Metal Gear & Mechwarrior are here

RE: America's Chemically Modified 21st Century Soldiers

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: The Man Common
Date: May 3, 2008 4:25 PM

America's Chemically Modified 21st Century Soldiers

By Clayton Dach

Go To Original

Amphetamines and the military first met somewhere in the fog of WWII, when axis and allied forces alike were issued speed tablets to head off fatigue on the battlefield.

More than 60 years later, the U.S. Air Force still doles out dextro-amphetamine to pilots whose duties do not afford them the luxury of sleep.

Through it all, it seems, the human body and its fleshy weaknesses keep getting in the way of warfare. Just as in the health clinics of the nation, the first waypoint in the military effort to redress these foibles is a pharmaceutical one. The catch is, we're really not that great at it. In the case of speed, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency itself notes a few unwanted snags like addiction, anxiety, aggression, paranoia and hallucinations. For side-effects like insomnia, the Air Force issues "no-go" pills like temazepam alongside its "go" pills. Psychosis, though, is a wee bit trickier.

Far from getting discouraged, the working consensus appears to be that we just haven't gotten the drugs right yet. In recent years, the U.S., the UK and France -- among others -- have reportedly been funding investigations into a new line-up of military performance enhancers. The bulk of these drugs are already familiar to us from the lists of substances banned by international sporting bodies, including the stimulant ephedrine, non-stimulant "wakefulness promoting agents" like modafinil (aka Provigil) and erythropoietin, used to improve endurance by boosting the production of red blood cells.

As the chemical interventions grow bolder and more sophisticated, we should not be surprised that some are beginning to cast their eyes beyond droopy eyelids and sore muscles. Chief among the new horizons is the alluring notion of psychological prophylactics: drugs used to pre-empt the often nasty effects of combat stress on soldiers, particularly that perennial veteran's bugaboo known as post-traumatic stress disorder syndrome. In the U.S., where roughly two-fifths of troops returning from combat deployments are presenting serious mental health problems, PTSD has gone political in form of the Psychological Kevlar Act, which would direct the Secretary of Defense to implement "preventive and early-intervention measures" to protect troops against "stress-related psychopathologies.

"

Proponents of the "Psychological Kevlar" approach to PTSD may have found a silver bullet in the form of propranolol, a 50-year-old beta-blocker used on-label to treat high blood pressure, and off-label as a stress-buster for performers and exam-takers. Ongoing psychiatric research has intriguingly suggested that a dose of propranolol, taken soon after a harrowing event, can suppress the victim's stress response and effectively block the physiological process that makes certain memories intense and intrusive. That the drug is cheap and well tolerated is icing on the cake.

Propranolol has already been dubbed the "mourning after pill," largely by those who argue that its military use amounts to medicating away pangs of conscience. For the time being, though, we can set aside our dystopian visions of zombies with guns, since the tranquilizing effects of beta-blockers are unlikely to permit their widespread use on the battlefield. But pharmacology moves more swiftly with each passing year -- especially when helped along by defense-research dollars -- and we may need to revive those visions sooner than we think.

The Mediated Soldier

In the new model army, brute force and viscera are out. Cutting edge gadgetry, omniscient surveillance and precision long-distance termination is in. What motivates it all is the type of war we fear we'll be fighting.

On this, the strategists have spoken: with Iraq and Afghanistan as the testing grounds, the conflicts of the future will be guerrilla wars, open-ended, with no battle lines, no rules of engagement and ambivalent or openly hostile civilian populations in which any man, woman or child can turn combatant.

In breeding a future soldier for these future wars, we will inevitably leave behind the mere rectification of human weakness and enter into the realm of the superhuman. Glimpses of this realm have already become commonplace in the form of ceramic-Kevlar body armor and night-vision goggles -- wizardry that transforms squishy pink men into bullet-proof creatures of the night.

Such magic will continue apace under the auspices of dozens of military development initiatives across the globe, creating a species known variously as the Future Force Warrior by the U.S., FIST by the British Army, Félin by the French. All are merely the human components of broader visionary projects for what has been called "the army after next," the most noteworthy of which being the U.S. Army's Future Combat Systems. With a budget clocking in at $160 billion or so, FCS is not just one of history's most costly weapons programs; it is an all-encompassing modernization program, one that will usher in a total re-imagining of the armed forces. What FCS and its kin have imagined for soldiers is a battlefield experience increasingly mediated by technology, insulated in a cocoon of "force multipliers" -- military parlance for anything that allows you to accomplish more with fewer personnel. In concrete terms, that translates into an array of tools designed to enhance lethality and survivability: next-generation sidearms; headsets that provide live command and control, detailed geographic data and the ability to fire around corners; smart suits equipped with ultralight nanotech armor, micro-climate conditioning, real-time health monitoring and even automated medical care like CPR and drug delivery. Also on the docket are robotic exoskeletons that allow the soldiers wearing them to carry hundreds of pounds -- even while running -- without breaking a sweat, as well as handheld imaging equipment that grants the ability to see targets through walls.

None of these are sci-fi pipe dreams. The DARPA-developed Radar Scope is already in limited deployment, detecting human breathing through a foot of concrete on two AA batteries. Utah-based robotics company Sarcos is expected to deliver its prototype exoskeletons to the Army this year, at roughly the same time that many of the other Future Force Warrior components begin field testing. Full-scale production of a number of the systems is scheduled for early in the next decade.

The Absent Soldier

It is tempting to say that military technology is steadily transforming war into a video game. Yet there's a strange irony in the works: as the games claw themselves even closer to the look and feel of real, down-and-dirty warfare, real warfare is fluttering away into strategic and technological abstraction, effectively taking a step back from its own reality.

