold mineralization located within the Shotgun Gold project.
TNR reported via a news release dated April 22, 2013 an inferred mineral resource at Shotgun Ridge containing 20,734,313 tonnes with 1.06 grams per tonne ("g/t") gold ("Au") for a total of 705,960 ounces gold using a 0.5 g/t Au cut-off. The mineralization is clearly open at depth with some potential to extend laterally. The inferred mineral resource disclosed in the Technical Report is consistent with the disclosure of the inferred mineral resource announced in TNR's April 22, 2013 news release.
The Company has identified unique geophysical anomalies in magnetics, resistivity and chargeability responses that coincide with the known mineralization and also occurs in areas adjacent to the known mineralization providing several targets for follow-up testing. The report recommends a budget for 8000 metres of drilling, upgraded logistics and camp facilities and additional airborne and ground geophysical surveys. Drilling would focus on testing the newly identified targets and the extents of the known mineralization laterally and at depth.
TNR holds a 100% interest in the Shotgun property located 190 kilometres south of the Donlin Gold Project deposits within the Kuskokwim Gold Belt in southwestern Alaska. This area is emerging as a world-class, multimillion ounce gold district. The Shotgun property includes a number of prospects, including Shotgun Ridge and nearby Winchester. Donlin Gold is an intrusion-associated system and represents one of the largest undeveloped gold deposits in the world. The Company believes that there are several key similarities between prospects on the Shotgun property and that of the Donlin Gold Project deposits as well as other important intrusion-associated deposits width wide.
TNR acquired 100% of the Shotgun Ridge prospect in 2010 following a 50/50 joint venture with Novagold Resources Inc. ("Novagold"). A total of 66 mining claims, each 160 acres, are located over and surrounding the Shotgun Ridge prospect for a total of 10,560 acres (4273.48 hectares).
Ground geophysical surveys conducted in 2011 and 2012 by TNR helped to identify structural controls on mineralization at Shotgun Ridge. Drill testing in 2012 confirmed the structural model of mineralization with two drill holes returning mineralized intervals in excess of 200 metres, SR12-56 returned 242 metres averaging 1.25 g/t gold and SR12-57 returned 209 metres averaging 1.02 g/t gold (news release dated 10 October 2012).
The Company is targeting a large tonnage low-grade porphyry system at Shotgun Ridge. Structural repeats, as interpreted from airborne magnetic data and ground geophysical surveys, provide TNR with encouraging targets for future drill testing.
Over the past twenty-one years TNR, through its lead generator business model, has been successful in generating high quality exploration projects around the globe. With the Company's expertise, resources and industry network, it is well positioned to aggressively identify, source, explore, partner and continue to expand its project portfolio.
TNR is also a major shareholder of International Lithium Corp. (TSX:ILC.V) ("ILC"), a company created by TNR to advance its internationally acquired lithium prospects. TNR currently holds about 25.5% of the outstanding shares of ILC.
At its core, TNR provides significant exposure to gold and copper through its holdings in Alaska and Argentina and is committed to continued generation of in-demand projects, while diversifying its markets and building shareholder value.
John Harrop, PGeo, FGS, and Vice President, Exploration of the Company is a "Qualified Person" as defined under NI 43-101 has reviewed and approved the technical content of this news release.
For further details please see our website athttp://www.tnrgoldcorp.com/s/NewsReleases.asp
On behalf of the board,
Gary Schellenberg
Neither the TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this Q&A. Statements in this Q&A other than purely historical information, historical estimates should not be relied upon, including statements relating to the Company's future plans and objectives or expected results, are forward-looking statements. Q&A may contain certain "Forward-Looking Statements" within the meaning of Section 21E of the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Forward-looking statements are based on numerous assumptions and are subject to all of the risks and uncertainties inherent in the Company's business, including risks inherent in resource exploration and development. As a result, actual results may vary materially from those described in the forward-looking statements."
Please Note our Legal Disclaimer on the Blog, including, but Not limited to:
There are NO Qualified Persons among the authors of this blog as it is defined by NI 43-101, we were NOT able to verify and check any provided information in the articles, news releases or on the links embedded on this blog; you must NOT rely in any sense on any of this information in order to make any resource or value calculation, or attribute any particular value or Price Target to any discussed securities.
We Do Not own any content in the third parties' articles, news releases, videos or on the links embedded on this blog; any opinions - including, but not limited to the resource estimations, valuations, target prices and particular recommendations on any securities expressed there - are subject to the disclosure provided by those third parties and are NOT verified, approved or endorsed by the authors of this blog in any way.
Please, do not forget, that we own stocks we are writing about and have position in these companies. We are not providing any investment advice on this blog and there is no solicitation to buy or sell any particular company.


