posted 04-22-2003 12:36 PM            

Guerrilla News is a great source. See PV..it's perfectly okay for ABC,CNN and FOX to make BILLIONS but if an INDEPENDENT tries to turn a profit to cover their costs....god forbid.
A sure sign of HYPOCRICY.

posted 04-23-2003 09:08 PM            

MOHAMED ATTA WORKED FOR ELITE U.S.—GERMAN GOVERNMENT EXCHANGE PROGRAM

posted 05-01-2003 01:59 PM            

The Secrets of September 11
The White House is battling to keep a report on the terror attacks secret. Does the 2004 election have anything to do with it?

NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE
http://www.msnbc.com/news/907379.asp?0cv=KA01&cp1=1

posted 05-01-2003 02:18 PM            

Unlike Graham, Goss insists there are no political “gotchas” in the report, only a large volume of important information about the performance and shortcomings of U.S. intelligence and law-enforcement agencies prior to September 11

posted 05-01-2003 05:50 PM            

To say that the WTC came down due to fire is to turn engineering on its head. Those buildings were BUILT to withstand a 707 impact.

The government did it. As a pretext for war.

posted 05-01-2003 06:41 PM            

it did not have to be hot enough to melt steel...just the weld...stick that in your pipe and smoke it...and I'll be happy to draw you a picture supporting this...

posted 05-01-2003 06:57 PM            

As for Seeker. Your theory doesn't wash with me or my refrences. Those buildings were SOLID and burned for an hour before they were blasted. NASA took sat. thermal images of the site. It was 2700 F under the rubble in the basement.

NO WAY is Jet fuel going to cause that. No damn way. No jet fuel burns that hot.

The molecular structure of those foundations were completely scrambled, which helped those buildings to fall down faster than gravity would allow.

Again, the government did it.

As a pretext for war.

An oil pipeline through Afganistan--which is now being built.

Huge increases in military spending.

Sicking a orwellian homeland security system on the U.S. population...

and on...

and on...

Ad nauseum

"A pearl-harbor type event may be needed"

posted 05-01-2003 07:08 PM            

Did you see, that in fact, the towers DID actually withstand the impact of the aircraft? The information gathered found that the jet fuel burned or melted as such the structure that it crumbled on it's self.

I probably should have looked what you said first.

How do you KNOW how hot jet fuel burns? You really don't, you THINK no jet fuel burns that hot.

posted 05-01-2003 07:20 PM            

A turbine engine running on Jet fuel at full tilt is only around 800F MAXIMUM, normally it's much less.

Nope...Jet fuel doesn't burn all that hot...not enough to destroy a building of that stature and engineering and ESPECIALLY...not BOTH of them.

Those buildings were most definately destroyed for a variety of reasons. Planes did not take them down as far as I am concerned.

They tried doing it in 93'. But the paid bomber parked the bomb away from the support structure. Didn't get the desired effect.

Better to plant the devices internally prior and let the "attacks" look like the reason.

Unfortunately...it worked.

Now we are seeing the opening salvo's of the illuminati's endgame.

This is not the Apex...this is only the beginning.

The next "attack" will be bigger...and Americans will be forced to give even more of their rights up.

"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."

posted 05-01-2003 10:33 PM            

The fire was set on July 30 with the jet fuel burning for about one hour, although combustible paper, cardboard, and wood in some containers continued to smolder more than a day. JP-8 fuel burns at temperatures up to 2,200 degrees F. Flames reached more than 30 feet high at times.

http://www.sandia.gov/media/firetest.htm

the case made by the below article is that combined with the heat from the fire and the massive amounts of air inflow to the fire created the hotter than normal conditions...(3500 degrees)

kinda what a bellows does there mechy boy...

Fuel to blame in World Trade Center collapse

Reggie Lualhati

The Daily Illini

Large amounts of burning fuel were the biggest factor in the World Trade Center towers' demise last Tuesday. The impact of the plane and subsequent fires caused a "pancake effect" — each floor collapsing on the next with increasing speed.

"What happened was an extraordinary chain of events," said Abbas Aminmansour, an assistant architecture professor.

He said the initial impact of the Boeing 767 only caused local damage because the building was designed to resist the impact of a Boeing 707, a smaller, older plane.

