Steer Clear of Herman Cain

With Herman Cain now receiving some attention among GOP candidates, we should examine his political record. While Mr. Cain is not the worst candidate for the office of presidency, he certainly isn’t the best. Let me give you the facts:

  • He blindly support TARP and the government bailouts of 2008. He also endorsed the Bush administration’s intervening and condemned the free market supporters who called for honesty and sound money. I won’t support a man who favors the bailing out of crooks and cronies at the expense of hard-working individuals.

  • This man thinks the patriot act is 90% correct. On the whole, he thinks it is effective and necessary. The patriot act might be the greatest infringements on human liberties in the history of this nation.

  • 2005-2006, Herman denied the housing bubble and the decline of the American economy claiming ignorance on the part of those supporting sound money. How ignorant could you be?

  • After serving as the Head of the Kansas City Federal Reserve branch, Mr. Cain does not support an audit of the Fed. This shows his similarities to the crooks running Washington D.C. today.
Why support this man? You have the champion of liberty running against him. Someone who has supported liberty and freedom in all aspects of life for more than 30 years. The one, the only, Dr. Ron Paul

How to fix America

Have Americans read Dr. Ron Paul’s written plan for the country? Are Americans ready to upset the apple cart in a controlled and methodical way for the betterment of the greater good? The main source I am referencing here is Dr. Ron Paul‘s website, so that we can debate his priorities and proposed approaches. I have paraphrased items from his site; however, I encourage the reader to thoroughly review all the links.

Here is Dr. Ron Paul’s 11-point plan:

11. Energy Independence: Eliminate the federal gas tax of $0.18 per gallon and eliminate the EPA, allowing prosecution of polluters to answer to citizens, not Washington, and allowing coal, oil, nuclear and other forms of energy to be safely explored.

10. Education: Dr. Paul would like to see the U.S. Department of Education return its powers to the states and parents. He proposes and intends to give parents a $5,000 tax credit per child for kids K-12 to help with all the costs of education. He is supportive of home-schooling and will veto legislation that interferes with parents choosing to home-school their children.

9. Workers’ Rights: Dr. Ron Paul is against forcing workers to join unions and pay dues if they do not want to, citing the $8 billion that union leaders bring in annually that is often given to political candidates. He does not want workers forced to belong to unions or to be under union control against their will.

8. Protect Gun Rights: Protecting the right of Americans to keep and bear arms. Here is an example of a town that required each head of household to own a gun. This policy resulted in decreased crime.

7. Heath Care: Dr. Ron Paul will repeal Obamacare, allow for tax credits and deductions for all medical expenses and not allow money that belongs in Medicare or Medicaid to be misused for other purposes. He will protect the privacy of American citizens’ medical records from the federal government, remove barriers for all citizens to have HSAs and keep the FDA out of vitamins and alternative treatments. Also, he wants to provide payroll deductions for terminal illnesses and caregivers.

6. Pro-Life Issue: Here is the one fact all Americans need to know. Dr. Paul is the only Republican candidate who has said, “So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid.” Abortion is one of the most divisive issues and may always be a divisive issue as long as Americans have freedom of religion and the right to be, think and feel differently. Dr. Ron Paul may be personally pro-life; however, his voting record indicates that, even if a bill attempting to make abortion illegal federally in the U.S. were passed by the House and Senate, Dr. Paul would veto the bill as unconstitutional. Which other Republican candidate has a track record to indicate that? Would Dr. Paul look to put pro-life judges on the Supreme Court bench? Probably as much as past Republican presidents. The current Democratic President has recently placed two women on the Supreme Court, and new Justices are appointed only when a Justice dies or retires. Six Republican Presidential candidates have already signed the Susan B. Anthony List 2012. Dr. Ron Paul is the safest Republican candidate because he would veto anti-abortion bills at the federal level and support states that chose to protect women’s reproductive rights. His other strong Constitution-based reforms outweigh the small risk that Roe v. Wade would be overturned during his term, returning the power to the states, who can then protect women’s reproductive rights, as Vermont has. Would he truly respect the states’ rights on this, considering his strong personal stand? Many progressive states have anti-abortion laws on their books that are not enforceable due to Roe v. Wade. So far, Dr. Paul has written bills to make it possible for statesto make abortion illegal in the Sanctity of Life bill. He wrote the We the People Act, which, if passed, would render Roe v. Wade invalid and return powers to the states. He signed the Susan B. Anthony list, which describes federally defunding all abortions and Planned Parenthood. If Dr. Paul can fix the economic mess, is the slight chance that Roe v. Wade would be rendered invalid something Americans are willing risk for the betterment of the country in many other important areas? We will not ever go back to a time before birth control, morning-after pillsRU 486, the Internet and other advancements. Certain states, even with Roe v. Wade, are extremely restrictive.

