text:
^ Cover design by Logan Walters, who has been tearing up the Wu-Tang "remix" cover design projects for a minute.
Since Danger Mouse dropped The Grey Album, every DJ and their mother has been attempting to catch their first break off mashup projects. While some have been mediocre and listenable (see Sinatra x Biggie), most have been overt cases of shitting the bed completely, and have also succeeded in discrediting the mashup as a genre.
So when I first heard of this new project with The Wu and The Beatles, I dismissed it immediately. But, being the music addict I am, I decompressed that .rar file and gave it one full spin. And, man....this is DOPE. Unusual sample choices, banging drums, perfect pairing of Wu verses (how do you make your own beat to work with "Hey Dirtay, baby I got your money!"??...the most offbeat hook ever), and consistency all mark this project.
Composed entirely by Tom Caruana, a completely unknown 28-year-old music teacher and producer from Brighton, England—who thought nothing much would come of it—the album has already seen 30,000 direct downloads, praise from The New York Times, and a shotout on Raekwon's Twitter page claiming the album is "completely ill". I honestly wouldn't be surprised if this project gets this kid some serious work, if not with the Wu, then with some cats of similar caliber.
I don't even get/like The Beatles and have been bumping this nonstop since I got it.
Full album here.
WU-TANG x THE BEATLES - DAYTONA 500
WU-TANG x THE BEATLES - R.E.C. ROOM
Caruana is planning his next attack with a mashup album between Dr Dre and The Rolling Stones, inevitably influenced by this.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Magical Mystery Chambers
^ Cover design by Logan Walters, who has been tearing up the Wu-Tang "remix" cover design projects for a minute.
Posted by DUKES at 12:14 PM
2 comments:
- Merete Magnus Bröllop said...
Good stuff! Just found your blog, great to hear some good hiphop. You should have a pod cast, good hiphop these days are hard to find.
Keep up the good work!
found a mix tape about cops you might like.
- March 24, 2010 at 8:31 AM
- Graham I. Haynes said...
A friend of mine has been raving about this. Excited to pop it in the deck and give it a listen.
- July 31, 2010 at 3:16 PM


text:
Pope Francis (jorge mario bergoglio of argentina).
The choice of Bergoglio, who is the first Latin American and first Jesuit pope, was announced by French cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran with the Latin words "Annuntio vobis gaudium magnum. Habemus Papam" ("I announce to you a great joy. We have a pope.")
blue and pink striped sleeves (j.crew), brown pants (paddock's), brown snake skin belt (sm), brown and green boat shoes (prince), silver watch (jj's), assorted religious icons and cross bracelet (thrifted, korean)
Habemus Papam!