"If it weren't for the extreme fire, I believe that the towers would still be standing today," Aminmansour said, although he added the towers still would be seriously damaged and unsafe to enter, even if they were still standing.

The buildings were designed for a three-hour fire rating, which means the buildings could resist a fire up to three hours without serious structural damage. However, the ratings are associated with tests based on "ordinary" fires, not the degree involved in the Sept. 11 attack.

Herman Krier, professor in mechanical and industrial engineering, said an "ordinary" fire involves regular office furniture and materials burning and the fire-retardant material on the structures remaining intact.

Aminmansour said some of the fire-proof material on structure was either scraped or chipped off, directly exposing the steel to high temperatures and making it more vulnerable to failure.

Krier, who specializes in combustion research in aircraft and rocket propulsion, added that the fire was extraordinary because it entailed thousands of gallons of burning jet fuel. Because both planes taking off from the east coast were destined for the West Coast, they contained a lot of jet fuel. After the initial impact, jet fuel leaked into multiple floors, creating puddles of fuel.

"Time is the hunter," Krier said.

Different sources heated the standing fuel. As a result, the fire had a continuous fuel source and burned for a longer time — similar to the way a candle burns.

Krier said if a jet plane with a smaller quantity of the same jet fuel hit a tower, the fires wouldn't have lasted as long.

He added that a flame burning jet fuel and air generates an approximate temperature of 3,500 degrees Fahrenheit — "more intense than any fire code scenario."

Keith Hjelmstad, professor of civil and environmental engineering, said there was more oxygen — another element required in burning — because of the entrance hole created by the impact. He also speculated that the impact caused the fire doors to burst open, allowing an increased flow of oxygen.

The fire caused entire floors to fail, Hjelmstad said. This created a large amount of energy that was enough to destroy the floors below the initial point until the building was completely destroyed.

"It's like trying to stop a freight train ... once the mass gets moving, it's hard to stop," Hjelmstad said

posted 05-02-2003 07:06 AM            

Aviation Jet Fuel Information
AVIATION TURBINE FUEL (JET FUEL)

CIVIL JET FUELS

Aviation turbine fuels are used for powering jet and turbo-prop engined aircraft and are not to be confused with Avgas. Outside former communist areas, there are currently two main grades of turbine fuel in use in civil commercial aviation : Jet A-1 and Jet A, both are kerosine type fuels. There is another grade of jet fuel, Jet B which is a wide cut kerosine (a blend of gasoline and kerosine) but it is rarely used except in very cold climates.

JET A-1

Jet A-1 is a kerosine grade of fuel suitable for most turbine engined aircraft. It is produced to a stringent internationally agreed standard, has a flash point above 38°C (100°F) and a freeze point maximum of -47°C. It is widely available outside the U.S.A. Jet A-1 meets the requirements of British specification DEF STAN 91-91 (Jet A-1), (formerly DERD 2494 (AVTUR)), ASTM specification D1655 (Jet A-1) and IATA Guidance Material (Kerosine Type), NATO Code F-35.

JET A

Jet A is a similar kerosine type of fuel, produced to an ASTM specification and normally only available in the U.S.A. It has the same flash point as Jet A-1 but a higher freeze point maximum (-40°C). It is supplied against the ASTM D1655 (Jet A) specification.

JET B

Jet B is a distillate covering the naphtha and kerosine fractions. It can be used as an alternative to Jet A-1 but because it is more difficult to handle (higher flammability), there is only significant demand in very cold climates where its better cold weather performance is important. In Canada it is supplied against the Canadian Specification CAN/CGSB 3.23

MILITARY

JP-4

JP-4 is the military equivalent of Jet B with the addition of corrosion inhibitor and anti-icing additives; it meets the requirements of the U.S. Military Specification MIL-PRF-5624S Grade JP-4. JP-4 also meets the requirements of the British Specification DEF STAN 91-88 AVTAG/FSII (formerly DERD 2454),where FSII stands for Fuel Systems Icing Inhibitor. NATO Code F-40.

JP-5

JP-5 is a high flash point kerosine meeting the requirements of the U.S. Military Specification MIL-PRF-5624S Grade JP-5. JP-5 also meets the requirements of the British Specification DEF STAN 91-86 AVCAT/FSII (formerly DERD 2452). NATO Code F-44.