text:
Hi traders,
Is bitcoin finally back in bullish mode, at least short-term? Well, it certainly pointing higher from here as that push on Friday was impulsive; very strong move, while current set-back is slow, so I see it as correction that is ready to make more gains up this week, possibly to 3800, even 4k level, while market is above 3300/3400.
For more analysis check our website at www.ew-forecast.com.
BTCUSD, intra


text:
For dark hours
The festival summer is over. But who's worried because here comes the festival winter. We propose three European event highlights for the cold, dark season.
In November, jazz fans will be flocking to Milan, where 500 musicians will be performing at the Jazzmi Festival (November 1-13). The first premieres of the new opera season will follow.
Days on the slopes, nights on the dance floor: From December 15 to 22, the winter sports and electro scenes come together at Les Deux Alpes in France. The lineup includes DJs Annie Mac, David Rodigan, Richy Ahmed and Jasper James.
Amsterdam sparkles, shines and glows: Lighting artists from all around the world will be creating spectacular illuminations throughout the city from November 29 through January 20.


text:
The LOTAR Standard
Overview on Parts
The LOTAR group decided to split the documentation according to the agreed work packages in different parts. The modular based concept provides a higher degree of usability and adaptability.
Basic Parts
The Basic Parts provide an overview about the essential information on long time archiving and retrieval of 3D model and product structure data.
Common Process Parts
The Common Process Parts define the main process steps of archiving and retrieval of 3D model and product structure data in a detailed and common manner.
Data Domain Specific Parts
The Data Domain Specific Parts contain requirements and definitions for specific types of data related to long time archiving and retrieval. So far descriptions for CAD 3D model data and Product Data Management (PDM) data exist.
The LOTAR information Domain specific standards do not define new product information model standards, but they reference the appropriate ISO 10303 STEP Application Protocols. When limitations of these standards are identified, the LOTAR project contributes to the enhancements of these standards. Example: LOTAR contributions to the AP 242 project and to the harmonization for PDM between AP 242 and AP 239 PLCS.


text:
Ambassatours – Deep Sea Fishing
Step aboard the Summer Bay where you will be welcomed by your crew of friendly and fun-loving Haligonians, who know exactly when and where to boat for the very best fishing locations. With all bait and equipment supplied, your four-hour tour plots its course out the mouth of the harbour into the North Atlantic in search of cod, haddock, mackerel, and Boston bluefish. Once the fishing grounds are reached, all you need to concern yourself with is catching fish!
With the stunning views of the Atlantic Coast, this will be an adventure you will never forget.
Good for Groups
Guided Tours
Downtown Halifax


text:
Home » Full Catalogue » ORGANUM: Veil of Tears
ORGANUM: Veil of Tears
A very interesting sound/environment/ noise recording featuring Michel Prime, David Jackman, Dinah Jane Rowe plus Roger Sutherland and some remixing (before the recording was made, according to the sleeve!) by Jim O'Rourke. Nice work.
Code: MRCD24
Price: £14.50