For all the PlayStation sexiness of the ultra lethal, force-multiplied warrior, the true fate of the in-the-flesh soldier is to vanish into the abstraction.

The explicit purpose of Future Combat Systems is to progressively supplement, to the point of ultimately displacing, the human soldier with a whole array of automated, autonomous and remote technologies -- things like unmanned surveillance drones, long-range and non-line-of-sight precision-guided munitions, and unmanned air and ground combat vehicles. Though the latter group may never look anything like Schwarzenegger minus skin, make no mistake that what we are talking about here is weaponized robots.

An oft-quoted U.S. Joint Forces Command study from 2003 (rather candidly titled Unmanned Effects: Taking the Human Out of the Loop) predicted that autonomous, networked robots -- faster and more lethal than human combatants -- could become the norm by 2025. That may prove overly confident, but a congressional mandate has already called for one-third of all U.S. military land vehicles to be unmanned by 2015, increasing to two-thirds by 2025.

If the idea of autonomous, homicidal robots dashing into troubled Third-World slums sends a major chill down your spine, you're certainly not alone. Well aware of the nightmarish optics, defense contractors and military brass alike have been presenting a united front, noting that this is about moving soldiers out of harm's way, not about deleting humans from the "kill chain" entirely.

While there is little doubt that protecting soldiers is the central motivation, shifting troops into a distant pixel-pushing role also performs a secondary purpose: it neatly removes obstacles for those looking to wage war overseas while expending as little of their domestic political capital as possible. You can call it a by-product, or you can call it an ulterior motive, depending upon how dismal your outlook is.

Whatever the reasons, as we lose ourselves in the lovely fantasy of sidestepping the maimed veterans and crying widows, we could be walking right into an even nastier pile of shit. During the bombing campaign that accompanied the 2003 coalition invasion of Iraq, satellite-guided munitions caused scores of accidental civilian deaths. If these people had perished at the barrel of coalition rifles, their deaths would have been called massacres; as it stands, they are mere technical glitches and failures of intelligence.

The moral here is straightforward: once the human presence in the kill chain is diluted, so too is accountability. The future's soldier could be one surrounded by an inveigling haze of pharmaceuticals, decision-making robots, errant bombs and faulty surveillance data; the only thing to emerge from this haze will be an exhilarating sense of our own guiltlessness. Alas, the populations against which we use our fancy toys are unlikely to share in the feeling.

RE: Want 2 save $Thousands$ on Gasoline and improve Performance?

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Pan Man
Date: May 3, 2008 12:23 PM


http://pesn. com/2005/03/17/6900069_Acetone/
You are here: PureEnergySystems. com > News > March 17, 2005
Acetone In Fuel Said to Increase Mileage





Double Your Gas Mileage! 2X - video powered by Metacafe

Readily-available chemical added to gas tank in small proportion improves the fuel's ability to vaporize completely by reducing the surface tension that inhibits vaporization of some fuel droplets.






by Louis LaPointe
Adapted by Sterling D.

Allan and Mary-Sue Haliburton
with LaPointe's permission for Pure Energy Systems News

See also, Acetone Data • FAQ (includes possible negative effects)

Acetone (CH3COCH3) is a product that can be purchased inexpensively in most locations around the world, such as in the common hardware, auto parts, or drug store. Added to the fuel tank in tiny amounts, acetone aids in the vaporization of the gasoline or diesel, increasing fuel efficiency, engine longevity, and performance -- as well as reducing hydrocarbon emissions.



How it Works
Acetone
A colorless, volatile liquid with a sweet odor. It is considered the least toxic solvent in industry. It can occur naturally. It is used in the production of lubricating oils, chloroform, pharmaceuticals, pesticides, paints, varnishes and lacquers. If present in water, it is more likely to volatilize or biodegrade before bioaccumulating or adsorbing to sediments. Acetone will also readily volatilize and biodegrade in soil. It is also a common laboratory contaminant, so its presence in a sample does not always indicate its presence in the environment. Synonyms - Dimethylketone and 2-propanone.



-- Environmental Terms Glossary
(U.S.

Military)
Additive: changes the specifications of the base it is added to

Complete vaporization of fuel is far from perfect in today's cars and trucks. A certain amount of residual fuel in most engines remains liquid in the hot chamber. In order to be fully combusted, the fuel must be fully vaporized.



Surface tension presents an obstacle to vaporization. For instance the energy barrier from surface tension can sometimes force water to reach 300 degrees Fahrenheit before it vaporizes. Similarly with gasoline.



Acetone drastically reduces the surface tension. Most fuel molecules are sluggish with respect to their natural frequency. Acetone has an inherent molecular vibration that "stirs up" the fuel molecules, to break the surface tension. This results in a more complete vaporization with other factors remaining the same. More complete vaporization means less wasted fuel, hence the increased gas mileage from the increased thermal efficiency.



That excess fuel was formerly wasted past the rings or sent out the tailpipe but when mixed with acetone it gets burned, though the engine still thinks it is running straight gas.



Acetone allows gasoline to behave more like the ideal automotive fuel which is PROPANE. The degree of improved mileage depends on how much unburned fuel you are presently wasting. You might gain 15 to 35-percent better economy from the use of acetone. Sometimes even more.



How Much to Use

Add in tiny amounts from about one part per 5000 to one part per 3000, depending on the vehicle -- just a few ounces per ten gallons of gas. This comes to between 0.0003 % to 0.0025 % acetone maximum or approximately 1/15th of one-percent. Note that is around .78 cc per liter or one ounce per 10 gallons. Not more than three oz. per 10 gallons.



acetone.

jpg (13884 bytes)





Figure 1:
Percentage MILEAGE GAIN when a tiny amount of acetone is added to fuel. The curves A B C show the effect on three different cars using different gasolines. Some engines respond better than others to acetone. The D curve is for diesel fuel. Too much acetone decreases mileage slightly due to adding too much octane to the fuel. Too much additive would upset the mixture ratio because acetone (like alcohol) is a light molecule and tends to lean the mixture.