JP-8

JP-8 is the military equivalent of Jet A-1 with the addition of corrosion inhibitor and anti-icing additives; it meets the requirements of the U.S. Military Specification MIL-T-83188D. JP-8 also meets the requirements of the British Specification DEF STAN 91-87 AVTUR/FSII (formerly DERD 2453). NATO Code F-34.

AVIATION FUEL ADDITIVES

Aviation fuel additives are compounds added to the fuel in very small quantities, usually measurable only in parts per million, to provide special or improved qualities. The quantity to be added and approval for its use in various grades of fuel is strictly controlled by the appropriate specifications.

A few additives in common use are as follows:

1. Anti-knock additives reduce the tendency of gasoline to detonate. Tetra-ethyl lead (TEL) is the only approved anti-knock additive for aviation use and has been used in motor and aviation gasolines since the early 1930s.

2. Anti-oxidants prevent the formation of gum deposits on fuel system components caused by oxidation of the fuel in storage and also inhibit the formation of peroxide compounds in certain jet fuels.

3. Static dissipator additives reduce the hazardous effects of static electricity generated by movement of fuel through modern high flow-rate fuel transfer systems. Static dissipator additives do not reduce the need for `bonding' to ensure electrical continuity between metal components (e.g. aircraft and fuelling equipment) nor do they influence hazards from lightning strikes.

4. Corrosion inhibitors protect ferrous metals in fuel handling systems, such as pipelines and fuel storage tanks, from corrosion. Some corrosion inhibitors also improve the lubricating properties (lubricity) of certain jet fuels.

5. Fuel System Icing Inhibitors (Anti-icing additives) reduce the freezing point of water precipitated from jet fuels due to cooling at high altitudes and prevent the formation of ice crystals which restrict the flow of fuel to the engine. This type of additive does not affect the freezing point of the fuel itself. Anti-icing additives can also provide some protection against microbiological growth in jet fuel.

6. Metal de-activators suppress the catalytic effect which some metals, particularly copper, have on fuel oxidation.

7. Biocide additives are sometimes used to combat microbiological growths in jet fuel, often by direct addition to aircraft tanks; as indicated above some anti-icing additives appear to possess biocidal properties.

8. Thermal Stability Improver additives are sometimes used in military JP-8 fuel, to produce a grade referred to as JP-8+100, to inhibit deposit formation in the high temperature areas of the aircraft fuel system.

POWER BOOSTING FLUIDS

It used to be commonplace for large piston engines to require special fluids to increase their take-off power. Similar injection systems are also incorporated in some turbo-jet and turbo-prop engines. The power increase is achieved by cooling the air consumed, to raise its density and thereby increase the weight of air available for combustion. This effect can be obtained by using water alone but it is usual to inject a mixture of methanol and water to produce a greater degree of evaporative cooling and also to provide additional fuel energy.

For piston engines, methanol/water mixtures are used and these may have 1 percent of a corrosion inhibiting oil added. The injection system may be used to compensate for the power lost when operating under high temperature and/or high altitude conditions (i.e. with low air densities) or to obtain increased take-off power under normal atmospheric conditions, by permitting higher boost pressure for a short period.

Both water alone and methanol/water mixtures are used in gas turbine engines, principally to restore the take-off power (or thrust) lost when operating under low air density conditions. Use of a corrosion inhibitor in power boost fluids supplied for these engines is not permitted.

The methanol and water used must be of very high quality to avoid formation of engine deposits. The water must be either demineralised or distilled and the only adulterant permitted in the methanol is up to 0.5 per cent of pyridine if required by local regulations as a de-naturant. In the past there were several different grades of water/methanol mixtures, e.g. 45/55/0 for turbine engines, 50/50/0 for piston engines (this was also available with 1% corrosion inhibiting oil and was designated 50/50/1) and 60/40/0, however, with decreasing demand Shell now only supplies 45/55/0. The table shows the principal characteristics of Shell demineralised water and of the commonly used methanol/water blend.

From what I've seen, there is little difference between JetA-1 and JP-8.

Asked a friend who is the head of maintenance for a coporate jet company last night and he said the difference is negligable. They burn the same, HOT

posted 05-02-2003 09:45 AM            

The specific gravity of Jet A and JP-8 are different. Put that in the engine without some sort of adjustment to the fuel control and see how long you fly.