5. Immigration: In Dr. Paul’s own words:

Immigration reform should start with improving our border protection, yet it was reported last week that the federal government has approved the recruitment of 120 of our best trained Border Patrol agents to go to Iraq to train Iraqis how to better defend their borders! This comes at a time when the National Guard troops participating in Operation Jump Start are being removed from border protection duties in Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas and preparing to deploy to Iraq and Afghanistan! It is an outrage and it will result in our borders being more vulnerable to illegal entry, including by terrorists.

Also, we need to take serious steps to prevent terrorists from gaining easy access to targets on our soil. Quite alarmingly, even with the knowledge that the 19 terrorist hijackers entered our country legally, and that 15 of them were from Saudi Arabia , student visas from terrorist sponsoring countries are still far too easily obtained. In a baffling move President Bush struck a deal with Saudi King Abdullah in 2005 to allow 21,000 more Saudi young men into the US on student Visas. Of course, not all students from terror sponsoring countries are terrorists, but I place a higher premium on the security of the American people than the convenience of citizens of hostile countries. We should not be making the goals of would-be terrorists easier to accomplish, but rather should be vigilant about defending against enemies at every turn. They should not be slipping through our doors so easily, using our immigration laws against us, and that is why I proposed the Terror Immigration Elimination Act (HR 3217) to toughen standards for VISAS from countries on the State Department’s list of terrorist sponsoring countries in addition to Saudi Arabia . Just as you decide who to invite to a dinner party in your home, we should be in charge of who we allow in this country, without apology.


Both the Bush administration and congressional leadership have promised to spend the next two months addressing national security issues. But real national security cannot be achieved unless and until our borders are physically secured. It’s as simple as that. All the talk about fighting terror and making America safer is meaningless without border security. It makes no sense to seek terrorists abroad if our own front door is left unlocked.

In short, Dr. Paul’s plan is to secure the border, end amnesty, abolish welfare to illegal immigrants, end birthright citizenship and protect lawful immigrants.

4. National Defense: Dr. Paul’s approach is simple. He believes in a strong national defense and is against militarism — in other words, protect the U.S. but do not police the world and require congressional approval before declaring war. The last time the U.S. formally declared war wasWorld War II in 1941Dr. Paul would bring the troops home to protect America. Dr. Paul said he would get the troops home as soon as the ships would get here. He is the largest recipient of donations from soldiers in the U.S. military, getting 71 percent of all military donations.

3. Taxes: Dr. Paul would support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that abolishes income and death taxes. Ideally, he’d like to close the IRS. He would seek to repeal capital gains taxes and reduce then abolish taxes on Social Security. Before a flat or fair tax would be implemented, Dr. Paul would ensure that the 16th Amendment, which made income taxation legal, would be repealed so we don’t end up with both.

2. End the Fed: The Fed was created in a time of turmoil and seems similar to the Patriot Act in that it was done from a position of hysteria, not logical and rational decision-making. The U.S. Constitution is considered such a well thought-through document as it was drafted in a time of peace rather than as a reaction to a panic. Documents and policies that are reviewed and seen in the light of day by calm, rational people tend to be better for the long-term wellness of the people than policies passed quickly in an emotional, reactive and hurried manner. Dr. Paul equates the Fed with deeply-in-debt parents sending their teenagers out with credit cards and blank checks. Dr. Paul’s ultimate goal would be to see the Fed end, yet he would not act rashly. What his focus would be is a full and complete audit of the Fed, as Congress is currently unable to audit the Fed. Dr. Paulwould commit to passing legislation that requires transparency and accountability from the Fed. At this time, the Fed can keep secret to whom they are lending trillions of taxpayers’ dollars. If the Fed is handling American money responsibly, for what reason would they refuse to open their books? We American citizens are all subject to audits from the IRS, but the U.S. central bank is not? Please take three minutes to watch this amazing video of Bernie Sanders asking Ben Bernanke, where $2.2 trillion of taxpayer money is. Bernanke will not answer the question and will not disclose where $2.2 trillion went, and he doesn’t have to.