Metric Conversions
calculator
One fluid ounce (US) is equal to 29 milliliters. Ergo, a 100 ml. graduated cylinder would be a suitable choice for this project.



Ten gallons (US) = 40 liters
(As there are three zeroes after the decimal point before you get to any numerals, I think that can be ignored to make the numbers easier.

)

Note that the UK/Canada old imperial system is not the same as US imperial measurements:

* Gallons (UK)
A British imperial capacity measure (liquid or dry) equal to 4 quarts or 4.545 liters.


* Gallons (US)
United States liquid unit equal to 4 quarts or 3.785 liters.



-- Mary-Sue Haliburton, PESN

After you first find the best gasoline in your area, then try the acetone amount for your car per ten gallons, and if you are happy with your newfound mileage, you might want to try stopping the use of acetone for a couple of tanks. Watch the drop in mileage. It will amaze you. That reverse technique is one of the biggest eye openers concerning the use of acetone in fuel.



In a 10-gallon tank of gasoline, use one to three ounces of pure acetone to obtain excellent mileage improvements. In a ten-gallon tank of diesel fuel, use from 1 to 2 ounces of acetone. Performance goes up too. Use about a half-teaspoon of acetone in the fuel tank of a 4-cycle lawnmower or snowblower. Or you can apply it with an eyedropper.



Where to Get Acetone

The pure acetone label is the only additive suggested and is easily available from most drug stores in 16-ounce plastic bottles and in one-gallon containers from some large fleet farm supply stores. But any acetone source is better than none. Containers labeled acetone from a hardware store are usually okay and pure enough to put in your fuel. We prefer cans or bottles that say 100-percent pure. The acetone in gallons or pints we get from Fleet Farm are labeled 100 % pure. The bottles from Walgreen say 100 % pure. Never use solvents such as paint thinners or unknown stuff in your gas. Toluene, benzene and xylene have been okay if they are pure but may not raise mileage except when mixed with acetone. However the aromatics also raise octane.



Adding Acetone to Your Tank

When you fill up with fuel, note the number of gallons added, then calculate the right amount of acetone to add. Less is more. Remember all gasoline is different. Some will work better than others in the presence of acetone which is strictly a vaporization tool, rather than a fuel additive that alters combustion. The car computer still thinks it is running straight gasoline. None of your settings are altered. None of your engine parts are affected. Check out ScanGauge for an inexpensive MPG device.



Some stores sell acetone in metal cans of various sizes, which are safe to keep indoors. However, it is difficult to pour from these cans, which have a flat top and short neck from which spillage is inevitable. In any case, while handling acetone, you should be wearing rubber gloves.



One option is to get a small graduated cylinder (available from science supplies store or some pharmacies). The small ones have larger intervals between markings so that it is easier to fill them to the level desired. The narrow cylinder can be held to the neck of the can to catch all drips. Then from the cylinder you can pour neatly into the tank. The small pouring spout suitable for laboratories prevents drips onto the paint.



Being etched with neat lines at each milliliter, these graduated cylinders are also good for measuring precise amounts -- in ounces or milliliters.



Additional Benefits

In addition to increased mileage acetone added to fuel boasts other benefits such as increased power, engine life, and performance. Less unburned fuel going past the rings keeps the rings and engine oil in far better condition.



A tiny bit of acetone in diesel fuel can stop the black smoke when the rack is all the way at full throttle. You will notice that the exhaust soot will be greatly reduced and your truck or car runs smoother.



Acetone can reduce hydrocarbon emissions up to 60 percent. In some older cars, the HC readings with acetone in a 1986 GMC went from 440 PPM to 195, as just one example. Though mileage gains taper off with too much acetone, hydrocarbon emissions are nevertheless greatly reduced. Pure acetone is an extremely clean burning fuel that burns in air with a pretty blue, smokeless flame.



Acetone reduces the formation of water-ice crystals in below-zero weather which can damage the fuel filter. Change that fuel filter every year to protect injectors.



There are no known bad effects and every good reason to use acetone in your fuel. I have never seen a problem with acetone, and I have used ACETONE in gasoline and diesel fuel and in jet fuel (JP-4) for 50 years. I have rigorously tested fuels independently (with burns all over me) and am considered an authority on this important subject.



Cautions
Acetone and Your Engine
Acetone is known to deteriorate cheap plastics and other substances. While the components in a car's fuel system should be of high quality, and thus immune to any deleterious effects from exposure to acetone, be aware that "ideal" is not always the case in practice. Be advised that not all systems have been tested against acetone. Until such thorough testing has been accomplished and certified by a accredited authority, you assume your own liability for experimentally testing acetone in your particular system.



Keep acetone away from painted surfaces, such as the paint on your car under the gas tank opening. Acetone is the key ingredient in paint remover. In addition to paint, fuels, including acetone, gasoline alone can also dissolve asphalt and most plastics.



Never allow skin contact with it. It may damage clothing as well. Don't breathe it. Keep children away from all dangerous chemicals. Read the directions on the container.



Acetone is a highly flammable liquid, as is gasoline. Do not expose it near a flame or spark. Acetone should be stored outside, with proper ventilation, not inside your house. Gasoline and/or acetone will dissolve cheap plastics, so be sure the container you store it in will not deteriorate. Read all the precautions on the labels.