Jet A burns about 800F Maximum in a turbine engine...NOT 2700F Not hot enough to melt steel beams.No way. There is no way it could.

I attended (Required) aircraft firefighting at Mayport Naval air station in Florida and put out a Jet fuel fire myself. It was a giant pit filled with JP-5, in the center of it was a permenant METAL (steel) mock up aircraft, with metal much thinner than what was holding up the WTC. The fire does NOTHING to it...exept cause some burn marks and corrosion.NO WAY would a JP-5, JP-8 or Jet A fire bring those buildings down. No way, no how.

posted 05-02-2003 10:03 AM            

And Seeker, as for the "welds"....In welding, most of the time the weld ends up stronger than piece being welded.

posted 05-02-2003 11:23 AM            

fire grows and gets hotter with more air...how much air is up there at the 100th story level ?

I have to burn brush here all the time...do you have an inckling of why I don't burn brush on a windy day ?

you are ignoring facts in favor of ignorance which is your constitutional right...

btw dipshit, there is very little difference between jet-a and jp-8....

JP-8 is the military equivalent of Jet A-1

and according to the learning channel models the steel and the welds stretched some 3 feet before finally separating...

clearly, your stubborn inability to accept facts is most likely why your not a mechanic anymore...

sheesh

posted 05-02-2003 12:25 PM            

The building, while designed to take an impact of a large airplane (as it demonstrated), was not built to withstand the impact of a fully fueled bomb traveling at top speed like the 767. The resulting fire and its effect on weakening steel was not taken into account, at least to these temperatures. Remember, the WTC was basically an externally supported structure (an exo-skeleton basically), with a central core of elevator shafts (which provided a perfect system for pumping oxygen to a fire, btw).

When you take away some of that outside support structure, the building was designed to resist somewhat...but the heat of a jet fuel fire was not factored into the design. While steel will not burn, it will weaken, twist and distort under that level of heat. It weakened the remaining external support structure so much so that it eventually gave in to the weight of the remaining floors above. And as the floors started falling as the remaining external support started to buckle under the weight (with the aid of the fire softening the steel), the mass and speed of the falling debris quickly multiplied so that when the collapse started, the weight of the falling debris was so tremendous that the lower floors didn't stand a chance....

posted 05-02-2003 12:37 PM            

….this excerpt explains it better than I did…..

quote:

---

The conventional engineering approach for skyscrapers has normally been a lattice-like structure composed of steel posts and beams. Normally a concrete encased core contains the elevators, stairwells, and other plant systems. The office space surrounds this core, but is characterized by posts that can obstruct large open spaces to a greater or lesser extent. The World Trade Center design avoided the latter by having an outer shell of steel and an inner concrete core connected to each other by horizontal steel trusses for each floor. When the planes collided with the buildings, they essentially severed the concrete core, thus cutting off all the elevator shafts and stairwell accesses from the floors above to those below (with the exception of one stairwell in one of the towers). The fires that resulted, and further fed by the full loads of jet fuel on the planes, caused the floor trusses to bend and eventually separate from where they were connected to the central core and the outer shell. As one floor failed, it fell on the one below, resulting in a cascade of failed floors internally. Without this support between the steel shells and internal cores, the shells soon buckled and the entire buildings collapsed.

---

posted 05-02-2003 12:57 PM            

Ok what is a Daisy Cutter?

It's a fuel air bomb...

What is a fully fuelled 767 travelling at over 400 knots?

if not a fuel air bomb...

It's the perfect tool for the job. Who needs demolition explosives when you've got a 767 sized cruize missle with a MOAB warhead...(in effect) moving at over mach .8 (530 mph)?

posted 05-02-2003 02:20 PM            

glad your back F/W !

why is it all we here from mech is radio gaa gaa...radio goo goo...radio blah blah ?

posted 05-02-2003 02:40 PM            

Nope, the BUSH economy is why many aviation careers have been cut short. Plain and simple.

Don't expect it to change much either.

Plus, when the CIA allows planes to be flown into tall buildings in downtown Manhattan..its bound to hurt the industry.

Oh well...at least UNOCAL got their pipeline in Afganistan.

The PNAC got their "Pearl Harbor event".

"Lucky me...I hit the Trifecta."