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Extreme Anti-Oxidant Supplement. SpectraMaxx® pulls nutrients from 40 fruits, vegetables and other natural ingredients and combines them with 74 essential trace minerals. We then added fulvic acid to help accelerate the body's ability to absorb this power-packed supplement. What we ended up with was a product that fills in the gaps of our modern diets by providing the broadest spectrum of antioxidants and trace minerals you'll find in a single bottle. We like to think of it as our megatonic. Give your body the best with SpectraMaxx®.
SpectraMaxx® will provide you maximum nutrients to replenish your body from top to bottom. We are a society faced with nutritional depletion and escalating toxicity. Our agricultural practices are aggressive and extensive, and ultimately what suffer are our soil and resultant crops.
Over the years, studies have demonstrated that compared to plants of only 50 years ago, what we eat today may have up to 75% fewer valuable nutrients. Let's look at a USDA evaluation of the declining nutritional content of Broccoli.
Table 1—Selected Nutrients in Broccoli
Broccoli—Nutritional Changes 1975-2010* (per 100 grams raw edible portion)
|103 mg
|47 mg
|Down 54.4%
|1.1 mg
|0.73 mg
|Down 33.6%
|Vitamin A
|Down 75.1%
|Vitamin C
|113 mg
|89.2 mg
|Down 21.1%
|0.10 mg
|0.07 mg
|Down 35%
|0.23 mg
|0.12 mg
|Down 47.8%
|0.9 mg
|0.64 mg
|Down 28.9%
* Source is USDA food composition tables
SpectraMaxx® is the ultimate super charged antioxidant/trace mineral formula that is super concentrated to be bioavailable to all of our cells and vital organs. The body needs the proper nutritional components to function at its full genetic and biological potential. If we are nutritionally depleted, the body is a set up for inflammation, degenerative, metabolic and catastrophic disease. In order to fuel essential biological processes the right vitamins and trace minerals must be present
SpectraMaxx® delivers 40 high powered antioxidants and 74 trace minerals. SpectraMaxx® helps combat over 2200 families of free radicals that bombard us daily and provide the necessary fuel to energize essential pathways in the body. The pigmented fruit extracts load us up with ellagic acid-another potent antioxidant that has shown promising research in multiple areas of health.
One of the key ingredients that is responsible for the effectiveness of SpectraMaxx® is fulvic acid. Fulvic acid is created when millions of beneficial microbes biodegrade decaying plant matter in the soil. Fulvic acid is biologically very active, usually carries 70 or more minerals and trace elements as part of its molecular structure and is in the ideal form to be absorbed by plant roots.
Fill in the dietary gaps with SpectraMaxx® and help support your energy and focus.
- Fills the gaps found in modern diets by providing an extremely broad spectrum of antioxidants and trace minerals in a single supplement.*
- Contains fulvic acid – essential for many biological functions such as cellular respiration and photosynthesis.*
- 74 essential trace minerals to support biological functions.*
- Contains 40 powerful anti-oxidants from fruit, vegetables, berries and minerals to reduce the oxidative effects of free radicals.*
- Combined with Eternity® and FuCoyDon®, SpectraMaxx® forms the 'Triangle of Life®', one of the most potent, bioavailable supplements lines in the world.*
*These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration.This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.
750 mL/25.35 fl oz
Shake well before using. Drink 22 ml (¾ fl oz) 1 – 3 times daily. Drink it alone or with your favorite beverage. Refrigerate after opening.
If you are pregnant, taking prescription medication or have a pre-existing medical condition, consult your physician before taking this product. Do not use it the tamper evident ring or seal is broken or missing. Keep out of the reach of children.
FuCoyDon® Intensified
Making Eternity® the best youth-promoting supplement available was a tall order for our team of scientists and researchers, but they pulled it off. Harnessing the power of their brilliant, scientific minds and our cutting-edge technology, we combined the potent nutritional benefits of Resveratrol with essential antioxidants and other energy promoting ingredients. The result? An explosive fusion of biological support. Our product offers an incredible boost to DNA and cellular support, promotes youthful regeneration, and even helps you kick on the afterburners when you need the energy the most.
TS-X™ is a nutritional marvel in the way it helps combat the effects of aging. As we get older, our telomeres lose their potency and ability to efficiently protect our DNA, often leading to muscular and organ decay, decreased energy, and more. Our incredible formula helps combat these effects by offering support to the health and functionality of telomeres. TS-X™ promotes healthy DNA replication, encourages increased telomere efficiency, and contributes to better cellular health.
The AGE Pill™
The AGE Pill™ provides specialized super nutrients to the stem cells, which enhance and allow the natural processes of the body to operate more efficiently… to do what you want to do, so you can be what you want to be. Now you can be revitalized, and feel as youthful as if you were 20 again.


text:
Ah, now THIS, is a car.
I know, I know … "It doesn't even have a heater or a roof!" you say. "Paint is an option!"
You're right. Who am I to argue? Things like heaters and paint and roofs and airbags are very nice things to have in a car, but you know what's also nice to have in a car? As little as possible.
Caterham Sevens, heirs to Colin Chapman's immortal Lotus Seven, are just such a car, if not the standard bearer for that idea. If it doesn't make the car go faster, it's not there. Lightness is the goal, because the llighter you get things, the better the car will perform. Lighter means shorter braking distances. Lighter means achieving higher G-loading in the turns. Lighter means better acceleration. Lighter means better mileage (c'mon, you can't win a race sitting in the pits getting gas kiddo).
How light?
Well, the Caterham Superlight R300 tips the scales at right around 1100 pounds, and that results in some pretty impressive numbers. 0 – 60 in 4.5 seconds, skid pad figures that'll slosh your brain to one side of your skull, braking like Roadrunner cartoons.
The only downside is top speed, which is only 140 or so since the thing is as aerodynamic as a packing crate.
The full press release is after the jump.
Source: Autoblog