No Issues with the Engine Parts

I have soaked carburetor parts in acetone for months and even years to see if there is any deterioration. Any parts made to run with gasoline will work with acetone just fine. I presently have parts soaking in 1, 2, 5, and 10 % acetone/gasoline mixes as well as just gasoline. That is 20 to 200 times too much just to be sure. The 30R7 rated parts are in perfect condition. All my tests have been run with Texaco gasoline. I tested the gas stations in my area to FIRST find the best gasoline BEFORE putting acetone in the tank. But I have no idea from a pragmatic view what other gasolines do except that when I attempt to use them, my MPG drops like a rock. So for purely monetary reasons, I run the best available gasoline. When my dyno is built this summer, I will test all the gasolines in my area and publish the results on the web. I hear from engineers out West that Chevron gas is very good. I used it and it was fine during trips to California. I attach more credence to engineers who report things of interest to me because of their training and knowledge of testing methods. You may want to look up Science and Testing Methods in my site.



Contrast with Alcohol

In contrast, alcohol has been shown to be corrosive in an engine, yet they put THAT into gasoline. Alcohol in general is anti-mileage. Alcohol is no good in fuels. In Brazil, millions of engines and fuel systems were ruined by alcohol. Yet they are talking of doubling the amount of alcohol in gasoline.



Furthermore, alcohol increases surface tension, producing the opposite effect from acetone. Alcohol in fuel attracts water. This hurts mileage because water acts like a fire extinguisher. Some cars may run badly and even quit due to the incombustible nature of the water-laden fuel. We know of a dozen cars that recently stopped running due to water in the alcohol and gas mixture. In my Neon, it frequently has cut the MPG in half on trips when I take pot luck at the pump.



In below-zero weather, the water and alcohol can form abrasive, icy particles that may damage fuel pumps and clog injectors.



Has Not Been Warmly Received

Questions asked of someone in the petroleum industry regarding ACETONE will often automatically trigger a string of negative reactions and perhaps false assertions. We may have heard them all. The mere mention of this additive represents such a threat to oil profits that you may get fabricated denials against the successful use of acetone in fuels.



The author has never found any valid reason for not using acetone in gasoline or diesel fuel. Plus it takes such a tiny amount to work. No wonder they fear this additive.



Political Action

You might Email this article to your government representative. After sufficient data has been collected, and that data supports the conclusions presented here, ACETONE should be ordered by Federal Law to be present in all fuels. While you're at it, request that vehicles be equipped with a MPG read-out to make it easier for consumers to know what is and is not working to improve their mileage.



If You Want to Do Independent Testing

For those of you who like to see the data yourself, there is a great little device available to check your exact gas mileage and more. See ScanGauge for an instrument that fits any car 1996 or newer. And some 1995 models. It measures your real-time MPG, inlet and coolant temperatures and many more details as you drive. This inexpensive tool should end a lot of debate over what works for mileage and what does not. We use the TRIP function to average the MPG at a steady 50 MPH both ways.



Since the fuel from every gas station is different from the next, the MPG performance will also vary. Then there exist a wide variety of additive choices at the terminals that affect quality. Also other variables in the cars performance such as warm external temperature versus cold external temperature, using the AC or not, headlights or not, incline of drive, etc. Try to eliminate as many of these variable as possible in your comparative testing.



Be consistent where you buy your gasoline because different gasolines vary tremendously. The best gas and the worst gas in your neighborhood will likely have a 30-percent spread in mileage. Same for diesel fuel. In my experience with repeated test results, I found that Texaco, Chevron and Canadian Shell deliver excellent gasoline mileage. Try to keep down the number of variables wherever you gas up by using the same station, same pump, same grade or same octane before testing. This is important.



Incidentally, in almost all cases, the lowest octane is best for mileage. Most modern vehicles do not have high enough compression to justify using high octane fuels. The testing indicates best mileage is usually obtained with 85 or 87 octane gasoline. Too much octane causes a loss of power and economy. BUT too little octane causes the same things plus knocking. Listen carefully to your engine for tell-tale knocks or clicks when you start out from a light. The best mileage points to the correct octane when the engine is properly tuned. See your owners manual.



The ScanGauge enables you to notice differences and then check variations with and without acetone added in various proportions. Roughly 1/20 to 1/10 of one percent. On the dyno I never exceeded 1/4 of a percent. There was no point.



Report Your Findings

PES Network Inc. has created an index page at PESWiki where you can report your findings. PESWiki is a publicly editable website where you can post a summary of your results, or create a full page, with all the details you wish to report, with images and links to video or spreadsheet data.



Other Additives Exist

There are of course other additives that improve mileage (which also have had less than a favorable reception by the petroleum industry). Certain octane improvers for example also aid mileage. We recently proved that Carb Medic from Gunk can raise mileage when 3 oz. are used with 2 oz. of acetone per 10 gallons of gasoline, even in cold weather. Acetone seems to help cars start easier in winter.



Many products claiming to improve mileage are expensive and do not really help much. Others are fakes. For instance, a SMOOTH flow of air into a carburetor or injector is far better for mileage than turbulent air. Turbulence is bad. Yet many people deliberately introduce turbulent air into their engines. There are many silly myths floating around the car industry to fool the average person. Another is that cold intake air improves mileage. NO. Warm air improves mileage.



Test for yourself. Take a mileage check for each and every tank of gas or diesel fuel like we do. Your actual mileage is NOT that of a single tank full but the average of perhaps five tanks. To be accurate, you should not miss any checks. This takes discipline to get reliable results. Someday your car will do it for you with a factory MPG gauge on the dash. But for now, YOU ought to keep tabs on your mileage for all our sakes.