GEORGE W. BUSH

posted 05-02-2003 02:52 PM            

when business does not work shut it down...start new...with new plans and faces...these government bailouts of airlines have to stop...throwing money at a problem does not solve it...

I'm a little sick of subsidizing something I never use...and for the record I wouldn't fly if you paid me...

just like fed ex and UPS they make money why can't the postal service...why...simple because they will always get bailed out when in the red...

the old government tit strikes again...

posted 05-02-2003 06:05 PM            

THE FINAL SECRET OF 9/11

April 28, 2003

Everything you've always wanted to know about 9/11 is 'classified' – and the Bushies want to keep it that way

How did 19 hijackers manage to decimate the Pentagon, destroy the World Trade Center, and plunge us into a war without end? That is the question we still don't have an answer to, two years after the worst terrorist attack in American history, and, if the Bush administration has anything to say about it – and they do – we won't have an answer any time soon. An 800-page report written by congressional investigators is being withheld from the American public, as Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball report in the current Newsweek, "including provocative, if unheeded warnings, given President Bush and his top advisers during the summer of 2001."

9/11 has been the rationale for a policy of perpetual war, the radical abridgement of our constitutionally-guaranteed liberties, and the barking chorus of television screamers who shout down all dissent as "treason." Yet Americans have no right to know how or why it happened. During ten months of probing by a joint House-Senate investigation headed by former prosecutor and Pentagon inspector general Eleanor Hill, staff members reviewed classified documents made available by U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies. They also interviewed field agents, spooks, and senior government officials. The Senate and House intelligence committees approved the report, but the White House insisted that it be "scrubbed" before being released – that is, cleansed of any hint that the attack might have been prevented.

As if to underscore the profound guilt at the core of their adamant obstructionism, administration officials are insisting that portions of the report detailing what is already widely known be "reclassified." The infamous "Phoenix memo" written by an FBI investigator warning of Al Qaeda-linked operatives enrolling in flight schools is now an official "secret," although it has been published and cited in media all over the world. In explaining this Orwellian maneuver, an administration spokesman summed up the neo-imperialist theory of "democratic" governance to a tee:

"Just because something had been inadvertently released, doesn't make it unclassified."

A few weeks ago, a federal goon squad invaded an Indian restaurant just off of Times Square, held everyone at gunpoint, and burst into the kitchen like Reno's Raiders at Waco. One of the restaurant's customers, Jason Halperin, an American citizen – like everyone in the place – was on his way to see a play with a friend. They had stopped for a quick bite to eat – but, as it turned out, they would miss curtain time. "You have no right to hold us," his friend said. The response of the goons, as reported by Halperin, was that they were being held under the authority GRANTED BY THE "PATRIOT ACT." When Halperin demanded to see a lawyer, the masks really came off:

"As I continued to press for legal counsel, a female officer who had been busy typing on her laptop in the front of the restaurant, walked over and put her finger in my face. 'We are at war, we are at war and this is for your safety,' she exclaimed. As she walked away from the table, she continued to repeat it to herself: 'We are at war, we are at war. How can they not understand this.'"

We are at war, but what was the provenance of the catalytic attack that launched it? How is it that the mightiest nation on earth, a country that spends tens of billions per year on intelligence-gathering, was taken so completely by surprise? In the period leading up to the attack, after all, numerous commissions had issued well-publicized reports warning of the terrorist threat – even naming Osama Bin Laden as the potential perpetrator. Even if we accept the official line that they attacked us because we're so wonderful, we have McDonald's and free elections and MTV, the nagging question remains: how did they manage to pull it off? The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, charged with coming up with the definitive report on 9/11, is having trouble getting the documents it needs. What does the Bush administration have to hide?

There has been "a cover-up," charges Senator Bob Graham, Florida Democrat. Sure, he's a presidential wannabe, but even before his somewhat quixotic bid for the White House was announced, Graham – chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee – was hinting at the dark secrets of 9/11. In an interview with Gwen Ifill of PBS about the content of this secret report, Graham said:

"Going back to your question about what was the greatest surprise. I agree with what Senator Shelby said the degree to which agencies were not communicating was certainly a surprise but also I was surprised at the evidence that there were foreign governments involved in facilitating the activities of at least some of the terrorists in the United States. I am stunned that we have not done a better job of pursuing that to determine if other terrorists received similar support and, even more important, if the infrastructure of a foreign government assisting terrorists still exists for the current generation of terrorists who are here planning the next plots."