1. Economy: Dr. Paul’s plan is to audit the Fed, veto any unbalanced budget and refuse to raise the debt ceiling. He is also committed to getting rid of self-dealing and corruption in D.C. Additionally, he will eliminate income taxes, capital gains taxes and death taxes. It would be a breath of fresh air to have the Fed audited and wasteful government spending eliminated, and to actually be able to keep more of the money we make. America’s debt did not come out of nowhere. In 2008, the U.S. had spent $3 trillion on the war in Iraq. The current costs are at $3.2 to $4 trillion. How much did we vote to increase the debt ceiling? We raised the $14.3-trillion debt ceiling by $2.4 trillion, to $16.7 trillion on Aug. 2, 2011. Here is a great 10-minute video with Dr. Paul clearly stating how, if elected president in 2012, he would balance the budget in one year.

In this discussion, I request that emotional reactions and sarcasm be set aside. The goal is an accurate, clear and truthful dialogue. We are blessed with a group of knowledgeable Americans making comments here. What I want to suggest is that we discuss what is best for the greater good for our country, not just for ourselves.

Any presidential choice we make involves a risk. Is he lying and manipulating to win the election, or is he honest? Will she serve American citizens ethically and honorably as president? The U.S. Constitution was created to unite the states in our country in certain crucial areas, like national defense, while allowing states their autonomy and uniqueness. In the spirit of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, good character is the most essential quality to bring to our government. Dr. Paulcombines solid character and backbone with seasoned wisdom and experience. He has not compromised the values and principles that America holds dear.

If you are not going to register as a Republican and vote for Dr. Ron Paul in the primary, who do you think is better, and for what reasons? Don’t state what you dislike about Dr. Paul’s plan. It is easy to shoot someone’s ideas down.

Written by Laura Trice:

Why I believe the Bible

Do you believe the Bible is accurate? Ask a professing Christian that question and you will likely be rewarded with a decisive, Of Course! Probe a bit further and things become shaky. Continue pressing the the issue by asking why, and things get ugly.  Some will say, “I was raised that way.”  Others may reply in honesty, “I don’t know why; I just do.”  Many, however, proclaim, “I tried it and it worked for me.” None of these answers give sufficient reason. 1 Peter 3:15 instructs to be prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks for a reason for the hope that is in you. The Greek word Peter employs here (apologia) means to give a well-reasoned, verbal defense of one’s position. Pastor Voddie Baucham does an excellent job summarizing Biblical accuracy with the following statement:

“I choose to believe the Bible because it is a reliable collection of historical documents, written by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses.  They report supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies, and they claim to be divine rather than human in origin.”

Please, listen to Dr. Baucham’s full reasoning behind believing Scripture. It is excellent.

Hundreds of Thousands Slaughtered

Like many people, I am a curious being. Several years into these “wars on terror”, I found myself questioning the death toll. As a Christian and one who values life, I do not support our expansive war quests. Of the many characteristics in the wars, I find one most bothersome – the ignorant hierarchical valuation of human life. Media portrays the 6000-7000 American causalities as incomprehensible. In Iraq and Afghanistan, hundreds of thousands of lives have been taken. That is correct, hundreds of thousands of innocent lives.

I feel sympathy for those American families who have suffered. I really do. But I simply can’t value the soul of one American over the soul of one Iraqi or Afghan. I see no difference in light of eternity. I’m sure some ignorantly hold a disdain for lives in the Middle East, and others simply aren’t aware of the losses outside of our nation. I hope this moves you to lobby against these seemingly infinite wars. They are ending lives, destroying families, and bankrupting this nation!

The Tragedy of 9/11 (pt.3)

Pt. 2:

I should begin by stating that I am not sure what occurred on September 11, 2001. There are multiple views to consider when looking at a controversial topic, yet most are stifled by traditional media. I am simply here to discuss known facts and allow others to decipher such events. Everything stated should be researched by the reader to test validity and promote further understanding of the given topics.

The Official Story of 9/11

Several Official findings have been made public:

  1. Nineteen men, part of sleeper cells of Islamic terrorism directed by Osama bin Laden, hijack four jetliners using box-cutters for weapons.
  2. The hijackers fly two of the planes into the Twin Towers.
  3. The hijackers fly the third plane into the Pentagon, later causing part of the building to collapse.
  4. Passengers on the fourth plane attack the hijackers, causing the plane to crash in Pennsylvania.
  5. “The structural damage sustained by each tower from the impact, combined with the ensuing fires, resulted in the total collapse of each building” (FEMA, 2002).
  6. World Trade Center 7 later collapsed due to fire.
I would like to do something different for this third part. I will summarize key points, then provide videos which will reiterate the important topics. I encourage readers to research the summaries further due to the enormous quantity of evidence discrediting the official story.
The Towers were designed to withstand one or more aircraft impacts, hurricane force winds, and earthquakes.
There were considerably worse fires in several other steel framed skyscrapers through the decades. None of those fires resulted in structural failure or collapse. Scientists have overwhelmingly proven that the temperatures of the fires in the Towers could not melt the steel core.
The Collapse:
The Twin Towers have distinct characteristics associated with the collapse. Here are a few:
  1. The cores were obliterated. The gravity collapse scenario cannot account for the complete leveling of the massive columns of the towers’ cores.
  2. The perimeter walls were shredded. The gravity collapse scenario cannot account for the ripping apart of the prefabricated column and spandrel plate unit welds.
  3. Nearly all the concrete was pulverized before hitting the ground, so finely that it blanketed parts of Lower Manhattan with inches of dust. In a gravity collapse, there would not have been enough energy to pulverize the concrete until it hit the ground, if at all.
  4. The towers exploded into immense clouds of dust, which were several times the original volumes of the buildings.
  5. Parts of the towers were thrown 500 feet laterally. Only something explosive could account for the energetic lateral ejection of pieces.
  6. Explosive events were visible before many floors had collapsed. Since pressure exerted from falling top floors is the only possible explanations for the explosive dust plumes emerging from the buildings, the top would have to be falling to produce them in a gravity collapse. But in the South Tower collapse, these energetic dust ejections are first seen while the top is slightly tipping, not in free fall.
  7. The towers’ tops mushroomed into thick dust clouds much larger than the original volumes of the buildings, in a very short span of time. Without the addition of large sources of pressure beyond the collapse itself, the falling buildings and debris should have occupied about the same volume as the intact building.
  8. Explosive ejections of dust, known as squibs, occurred well below the mushrooming region in both of the tower collapses. A gravitational collapse explanation would account for these as dust from floors pancaking well down into the tower’s intact region. But if the floors, the only major non-steel building component, were falling well below the mushrooming cloud above, what was the source of the dense powder in the mushroom clouds?
  9. The halting of rotation of the South Tower’s top as it began its fall can only be explained by its breakup.
  10. The curves of the perimeter wall edges of the South Tower about 2 seconds into its “collapse” show that many stories above the crash zone have been shattered.
  11. The tops fell at near the rate of free fall. The rates of fall indicate that nearly all resistance to the downward acceleration of the tops had been eliminated ahead of them. The many forms of resistance (steel structural components, concrete floors, all other components) in a gravity-driven collapse would have prevented such free fall.
  12. Molten steel was seen falling from the buildings and all along the ground during clean-up efforts. The fires could not have produced temperatures high enough to melt the steel.
  13. Thermite was found throughout the debris during clean-up efforts. Thermite is a high-tech explosive that is used to cut straight through steel. The chemical reaction of thermite also produces enough heat to melt steel.
Building 7:
Media barely mentioned the destruction of World Trade Center Seven.  The 47 story skyscraper, located a block away from the Twin Towers, was not struck by a plane. It exhibited very little structural damage from the Twin Tower fallout, yet it fell; fire was listed as the official cause. These videos are worth my 1000 words. Enjoy!
Stay Tuned!

Join the Irate Minority, It’s growing!

I have grown tiresome of the lies of corporate media! Ron Paul is a legitimate contender to win the 2012 United States presidential election! Don’t sit this election out or refrain from supporting this man simply because corporate media ignores him. He has done the following in the straw polls, arguably the best indicators of a state’s early political sway:


  1.  Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (4823, 28.55%)
  2.  Congressman Ron Paul (4671, 27.65%)
  3.  Governor Tim Pawlenty (2293, 13.57%)
  4.  Senator Rick Santorum (1657, 9.81%)
  5.  Herman Cain (1456, 8.62%)
  6.  Governor Rick Perry (718, 3.62%) write-in
  7.  Governor Mitt Romney (567, 3.36%)
  1. Herman Cain – 26% (232)
  2. Ron Paul – 25.7% (229)
  3. Rick Perry – 20% (179)
  4. Newt Gingrich – 18% (162)
  5. Mitt Romney – 6% (51)
  6. Michele Bachmann – 3.3% (29)
  7. All Others – 1% 
  1. Congressman Ron Paul (374, 44.9%)
  2. Governor Rick Perry (244, 29.3%)?
  3. Mitt Romney (74, 8.8%)
  4. Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (64, 7.7%)
  5. Jon Huntsman (17, 2.0%)
  6. Herman Cain (15, 1.8%)
  7. Newt Gingrich (14, 1.7%)

The Tragedy of 9/11 (pt.2)

Read Part 1 Here

I should begin by stating that I am not sure what occurred on September 11, 2001. There are multiple views to consider when looking at a controversial topic, yet most are stifled by traditional media. I am simply here to discuss known facts and allow others to decipher such events. Everything stated should be researched by the reader to test validity and promote further understanding of the given topics.