text:
Train Madrid → Lisbon
Duration 09:30 - From $38
Your travel by train from Madrid to Lisbon
Madrid to Lisbon by train takes a whole 9 hours and 30 minutes. During the trip, you will be able to see the changing landscape from Spain to Portugal.
Madrid Chamartin is a train station located in Madrid. It is one of the most important train stations in Madrid. Madrid Chamartin is well connected to public transportations and is easily accessible. Lisboa Estacion Oriente is a train station located in Lisbon. Being one of the major train stations in Lisbon, it is served by buses and other public transportations.
For a single return trip from Madrid to Lisbon, a train ticket is the best value for money. Best prices are available when buying the train ticket well in advance. For extensive train travel, a rail pass including Spain and Portugal is a better choice.
Visit Madrid and discover other popular train journeys
Madrid, the capital of Spain, is located in the center of the country. Some of the landmarks of Madrid are the Puerta del Sol, the Plaza Mayor, the Mercado de San Miguel, the Palacio Real and the Plaza de Castilla.
From Lisbon, travellers can take the train to reach other cities and regions of Portugal.
Book your journey from Madrid to Lisbon From $38 $36
Practical information
Reviews & ratings
Overall appreciation
Value for moneyConvenience
"In general the service was good. The train was confortable enough, but for a long trip it could be better. "
Value for moneyConvenience
"Trains were very old and noisy, no footrests, chairs were uncomfortable, reading lights didn't work. I wouldn't recommend anyone for overnight travelling, I have seen better inner city trains than these trains. "
Value for moneyConvenience
"The train was dirty and the second class seats were terrible for an overnight train. They were difficult to recline and the recline was very uncomfortable for an 8 hour trip. "
"Many passengers like me were not happy when we were told about the situation .Your staff at Lisboa Oriente was rude, arrogant and was agitated when she had to repeat the situation. She definitely irritated many of us. We were only told to take the train to Coimbra and then take a 2 hour bus ride to Formoso to catch the train to Chamartin. There was no proper co-ordination from the staff and there was a mad rush catching the bus. What made it worse was that I do not speak the language. Fortunately the staff on board the train to Chamartin was helpful "
Value for moneyConvenience
"Very good value for money. But uncomfortable seats in Tourist class did not allow to have a rest especially having this train at night. Convenient arrival/departure. Lavatory was not clean. Good and not expensive restaurant. In general, nice trip. "
Value for moneyConvenience
"Pretty good ideia for everybody who is doing Europe trip, you stay all night long. Also the train is safe and kind of comfortable. "
Value for moneyConvenience
"The train is comfortable and on time. "
Value for moneyConvenience
"This *particular train was good. The beds were comfy although the room was super tiny and you could not sit up at all. Maybe the top bunch a small person could sit up. Nice little bar, nice server, nice workers. Recommended though! There's a window in the hallway you could somewhat have privacy to just hangout. Maybe the bar, not sure if the bar closed by itself but not the room. *check out my music! - SoundCloud.com/MoodBeside "
Value for moneyConvenience
"RailEurope booking of train was fine. We took a night train from Lisbon to Madrid. It was very confusing booking the seats, not because of raileurope per se, more had to do with seat selection so I don't know if this was a raileurope or renfe issue. However, we ended up having to book turiste class seats rather than a sleeper and woke up to adult and baby bed bugs in our seats and crawling all over us. When we tried to tell the conductor they told us to sit in our seats because the train was full....which we did not. Gross. "
Value for moneyConvenience
"This was the overnight train from Lisboa to Madrid and we made a huge mistake not paying extra and booking beds instead of seats. Travelers with weak buts be ware! "
Value for moneyConvenience
"Clean toilets The seat allocated to me cannot be adjusted to recline position. The adjuster is broken I feel secure during the trip. "
"My trip from Lisbon to Madrid was the return leg of the voyage. My wife and I showered at the Spa facilities in the hotel at which we stayed prior to boarding the 9:30 overnight train. Boarding in Lisbon was far more chaotic than it had been in Madrid: although we were on the platformprior to the train arriving, we received conflictingdirections from staff which had us running up and down the platform looking for the coach which contained our sleeping berths. We finally located the car at the very end of the platform where we had to lift our luggage across a nearly two foot gap to enter the train. Despite the hassle, the train is clean, comfortable and reasonably-ppriced. We'd definitely book again. "
"My special thanks to the crew ! Very friendly at the restaurant ! "
"Very comfortable a great way to travel "