# # #

SOURCES

The above story was adapted with permission from a story reported at:
http://www. lubedev. com/smartgas/additive. htm
Follow-up

From: Louis LaPointe
March 19, 2005

Something that might be added:

In early 2004, a SmartGas reader in New York State filled three bottles with: pure acetone, part acetone/part gasoline and straight gasoline. Into these he placed O-rings, pump diaphragms, plastic fittings, hose parts and other neoprene/n-buna stuff. He duped my experiments from back in the 50s. Months later he told me the pure acetone bottle was slightly darkened and some vinyl parts swelled. Dave had carefully marked all the parts beforehand. He dried the parts to mike them again and noted after six months that the growth was about two-percent to five-percent in the bottles with gasoline, which was well within limits. Almost unnoticeable. He put the stuff back into the respective bottles where it may still be today. Dave has a background in physics and engineering. I suggest testing parts as mentioned above, in 1, 2, 5, and 10 % mixes of gasoline and acetone. This is up to 200 times more concentrated than what we use in real life. No sense being ridiculous.



He believes that everyone should do their own testing and not listen to the prejudiced opinions or words of others. There is way too much misinformation out there.



When using acetone, I often add one of several other mileage additives into my 16 oz. Walgreen's plastic acetone bottle which stays in the trunk so as not to carry a large quantity container in case I get rear-ended. I am building a dyno facility to further test all the mileage additives and get perfect mixture figures to appear on the site this summer, I hope. Meanwhile the ScanGauge is being used daily by numerous persons across the U.S. running acetone and various carefully devised mixes and lubricants. Some oils can improve mileage substantially, notably Torco Oil.



Using the ScanGauge at 50MPH, my best mileage was 48-52 in my Neon a few weeks ago. Then I stopped the acetone to do some reverse testing. The next four tanks of the same Texaco gas showed 42-43, 37-38, 33-34, 30-31. No acetone when each tank was filled at half-full. The drop was about 20 MPG overall. Recent tests at a steady 50 MPH show 61-63 MPG in the Neon. People report OVER 62 MPG in Toyota Prius vehicles with a tiny bit of acetone in the gas. The other person with me each time wrote down the results. Single source reporting is not a good idea.



Clear thinking guys want us to get off the Middle Eastern Oil. It is a national crisis. But to confirm this specific additive takes procedural knowledge, not undisciplined views or flash opinions. That makes engineers the best source of information of what goes on out there. The less controversy the better, if possible.



I finished a science article on the SmartGas. net site--how to go about testing. It concerns induction and the Scientific Method.



Thanks to all, Lou LaPointe

RE: just Try and call THESE people CONSPIRACY THEORIST!

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Portland 911 Truth
Date: May 3, 2008 12:53 PM


----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: All my HEROES have FBI Files
Date: May 3, 2008 9:29 AM




----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: 911 TRUTH Bronx NYC
Date: Dec 7, 2007 10:39 AM


----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: 911TruthNY / WeAreChange
Date: Dec 7, 2007 1:32 PM


Thanks Brian - InfoWarrior
Date: Dec 7, 2007 10:30 AM


Digg this article!!!




The following people question the government's version of 9/11 (are they credible or not?):

MILITARY LEADERS

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan (Col. Ronald D.



Ray) said that the official story of 9/11 is "the dog that doesn't hunt" (bio)

Director of the U.S. "Star Wars" space defense program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, who was a senior air force colonel who flew 101 combat missions (Col. Robert Bowman) stated that 9/11 was an inside job.



He also said:

"If our government had merely [done] nothing, and I say that as an old interceptor pilot--I know the drill, I know what it takes, I know how long it takes, I know what the procedures are, I know what they were, and I know what they--ve changed them to--if our government had merely done nothing, and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of 9/11, the Twin Towers would still be standing and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive.



[T]hat is treason!"

U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director, decorated with the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal (Capt.



Daniel Davis) stated:

"there is no way that an aircraft . . . would not be intercepted when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders, or stop communication with Air Traffic Control ... Attempts to obscure facts by calling them a 'conspiracy Theory' does not change the truth. It seems, 'Something is rotten in the State.



' "

President of the U.S. Air Force Accident Investigation Board, who also served as Pentagon Weapons Requirement Officer and as a member of the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review, and who was awarded Distinguished Flying Crosses for Heroism, four Air Medals, four Meritorious Service Medals, and nine Aerial Achievement Medals (Lt. Col.



Jeff Latas) is a member of a group which doubts the government's version of 9/11

U.S. General, Commanding General of U.S. European Command and Supreme Allied Commander Europe, decorated with the Bronze Star, Silver Star, and Purple Heart (General Wesley Clark) said "We've never finished the investigation of 9/11 and whether the administration actually misused the intelligence information it had. The evidence seems pretty clear to me. I've seen that for a long time.



"

Air Force Colonel and key Pentagon official (Lt.



Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski) finds various aspects of 9/11 suspicious

Lieutenant colonel, 24-year Air Force career, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs at the Defense Language Institute (Lt. Colonel Steve Butler) said "Of course Bush knew about the impending attacks on America. He did nothing to warn the American people because he needed this war on terrorism.



"

Two-Star general (Major General Albert Stubbelbine) questions the attack on the Pentagon

U.S. Air Force fighter pilot, former instructor at the USAF Fighter Weapons School and NATO--s Tactical Leadership Program, with a 20-year Air Force career (Lt. Colonel Guy S.



Razer) said the following:

"I am 100% convinced that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were planned, organized, and committed by treasonous perpetrators that have infiltrated the highest levels of our government ....

Those of us in the military took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". Just because we have retired does not make that oath invalid, so it is not just our responsibility, it is our duty to expose the real perpetrators of 9/11 and bring them to justice, no matter how hard it is, how long it takes, or how much we have to suffer to do it.





We owe it to those who have gone before us who executed that same oath, and who are doing the same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. Those of us who joined the military and faithfully executed orders that were given us had to trust our leaders.