The Official Story of 9/11

Several Official findings have been made public:

  1. Nineteen men, part of sleeper cells of Islamic terrorism directed by Osama bin Laden, hijack four jetliners using box-cutters for weapons.
  2. The hijackers fly two of the planes into the Twin Towers.
  3. The hijackers fly the third plane into the Pentagon, later causing part of the building to collapse.
  4. Passengers on the fourth plane attack the hijackers, causing the plane to crash in Pennsylvania.
  5. “The structural damage sustained by each tower from the impact, combined with the ensuing fires, resulted in the total collapse of each building” (FEMA, 2002).
  6. World Trade Center 7 later collapsed due to fire.


The details regarding the accused hijackers are mysterious, to say the least. There is no hard evidence that any had boarded the failed flights, and substantial evidence that some weren’t involved at all.

  • 9 of the hijackers have been widely reported as still living or as having been the victims of wide-spread, simultaneous identity theft. This website provides cited information on the accused:
  • Crash proof passport: According to ABC News and the Associated Press, the passport of hijacker Satam Al Suqami was found a few blocks from the WTC.  The Guardian Magazine was also skeptical: “the idea that Suqami’s passport had escaped from that inferno un-singed [tests] the credulity of the staunchest supporter of the FBI’s crackdown on terrorism.” Satam Al Suqami was supposedly on Flight 11, the plane that hit the North Tower.
  • No video of any of the 19 hijackers at any of the three originating airports of the four flights has been made public, except for a video allegedly showing hijackers of Flight 77.
  • None of the four flight crews radioed Air Traffic Control about hijackings in progress.
  • None of the four flight crews punched in the four-digit hijacking code to report a takeover.
  • No public evidence indicates that the remains of any of the hijackers were identified at any of the crash sites.
  • None of the contents of any of the black boxes were made public for more than four years. What happened?
  • The only public description of a stabbing is found in the 4-1/2 minute phone call from Flight 11 Attendant Betty Ong. It does not provide any details indicating that Arab hijackers were on board.

Here is an example of a reported hijacker being falsely accused, published by BBC news Co: “Saudi Arabian pilot Waleed Al Shehri was one of five men that the FBI said had deliberately crashed American Airlines flight 11 into the World Trade Centre on 11 September. His photograph was released, and has since appeared in newspapers and on television around the world. Now he is protesting his innocence from Casablanca, Morocco. He told journalists there that he had nothing to do with the attacks on New York and Washington, and had been in Morocco when they happened. He has contacted both the Saudi and American authorities, according to Saudi press reports. He acknowledges that he attended flight training school at Daytona Beach in the United States, and is indeed the same Waleed Al Shehri to whom the FBI has been referring. But, he says, he left the United States in September last year, became a pilot with Saudi Arabian airlines and is currently on a further training course in Morocco.”

Super pilots?

Few, if any, of the hijackers were worthwhile pilots. None had previously flown jets, let alone large commercial jetliners. Hani Hanjour, the person accused of flying Flight 77 into the Pentagon, was failing his courses at the Arizona flight school. According to an employee, “He didn’t care about the fact that he couldn’t get through the course.”  Rick Garza, a flight instructor at Sorbi’s Flying Club, had this to say about the two alleged hijackers originally thought to have piloted Flight 77, Khalid al-Mihdar and Nawaq al-Hamzi: “It was like Dumb and Dumber, I mean, they were clueless. It was clear they were never going to make it as pilots.”

In the second week of August 2001, Hanjour had attempted to rent a small plane from an airport in Bowie, MD. Flight instructors Sheri Baxter and Ben Conner declined his request, after taking Hanjour on three test runs, noting he had trouble controlling and landing the Cessna 172. Though Hanjour had attended a flight school in Scottsdale, AZ, for four months in 1996 and 1997, he never completed the coursework for a single-engine aircraft license. 