text:
How it went down...
Emeril Lagasse - who while amazingly famous and known to millions also happens to be the one responsible for my favorite stuffed chicken wing at his restaurant NOLA in my beloved New Orleans. I eat there every trip I make to that wonderful city.
Tre Wilcox who I had met at the Central Market Cooking School years ago when he taught a class and made one of the most tasty sea bass dishes I have had in my entire life - I said hi to him and he was super sweet and just as friendly as ever! Such a great guy and talented chef!
Padma Lakshmi the amazingly beautiful and alluring goddess herself. She is even more amazing in person and it was all I could do to not go total fan girl and make an absolute fool of myself.
So I think my fellow foodies can understand how the atmosphere might change a bit having these people in the room. There were a handful of kitchen staff there from Luke. Our own local celebrity Steven McHugh was also in attendance after having made such a spectacular meal for us just hours before. I get foodie fan girl just being around him on a normal basis, so this night I was on overload.
I was lucky to have my dinner date with me for the night who kept me reigned in. I was flipping back and forth between my options: play it cool and enjoy your drinks with these amazing people, or go fan girl and start asking for pics and autographs. I opted for the play it cool and just enjoy the night. My phone was still out and I'm an avid tweeter so how could I not type in my few 140 characters or less possibly one of the greatest highlights of my foodie year?
My Friend waves at the guy to come back over and when Flock of Seagulls arrives he pulls up the picture and asks "Is this you?"
Flock of Seagulls replies "Um, no"
Friend replies back with a "Oh, well you can go fuck yourself anyways" and a beautiful display of the middle finger to his face.
The flipping of the bird to Flock of Seagulls offender pretty much made my night :) As crude as it seems, there's something beautiful about that gesture when given with that kind of passion.
Flock of Seagulls turns to the bartender and attempts to get us kicked out of the bar.
Friend then says "Don't be a pussy."
Flock of Seagulls then backs into the slowly escalating crowd and people start sticking their nose in and asking me "OMG what just happened", "What did you do?" I'm just standing there in amazement.
My dinner date for the evening, in his very calm and graceful demeanor starts asking Flock of Seagulls what the problem is and is trying to diffuse the situation. Flock of Seagulls has backup posse forming and they start saying that saying that someone had dropped the truly offensive f-bomb and called him a "faggot". He's pointing his anger at my Friend. This is where things got ridiculous. None of my friends nor I would ever use that word. Hell, had I seen anyone use that term towards anyone Flock of Seagulls included, I would have kicked their ass out myself. I have no tolerance for that kind of hatred.
Next thing I know I am pressed with my back against the bar standing with Colicchio and my Friend inches from me as they exchange peace agreement terms. My dinner date is trying to help me figure out what's happening. Colicchio wants my Friend to apologize for calling Flock of Seagulls a pussy. My Friend counters with a request for Flock of Seagulls to apologize for being rude to me. Flock of Seagulls wants to do no such thing and starts spouting off that he was just doing his job.
Gail Simmons is now standing across from me joined in the fuss so I politely say "I have no idea what I did to offend you guys but I apologize for being a fan and complimenting you on twitter"
Gail says back to me "You tweeted this location and have compromised our ... " I'm not sure what it was she said through all the shouting but I'm pretty sure my simple tweets didn't compromise a thing or what she was so upset about. I didn't see anyone show up after my tweets and it has been over an hour by this point. I mean if a flood of fans spilled in and crashed their party I could see how she might be upset, but that didn't happen at all. I'm sorry Gail - I don't understand what made you so upset. I was tweeting my love and adoration!
Then next thing I know Flock of Seagulls is making an apology to me, Gail Simmons is shaking her head and Tom is telling me "It's fine... It's fine..." and people are all calming down. My Friend apologizes to Flock of Seagulls for calling him a pussy. Everyone seems okay again. I'm still in shock. Flock of Seagulls is taken out of the bar.
I walk over to Flock of Seagulls' backup posse and have a nice conversation about Top Chef being in San Antonio for some undisclosed reason and they can't tell me and they are so sorry that their friend was so rude to me. One of them jokes that he was just jealous of my back tattoo. Then he shows me his awesome goat tattoo and we are back to laughing and enjoying ourselves. It was a really awesome goat arm piece and they were really sweet to make amends for the guy being out of line and trying to censor my tweets. We discuss the "freedom to tweet" and they point out that the chefs themselves are twitter users, but that Flock of Seagulls might not be and maybe he doesn't understand how it works?
We stay there for another hour or so, Emeril and Padma have stumbled out at this point, Gail makes her way out - still with the head shaking thing - I can't help but think she's upset with me for only tweeting her name and some exclamation marks and not saying how in love with her I am. Which I am sad for because I really do respect her work and she's an amazing woman. I do hope that if fate ever places in me in such close proximity to her fantastic-ness that she realizes that I am not out to compromise her anything :) I'm just a foodie fan. No press showed up, there was no picture taking by anyone that night - I still am not sure what the concern was over my few simple innocent tweets.
I walk down through the rest of the bar patrons both our group and the Top Chef group and everyone is still trying to make sense of what just went down. They are sweet enough to buy me a drink and make lots of apologies for this guy starting such a fuss and I'm back to being my somewhat normal self. Tom is smiling again and we all cheers over fantastic cocktails.
My notes from this experience:
1) if I ever need to broker a peace agreement or calm my normally crazy self my dinner date is the perfect guy for the job. He stayed calm through the entire ordeal and kept me from going fan girl crazy.
2) if I ever need my honor defended my Friend is an amazing guy and totally has my back. He's also totally trained to kick ass and he's crazy fun to hang out with. I'm pretty sure if it had turned ugly he would have won that versus challenge I posed earlier today. I also am now in love with his middle finger and rapid photo finding abilities.
3) my new friend who also makes amazing beer magic and might be a bigger guitar geek than me is great at photo bombing and we totally need a re-do attempt! I'm still wondering if it was my quirky karma or his amazing hair that caused the events that set in motion last night.
4) I love being surrounded by amazing chivalrous beautiful men :) I am a very lucky girl.
5) if you compliment someone on twitter, and there are other people nearby, the compliments should be equal or someone might get offended.
6) If you are insulted by professionals, their companies will make it right and send you formal apologies and gifts in the form of autographed cookbooks :)
7) I still love Top Chef and am super excited to see what brought them to San Antonio. I was honored to be in their presence last night and enjoy their company.
8) if there are celebrities around, be careful what you tweet because you might compromise their? oh wait... I never did learn what that was :P Sorry Gail!