The violation and abuse of that trust is not only heinous, but ultimately the most accurate definition of treason!"

U.S. Marine Corps lieutenant colonel, a fighter pilot with over 300 combat missions flown and a 21-year Marine Corps career (Lt. Colonel Shelton F.



Lankford) believes that 9/11 was an inside job, and said:

"This isn't about party, it isn't about Bush Bashing. It's about our country, our constitution, and our future. ...

Your countrymen have been murdered and the more you delve into it the more it looks as though they were murdered by our government, who used it as an excuse to murder other people thousands of miles away.





If you ridicule others who have sincere doubts and who know factual information that directly contradicts the official report and who want explanations from those who hold the keys to our government, and have motive, means, and opportunity to pull off a 9/11, but you are too lazy or fearful, or ... to check into the facts yourself, what does that make you? ....

Are you afraid that you will learn the truth and you can't handle it? ..."

U.S. Navy 'Top Gun' pilot (Commander Ralph Kolstad) who questions the official account of 9/11 and is calling for a new investigation, says "When one starts using his own mind, and not what one was told, there is very little to believe in the official story".





The Group Director on matters of national security in the U.S.



Government Accountability Office said that President Bush did not respond to unprecedented warnings of the 9/11 disaster and conducted a massive cover-up instead of accepting responsibility

Additionally, numerous military leaders from allied governments have questioned 9/11, such as:

Canadian Minister of Defense, the top military leader of Canada (Paul Hellyer)

Assistant German Defense Minister (Andreas Von Bulow)

Commander-in-chief of the Russian Navy (Anatoli Kornukov)

Chief of staff of the Russian armed forces (General Leonid Ivashov)

INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONALS

Former military analyst and famed whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg recently said that the case of a certain 9/11 whistleblower is "far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers". He also said that the government is ordering the media to cover up her allegations about 9/11. And he said that some of the claims concerning government involvement in 9/11 are credible, that "very serious questions have been raised about what they [U.S. government officials] knew beforehand and how much involvement there might have been", that engineering 9/11 would not be humanly or psychologically beyond the scope of the current administration, and that there's enough evidence to justify a new, "hard-hitting" investigation into 9/11 with subpoenas and testimony taken under oath.





A 27-year CIA veteran, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates and personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials (Raymond McGovern) said --I think at simplest terms, there--s a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke--, and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job.





A 29-year CIA veteran, former National Intelligence Officer (NIO) and former Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis (William Bill Christison) said --I now think there is persuasive evidence that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. ... All three [buildings that were destroyed in the World Trade Center] were most probably destroyed by controlled demolition charges placed in the buildings before 9/11." (and see this).





20-year Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer, the second-ranking civilian in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence, and former CIA clandestine services case officer (David Steele) stated that "9/11 was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war", and it was probably an inside job (see Customer Review dated October 7, 2006).





A decorated 20-year CIA veteran, who Pulitzer-Prize winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh called "perhaps the best on-the-ground field officer in the Middle East--, and whose astounding career formed the script for the Academy Award winning motion picture Syriana (Robert Baer) said that"the evidence points at" 9/11 having had aspects of being an inside job .





The Division Chief of the CIA--s Office of Soviet Affairs, who served as Senior Analyst from 1966 - 1990. He also served as Professor of International Security at the National War College from 1986 - 2004 (Melvin Goodman) said "The final [9/11 Commission] report is ultimately a coverup.



"

Professor of History and International Relations, University of Maryland. Former Executive Assistant to the Director of the National Security Agency. Former military attach-- in China. 21-year career in U.S. Army Intelligence (Major John M. Newman, PhD, U.S.



Army)
questions the government's version of the events of 9/11.





The head of all U.S.



intelligence, the Director of National Intelligence (Mike McConnel) said "9/11 should have and could have been prevented"

9/11 COMMISSIONERS

The 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials lied to the Commission, and considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements, yet didn't bother to tell the American people (free subscription required).





Indeed, the co-chairs of the Commission (Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton) now admit that the Commission largely operated based upon political considerations.





9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says "I don't believe for a minute we got everything right", that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only "the first draft" of history.





9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that "There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn't have access . . . .



"

9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said "We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting"

Former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: "It is a national scandal"; "This investigation is now compromised"; and "One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up".





The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) who led the 9/11 staff's inquiry, said "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described .... The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years.... This is not spin. This is not true.



"

SCIENTISTS

A prominent physicist with 33 years of service for the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, DC (Dr. David L.



Griscom) said that the official theory for why the Twin Towers and world trade center building 7 collapsed "does not match the available facts" and supports the theory that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition

A world-renowned scientist, recipient of the National Medal of Science, America's highest honor for scientific achievement (Dr.



Lynn Margulis) said:



"I suggest that those of us aware and concerned demand that the glaringly erroneous official account of 9/11 be dismissed as a fraud and a new, thorough, and impartial investigation be undertaken.



"

The former head of the Fire Science Division of the government agency which claims that the World Trade Centers collapsed due to fire (the National Institute of Standards and Technology), who is one of the world--s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering (Dr. James Quintiere), called for an independent review of the World Trade Center Twin Tower collapse investigation. "I wish that there would be a peer review of this," he said, referring to the NIST investigation. "I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they've done; both structurally and from a fire point of view. ... I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable.



"

Former Director for Research, Director for Aeronautical Projects, and Flight Research Program Manager for NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center, who holds masters degrees in both physics and engineering (Dwain A.



Deets) says:



"The many visual images (massive structural members being hurled horizontally, huge pyroclastic clouds, etc.) leave no doubt in my mind explosives were involved [in the destruction of the World Trade Centers on 9/11].