Trained fighter pilots could have executed the maneuver that supposedly crashed a 757 into the Pentagon, but we aren’t talking about trained pilots here. It required making a tight 320-degree turn while descending seven thousand feet, then leveling out so as to fly low enough over the highway just west of the Pentagon to knock down lamp posts. After crossing the highway the pilot had to take the plane to within inches of the ground so as to crash into the Pentagon at the first-floor level and at such a shallow angle that an engine penetrated three rings of the building, while managing to avoid touching the lawn. And he had to do all of this while flying over 400 mph. Quite a feat for a flight school flunky who had never sat in the cockpit of a jet!

Flight paths taken by the hijacked aircraft prove difficult to explain. By flying from remote airports and going far out of their way, the attack planners could have encountered numerous problems, and would have had the air defense system functioned normally.

  • The originating airport for Flights 11 and 175 was Boston Logan. This created about 40 minutes of exposure to interception for each flight before hitting NYC.
  • Flight 77 flew to the Midwest before turning around to return to Washington D.C.. It was airborne an hour and 23 minutes before allegedly attacking the Pentagon. That would provide ample opportunity for interception even with air defense system failure.
  • Flight 93 flew to the Midwest before turning around to fly toward Washington D.C. Had it reached the capital, it would have been airborne for more than an hour and a half. The odds of escaping interception with that plan should be nonexistent, right?
NORAD, What Happened?

There are several elements involved in America’s domestic air defense. The air traffic control system continuously monitors air traffic and notifies the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) of any flight-path deviation or loss of radio contact. NORAD monitors air and space traffic continuously and is prepared to react immediately to threats and emergencies. It has the authority to order units from the Air National Guard, the Air Force, or other available armed services to scramble fighters in pursuit of jetliners in trouble. In the year 2000, jets were scrambled 129 times. . This failures observed in the air defense system can be attributed to several things:

Failure to report: Based on the official timeline, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) response times for reporting the deviating aircraft took much longer than normally observed.Comparing NORAD’s timeline to reports from air traffic control reveals inexplicable delays in the times the FAA took to report deviating aircraft. The delays include an 18-minute delay in reporting Flight 11 and a 39-minute delay in reporting Flight 77. The delays are made all the more suspicious given that, in each case, the plane failed to respond to communications, was off-course, and had stopped emitting its Identification as Friend or Foe (IFF) signal. Refer here: interception procedures were not followed

Failure to scramble: NORAD, once notified of the off-course aircraft, failed to scramble jets from the nearest bases. No plausible explanation has been provided for failing to scramble interceptors in a timely fashion, from bases within range, to protect the September 11th targets. Fighters that were dispatched were both late and scrambled from distant bases. Early in the attack, and after first impact, it was obvious that New York City, World Trade Centers, and Washington D.C. were targets. Fighters were not scrambled from the bases near the targets and there were no backup scrambles. Refer here: interception procedures were not followed

  • Flight 11 had been flying south toward New York City from about 8:30 AM. Yet no interceptors were scrambled from nearby Atlantic City, or La Guardia, or from Langley, Virginia.
  • No interceptors were scrambled from Andrews Air Force Base to protect the capital, at least not before the Pentagon was hit. Andrews Air Force Base had two squadrons of fighters on alert, and is only about 10 miles from the Pentagon.
Failure to Intercept: While not dispatched from the nearest bases, the jets that were scrambled still had adequate time to reach their assigned planes. Why didn’t they? Because they were only flying at a small fraction of their top speed. That is the conclusion implicit in NORAD’s timeline.
  • The first base to finally scramble interceptors was Otis in Falmouth, Massachusetts, at 8:52, about a half-hour after Flight 11 was taken over. This was already eight minutes after Flight 11 hit the North Towers, and just 9 minutes before Flight 175 hit the South Tower. According to NORAD, at the time of the South Tower Impact the two F-15s from Otis were still 71 miles away. Otis is 153 miles east-northeast of the WTC. That means the F-15s were flying at: (153 mi- 71mi)/(9:03- 8:52) = 447 mph That is around 23.8% of their top speed of 1875 mph. At 9:11 the F-15s finally reached the World Trade Center. Their average speed for the trip was:  (153/(9:11 – 8:52) = 483 mph) That is around 25.8% of their top speed.
  • The F-16s from Langley reached the Pentagon at 9:49. It took them 19 minutes to reach Washington D.C. from Langley AFB, which is about 130 miles to the south. That means the F-16s were flying at: (130/(9:49 – 9:30) = 410 mph) That is around 27.4% of their top speed of 1500 mph.
  • Andrews Air Force Base, located on the outskirts of the capital, is just over 10 miles from the Pentagon. One would have expected interceptors to be scrambled to protect the capital within a few minutes of the 8:15 loss of contact with Flight 11. Instead, no fighters from Andrews reached the Pentagon until 9:49, several minutes after the assault.
Failure to Redeploy: Fighters that were airborne and within interception range of the deviating aircraft were not redeployed to pursue them. When the fighters scrambled to protect Manhattan arrived too late, they were not redeployed to protect the capital. They had ample time to reach the Pentagon before it was hit.
  • Two F-15s flying off the coast of Long Island were not redeployed to Manhattan until after the second tower was hit.
  •    By the time the two F-15s from Otis (mentioned above) reached Manhattan, the only jetliner still flying with its IFF transponder off had just made a 180-degree turn over southern Ohio and had been headed towards Washington D.C. for 12 minutes. This was 34 minutes before the Pentagon was hit. Had the fighters been sent to protect the capital, they could have traveled the approximately 300 miles in: (1875 mph/300 mi = 9.6 minutes). They could have arrived  in time to protect the Pentagon if they had flown at only 500 mph.