This isn't some wacko who stands on a street corner handing out crudely printed pamphlets, but a U.S. Senator who is in a position to know – so why isn't attention being paid? It isn't the National Inquirer or the Weekly World News but the respected German weekly Die Zeit that reports the story of how Israel's Mossad intelligence agency was tracking the 9/11 hijackers around the clock in the weeks and days prior to the attacks:

"Everything indicates that the terrorists were constantly observed by the Israelis."

Two years ago this September, Fox News investigative reporter Carl Cameron told his audience:

"There is no indication that the Israelis were involved in the 9-11 attacks, but investigators suspect that the Israelis may have gathered intelligence about the attacks in advance, and not shared it. A highly placed investigator said there are 'tie-ins.' But when asked for details, he flatly refused to describe them, saying, 'evidence linking these Israelis to 9-11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information.'"

That's what they're telling us today when skeptics of the official story wonder how it could have happened: "Sorry, but that's classified information." The people of Iraq rifle through the files of the infamous Mukhabarat, yet we are denied access to vital government documents relating to the most important event of our times. Who is freer? In a curious inversion of the historical process, it looks like we're exporting "democracy" to Iraq – and importing totalitarianism to our own shores.

Senator Graham avers that foreign intelligence agencies are implicated not only in the financing but also in the execution of the hijackers' plans. Add to this the Isikoff-Hosenball revelations that our presidential helmsman was asleep at the wheel, and the political implications of the growing scandal are explosive. As Newsweek reports:

"One such CIA briefing, in July 2001, was particularly chilling and prophetic. It predicted that Osama bin Laden was about to launch a terrorist strike 'in the coming weeks,' the congressional investigators found. The intelligence briefing went on to say: 'The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities or interests. Attack preparations have been made. Attack will occur with little or no warning.'"

This sounds very much like the warning the Israelis claim to have issued in the summer of 2001, when an Israeli delegation of intelligence officials traveled to Washington. However, U.S. officials maintain that their warning was non-specific, except that the target was supposed to have been overseas. As to whether the Israelis, or the Americans, are covering up, is an open question. The answer is quite possibly both.

In any event, the President and other senior officials received that report, according to Newsweek, but since the list of recipients has been classified as "Top Secret," the Bushies are off the hook – for now. Another classified report given to Condoleezza Rice predicted attacks by Al Qaeda utilizing hijacked airliners, but it apparently only gathered dust on her desk.

Incompetence? If so, it's of the criminal variety. Complicity? Please don't tell me that "Bush knew" – that is the onanistic fantasy of the tinfoil hat brigade. But somebody knew, apart from Mohammed Atta & Co., or should have known. There is no question that the terrorists, in pulling off the 9/11 attacks, had access to some of this nation's most important secrets. New York Times columnist Bill Safire reported that, as the WTC went down in flames, the terrorists made it clear they had penetrated the inner defenses of White House security:

"A threatening message received by the Secret Service was relayed to the agents with the president that 'Air Force One is next.' According to the high official, American code words were used showing a knowledge of procedures that made the threat credible."

Safire swears this was told to him by Karl Rove, who said the President was going to go back to Washington until the Secret Service "informed him that the threat contained language that was evidence that the terrorists had knowledge of his procedures and whereabouts." As Safire put it:

"That knowledge of code words and presidential whereabouts and possession of secret procedures indicates that the terrorists may have a mole in the White House – that, or informants in the Secret Service, F.B.I., F.A.A. or C.I.A."

The deeper we get into what is already known, the more it seems like some formulaic thriller, with agents and double-agents operating in a clandestine world parallel to our own where the rules are repealed and everyone is a potential enemy. How can we possibly get through this dizzying maze of deliberate disinformation and tantalizing leaks without access to the intelligence gathered by our own officials, who supposedly serve at our behest? The answer is, we can't – so we'll just have to take the government's word for it, and accept the Official Story.

The lies – that is the worst aspect of the cursed age we are living in. The same government that lied us into war is now trying to stop us from getting at the truth about 9/11. Desperately, furiously, intransigently, they are fighting congressional investigators every step of the way before giving up even material that is already entered into the public record. That's how frightened they are. No doubt, they have good reason for their fear.