''

A prominent physicist, former U.S. professor of physics from a top university, and a former principal investigator for the U.S. Department of Energy, Division of Advanced Energy Projects (Dr. Steven E.



Jones) stated that the world trade centers were brought down by controlled demolition

A U.S. physics professor who teaches at several universities (Dr.



Crockett Grabbe) believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down by controlled demolition

An expert on demolition (Bent Lund) said that the trade centers were brought down with explosives (in Danish)

A Dutch demolition expert (Danny Jowenko) stated that WTC 7 was imploded

A safety engineer and accident analyst for the Finnish National Safety Technology Authority (Dr. Heikki Kurttila) stated regarding WTC 7 that "The great speed of the collapse and the low value of the resistance factor strongly suggest controlled demolition.



"

A 13-year professor of metallurgical engineering at a U.S. university, with a PhD in materials engineering, a former Congressional Office of Technology Assessment Senior Staff Member (Dr. Joel S.



Hirschhorn), is calling for a new investigation of 9/11

A Danish professor of chemistry (Dr. Niels Harrit) said, in a mainstream Danish newspaper, "WTC7 collapsed exactly like a house of cards. If the fires or damage in one corner had played a decisive role, the building would have fallen in that direction.



You don't have to be a woodcutter to grasp this" (translated)

A former guidance systems engineer for Polaris and Trident missiles and professor emeritus, mathematics and computer science at a university concluded (Dr. Bruce R. Henry) that the Twin Towers "were brought down by planted explosives.



"

A professor of mathematics (Gary Welz) said "The official explanation that I've heard doesn't make sense because it doesn't explain why I heard and felt an explosion before the South Tower fell and why the concrete was pulverized"

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS

A prominent engineer with 55 years experience, in charge of the design of hundreds of major building projects including high rise offices, former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission and former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council (Marx Ayres) believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down by controlled demolition (see also this)

Two professors of structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr.



Hugo Bachmann) said that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition (translation here)

Charles Pegelow, structural engineer, of Houston, Texas (and see this)

Dennis Kollar, structural engineer, of West Bend, Wisconsin

Doyle Winterton, structural engineer (retired)

Haluk Akol, Structural Engineer and architect (ret.



)

William Rice, P.E.



, structural engineer, former professor of Vermont Technical College

An architect, member of the American Institute of Architects, who has been a practicing architect for 20 years and has been responsible for the production of construction documents for numerous steel-framed and fire-protected buildings for uses in many different areas, including education, civic, rapid transit and industrial use (Richard Gage) disputes the claim that fire and airplane damage brought down the World Trade Centers and believes there is strong evidence of controlled demolition (many other architects who question 9/11 are listed here)

LEGAL SCHOLARS

Former Federal Prosecutor, Office of Special Investigations, U.S. Department of Justice under Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan; former U.S. Army Intelligence officer, and currently a widely-sought media commentator on terrorism and intelligence services (John Loftus) questions the government's version of 9/11.





Former Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation; former Professor of Aviation, Dept. of Aerospace Engineering and Aviation and Professor of Public Policy, Ohio State University (Mary Schiavo) questions the government's version of 9/11.





Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois, Champaign; a leading practitioner and advocate of international law; responsible for drafting the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, the American implementing legislation for the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention; served on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International (1988-1992), and represented Bosnia- Herzegovina at the World Court, with a Doctor of Law Magna Cum Laude as well as a Ph.D. in Political Science, both from Harvard University (Dr. Francis Boyle) questions the government's version of 9/11.





Former prosecutor in the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section of the U.S. Justice Department and a key member of Attorney General Bobby Kennedy--s anti-corruption task force; former assistant U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois (J. Terrence "Terry" Brunner) questions the government's version of 9/11.





Professor Emeritus, International Law, Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Princeton University; in 2001 served on the three-person UN Commission on Human Rights for the Palestine Territories, and previously, on the Independent International Commission on Kosovo (Richard Falk) questions the government's version of 9/11.





Bessie Dutton Murray Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus and Director, Center for Human Rights, University of Iowa; Fellow, World Academy of Art and Science. Honorary Editor, Board of Editors, American Journal of International Law (Burns H. Weston) questions the government's version of 9/11.





Former president of the National Lawyers Guild (C. Peter Erlinder), who signed a petition calling for a real investigation into 9/11. And see petition.





Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice at Troy University; associate General Counsel, National Association of Federal Agents; Retired Agent in Charge, Internal Affairs, U.S. Customs, responsible for the internal integrity and security for areas encompassing nine states and two foreign locations; former Federal Sky Marshall; 27-year U.S. Customs career (Mark Conrad) questions the government's version of 9/11.





Professor of Law, University of Freiburg; former Minister of Justice of West Germany (Horst Ehmke) questions the government's version of 9/11.





Director of Academic Programs, Institute for Policy and Economic Development, University of Texas, El Paso, specializing in executive branch secrecy policy, governmental abuse, and law and bureaucracy; former U.S. Army Signals Intelligence officer; author of several books on law and political theory (Dr. William G. Weaver) questions the government's version of 9/11.





Famed trial attorney (Gerry Spence) questions the government's version of 9/11.





Former Instructor of Criminal Trial Practice, Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California at Berkeley 11-year teaching career.



Retired Chief Assistant Public Defender, Contra Costa County, California 31-year career (William Veale) said:

"When you grow up in the United States, there are some bedrock principles that require concerted effort to discard. One is the simplest: that our leaders are good and decent people whose efforts may occasionally warrant criticism but never because of malice or venality... But one grows up. ... And with the lawyer's training comes the reliance on evidence and the facts that persuade... After a lot of reading, thought, study, and commiseration, I have come to the conclusion that the attacks of 9/11 were, in their essence, an inside job perpetrated at the highest levels of the U S government.