- Minimizing the Casualties

Contrary to the picture painted by media, the massacre that was 9/11 actually could have been much worse. Had the goal of the day been total massacre, surely it would have been. I propose the incident was engineered to minimize fatalities while maximizing trauma; here is why:  The 4 hijacked flights had a combined occupancy of 29%, not including “terrorists”. The average flight occupancy for 2001 was over 70%.

Commandeered Flights page

When the first plane hit, the Twin Towers were well below their typical daily peak occupancy. Only about half of office workers normally arrive before 9 AM, and many were delayed by voting, since it was an election day. Many parents were also tending their children for the first primary day of the school year. Few tourists or shoppers would have been in the building in the early morning. Two hours later the buildings could have held around 50,000 people rather than the 20,000 present. If the strikes had been in the middle of the day, and the impacts had been centered and at the 45th floors (just above the surrounding buildings), 30,000+ could have been trapped and killed.

At the time the Pentagon was hit, about 20,000 people were at work in the building. Despite the significant portion of the building affected by the crash, only 125 Pentagon employees were killed. The portion of the building that sustained the impact, called “Wedge One”, had recently undergone renovations including the reinforcement of exterior walls with steel beams and columns.

There were far more lethal targets that the perpetrators passed over en route to the towers. Flight 11 flew directly over the Indian Point nuclear power plant, and Flight 175 flew within about two minutes of it. That facility contains three nuclear power stations, one of which was online, and a unit storing 65 operating years’ worth of highly radioactive waste. The plant is surrounded by heavily populated areas.

I'm just gettin' started...

The Tragedy of 9/11 (pt.1)

I should begin by stating that I am not sure what occurred on September 11, 2001. There are multiple views to consider when looking at a controversial topic, yet most are stifled by traditional media. I am simply here to discuss known facts and allow others to decipher such events. Everything stated should be researched by the reader to test validity and promote further understanding of the given topics.

The Official Story of 9/11

Several Official findings have been made public:

  1. Nineteen men, part of sleeper cells of Islamic terrorism directed by Osama bin Laden, hijack four jetliners using box-cutters for weapons.
  2. The hijackers fly two of the planes into the Twin Towers.
  3. The hijackers fly the third plane into the Pentagon, later causing part of the building to collapse.
  4. Passengers on the fourth plane attack the hijackers, causing the plane to crash in Pennsylvania.
  5. “The structural damage sustained by each tower from the impact, combined with the ensuing fires, resulted in the total collapse of each building” (FEMA, 2002).
  6. World Trade Center 7 later collapsed due to fire.

Preceding the Attacks


The South Tower of the World Trade Center was the first skyscraper in the 100-year history of steel-reinforced skyscrapers to collapse as a result of fire damage. A few minutes later, the North Tower of the World Trade Center became the second. It hadn’t happened before that day, nor has it happened since then. Because of this, it is difficult to imagine how anyone could have anticipated that World Trade Center (WTC) 2 would collapse, much less at what time it would collapse, unless its destruction at 9:59 AM was engineered. Yet there are reports of high-level officials receiving warnings of the imminent collapse of WTC 2. Warnings of the collapse of WTC 1 after 9:59 would not be particularly remarkable, since the two towers were damaged in a similar ways, but warnings of the collapse of WTC 7 would be remarkable, since it was not hit by an airplane.

Then-Mayor Rudolph Giuliani told ABC News that he received a warning that the World Trade Center was about to collapse, a short time before it occurred.

I .. I went down to the scene and we set up a headquarters at 75 Barkley Street, which was right there with the Police Commissioner, the Fire Commissioner, the Head of Emergency Management, and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was gonna’ to collapse. And it did collapse before we could actually get out of the building, so we were trapped in the building for 10, 15 minutes, and finally found an exit, got out, walked north, and took a lot of people with us.
— ABC News [wmv video]

In an interview published in 2005, EMT Richard Zarillo describes delivering a message from the OEM (Office of Emergency Management) to Fire Marshal Steven Mosiello and Department Chief Peter Ganci:

As I was walking towards the Fire command post, I found Steve Mosiello. I said, Steve, where’s the boss? I have to give him a message. He said, well, what’s the message? I said the buildings are going to collapse; we need to evac everybody out. With a very confused look he said, “Who told you that? I said, I was just with John at OEM. OEM says the buildings are going to collapse; we need to get out.

He escorted me over to Chief Ganci. He said, “Hey, Pete, we got a message that the buildings are going to collapse.” His reply was, “Who the f___ told you that?” Then Steve brought me in and with Chief Ganci, Commissioner Feehan, Steve, I believe Chief Turi was initially there, I said, “Listen, I was just at OEM. The message I was given was that the buildings are going to collapse; we need to get our people out.” At that moment, this thunderous, rolling roar came down and that’s when the building came down, the first tower came down.

– Interview, New York Times

Numerous emergency responders recall either having advanced knowledge or receiving warnings that WTC 7 would collapse. At least 26 such accounts can be found in the ‘oral histories’ — transcripts of interviews with F.D.N.Y. and E.M.S. responders recorded within 5 months of the attack.

WTC 7 Collapse Foreknowledge 

More than one television network prematurely reported the collapse of WTC 7. The BBC unequivocally reported the collapse starting about 23 minutes before it occurred. CNN made the announcement about an hour before the building collapsed. A review of archived footage of television stations in the Washington D.C. area shows that, of five stations including affiliates of ABCNBC, and CBS, only the BBC and CNN made premature announcements of the collapse, and those were separated by 35 minutes. This weighs against suggestions that the premature announcements reflect pre-written reports of the collapse posted on wire services. Live footage of the false reports can be seen at this link:

Premature Announcements on Television Broadcasts

Several high-ranking Pentagon officials, cousin of Former President G.W. Bush, San Fransisco Mayor Willie Brown, and a number of worthwhile business leaders managed to luckily avoid the disaster. Flights were canceled, meetings were moved, warnings were issued, and plans were changed to avoid flying or meeting at the World Trade Centers:

For 40 years prior to 9/11/01, a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) rule had allowed commercial airlines pilots to carry firearms in the cockpit. The rule was adopted in the wake of the 1961 Cuban Missile Crisis as a measure to prevent hijackings. Just two months before 9/11/01, the FAA rescinded the rule. According to Jon Dougherty, reporter, the FAA failed to return numerous calls requesting an explanation for the rule change. 

Armed pilots banned 2 months before 9-11

New York Newsday documented the removal of bomb-sniffing dogs just five days before the attack. This coupled with decreased security despite security warnings just weeks before.

- Funny Financials

There were several surprising moves in the stock of companies which would be affected by the 9/11 events, shortly before they commenced. Examination of options trading in the 10 days prior to the attack reveals distinct patterns. Large volumes of put (sell) options were purchased for companies that would be crippled by the attack, such as American Airlines and United Airlines, Merrill Lynch & Co., and Morgan Stanley.

Insider Trading Apparently Based on Foreknowledge of 9/11 Attacks 

Profiting From Disaster? 

Conversely, large volumes of call (buy) options were purchased for Raytheon, a defense contracting company whose stock would soar in the wake of the attack.

Bank of America among 38 stocks in SEC’s attack probe  Bloomberg News

Reports state that credit card transactions, which may have amounted to more than $100 million, were processed by computers in the Twin Towers in the minutes before the planes crashed on 9/11/01. Oddly enough, they weren’t traced to the “terrorists”.

Computer disk drives from WTC could yield clues 

The World Trade Center, whose construction began in the 1960s, was managed by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey through mid-2001. Then, just six weeks before the attack, control was transferred to a consortium of private companies led by Silverstein Properties, which secured insurance policies specifically covering terrorist attacks.

Controlling Interests: Ownership, Control, and Insurance of The World Trade Center 

On September 10, 2001, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld held a press conference to disclose that over $2,000,000,000,000 in Pentagon funds could not be accounted for. Rumsfeld stated: “According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions.” The ensuing “War on Terror” provided a platform to continue spending and keep the public mind occupied.

Much more to come.