"

MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Current U.S. Senator (Patrick Leahy) states "The two questions that the congress will not ask . . .



is why did 9/11 happen on George Bush's watch when he had clear warnings that it was going to happen? Why did they allow it to happen?"

Current Republican Congressman (Ron Paul) states that "we see the [9/11] investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on"

Current Democratic Congressman (Dennis Kucinich) hints that we aren't being told the truth about 9/11

Former Democratic Senator (Mike Gravel) states that he supports a new 9/11 investigation and that we don't know the truth about 9/11

Former U.S. Republican Congressman and senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, and who served six years as the Chairman of the Military Research and Development Subcommittee (Curt Weldon) has shown that the U.S.



tracked hijackers before 9/11, is open to hearing information about explosives in the Twin Towers, and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job

FAMILY MEMBERS AND HEROIC FIRST RESPONDERS

A common criticism of those who question 9/11 is that they are being "disrespectful to the victims and their families".





However, half of the victim's families believe that 9/11 was an inside job (according to the head of the largest 9/11 family group, Bill Doyle) (and listen to this interview). Many family and friends of victims not only support the search for 9/11 truth, but they demand it (please ignore the partisan tone). See also this interview.





Indeed, it has now become so clear that the 9/11 Commission was a whitewash that the same 9/11 widows who called for the creation of the 9/11 Commission are now demanding a NEW investigation (see also this video).





And dying heroes, soon-to-be victims themselves, the first responders who worked tirelessly to save lives on and after 9/11, say that controlled demolition brought down the Twin Towers and that a real investigation is necessary.





PSYCHIATRISTS AND PSYCHOLOGISTS

Finally, those who attack people who question the government's version of 9/11 as "crazy" may wish to review the list of mental health professionals who have concluded that the official version of 9/11 is false:

Psychiatrist Carol S.



Wolman, MD

Psychiatrist E.



Martin Schotz

Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, as well as Radiology, at Duke University Medical Center D. Lawrence Burk, Jr.



, MD

Board of Governors Distinguished Service Professor of Psychology and Associate Dean of the Graduate School at Ruters University Barry R.



Komisaruk

Professor of Psychology at University of New Hampshire William Woodward

Professor of Psychology at University of Essex Philip Cozzolino

Professor of Psychology at Goddard College Catherine Lowther

Professor Emeritus of Psychology at California Institute of Integral Studies Ralph Metzner

Professor of Psychology at Rhodes University Mike Earl-Taylor

Retired Professor of Psychology at Oxford University Graham Harris

Ph.D.



in Clinical Psychology from the University of Nebraska and licensed Psychologist Ronald Feintech

Ph.D.



Clinical Neuropsychologist Richard Welser

THOUSANDS OF OTHERS

Here are a few additional people:

The former director of the FBI (Louis Freeh) says there was a cover up by the 9/11 Commission

Former air traffic controller, who knows the flight corridor which the two planes which hit the Twin Towers flew "like the back of my hand" and who handled two actual hijackings (Robin Hordon) says that 9/11 could not have occurred as the government says, and that planes can be tracked on radar even when their transponders are turned off (also, listen to this interview)

Perhaps "the premiere collapse expert in the country", who 9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer referred to as a "very, very respected expert on building collapse", the head of the New York Fire Department's Special Operations Command and the most highly decorated firefighter in its NYFD history, who had previously "commanded rescue operations at many difficult and complex disasters, including the Oklahoma City Bombing, the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing, and many natural disasters worldwide" thought that the collapse of the South Tower was caused by bombs, because the collapse of the building was too even to have been caused by anything else (pages 5-6).





Former Deputy Secretary for Intelligence and Warning under Nixon, Ford, and Carter (Morton Goulder), former former Deputy Director to the White House Task Force on Terrorism (Edward L. Peck), and former US Department of State Foreign Service Officer (J.



Michael Springmann), as well as a who's who of liberals and independents) jointly call for a new investigation into 9/11

Former FBI agent (Robert Wright) says "The FBI, rather than trying to prevent a terrorist attack, was merely gathering intelligence so they would know who to arrest when a terrorist attack occurred.



"

Former FBI translator, who the Department of Justice's Inspector General and several senators have called extremely credible (free subscription required) (Sibel Edmonds), said "If they were to do real investigations we would see several significant high level criminal prosecutions in this country. And that is something that they are not going to let out. And, believe me; they will do everything to cover this up". She also is leaning towards the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job.

Torrentspy has fallen by the way side and so have your rights. Even the "justice" of the case said you have no rights compared to the "nation." Without our rights the government has no right to do anything but by force. Welcome to the American police state. Is it no wonder that our country is now a feudalistic-fascist-monarchy with the people who we have to choose from being complete psychopathic megalomaniacs.

Enjoy your FEMA drills.


Friends of TorrentSpy,

We have decided on our own, not due to any court order or agreement, to bring the Torrentspy.com search engine to an end and thus we permanently closed down worldwide on March 24, 2008.

The legal climate in the USA for copyright, privacy of search requests, and links to torrent files in search results is simply too hostile. We spent the last two years, and hundreds of thousands of dollars, defending the rights of our users and ourselves.

Ultimately the Court demanded actions that in our view were inconsistent with our privacy policy, traditional court rules, and International law; therefore, we now feel compelled to provide the ultimate method of privacy protection for our users - permanent shutdown.

It was a wild ride,

The TorrentSpy Team

"Big Brother in the form of an increasingly powerful government and in an increasingly powerful private sector will pile the records high with reasons why privacy should give way to national security, to law and order [...] and the like." - Justice William O. Douglas