text:
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) C.J. Leslie scored a career-high 33 points to lead No. 25 North Carolina State past St. Bonaventure 92-73 on Saturday.
Scott Wood added a season-best 23 points on 8-of-10 shooting and Lorenzo Brown had a season-high 11 assists for the Wolfpack (9-2).
The nation's most accurate shooting team shot 57 percent, never trailed and now heads into its weeklong holiday break on a five-game winning streak.
Eric Mosley had 18 points for the Bonnies (7-4). They were outscored 50-24 in the paint, shot just 40.6 percent, never got closer than 12 in the second half and had their two-game winning streak snapped.
Wood made his first eight shots in building upon his previous season best, a 17-point performance in the win against Stanford last time out. Brown finished two assists shy of his career-high 13 set last December against Syracuse.
And Leslie, who beat the Bonnies last year on a last-second layup, took care of them much earlier this time, in the process surpassing his previous high of 24 points set last season against North Carolina.
Leslie was 10 of 13 from the field and 13 of 18 at the free throw line. He locked up his seventh straight double-figure game well before halftime, scoring 18 points in the opening 20 minutes and throwing the pass that had PNC Arena buzzing.
He poked the ball free from the Bonnies near midcourt and chased it down in the left corner before dribbling toward the basket and lobbing a perfect alley-oop for Brown - whose two-handed slam made it 26-18 with 6:25 left. That defining play came early in the 17-4 run midway through the half that broke the game open.
N.C. State, which makes a Division I-best 53 percent of its shots, came away with points on nine straight trips downcourt. Freshman T.J. Warren's fast-break dunk with just under 4 minutes left capped the run and pushed the lead to 36-22.
Warren finished with 13 points.
Youssou Ndoye added 14 points and 14 rebounds for the Bonnies. The reigning Atlantic 10 champions had won their previous two games by a combined 74 points but were denied in their attempt to match their best start since opening 8-3 in 2001-02.
Only one thing really went wrong all day for N.C. State: Big man Richard Howell, who was going for his fifth straight double-double, was in perpetual foul trouble and finished with no points and five rebounds in 12 minutes.


text:
Why are LCD TV prices falling? You're not buying, that's why
The days leading up to Black Friday always bring door-buster deals on big-screen TVs, and this year is no exception. According to market research firm IHS, U.S. retailers will sell 42in, 1080p LED HDTVs for less than US$400 by Black Friday.


text:
Stubblebine was the NSA's signals intelligence image analyst, but that has not deterred Hoffman, who has also argued that discussing the Pentagon "might be a trap", since the Pentagon might release some of the more than 80 videos it possesses that would show "what really happened" as opposed to the five frames it has released, one of which shows the image of a small plane that is about half the size of a Boeing 757. (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/05/inside-job-seven-questions-about-911/)
Why anyone should take Hoffman seriously about any of this is beyond me, because, based upon my personal experience, he has gone out of his way to manipulate the 9/11 Truth community, even to the extent of creating (http://www.911scholars.org/ArticleFetzer_14Jun2006.html) an elaborate pretext to excuse Larry Silverstein from having made an obvious concession to the controlled demolition of WTC-7 with his "pull it" remark during an interview with PBS. He has had some effect, it would appear, since even David Ray Griffin, perhaps the leading expert on 9/11 in the world today, has avoided pushing the Pentagon front-and-center, where it properly belongs. As Dennis Cimino explains, the "official account" is a fantasy, where the American public would benefit from knowing that even the Pentagon attack was a fabrication and a fraud.
On September 11, 2001, we were told by the U.S. government that at 9:38 a.m. on that day, a Boeing 757 jetliner impacted the building at a speed of approximately 465 knots after executing a 330 degree turn for no apparent reason any sane person can think of, as the building is highly distinguishable from virtually any altitude above 2000 feet for several miles. The official story has the flight path just to the side of the west wing of the White House, which in any person's estimation is a significantly more important target than is the building that houses the military managers who run the Military Industrial Complex. We were also told that nobody could have foreseen this type of attack, even though just a year earlier, a drill was held, and a nearly identical B-757 American Airlines plane was flown by Chuck Burlingame himself, as the Pentagon ran (http://they-let-it-happen.blogspot.com/2007/04/pre-911-pentagon-preparedness.html) a preparedness drill to simulate such an attack.
Unfortunately, many people in America are unaware that the Washington, D.C. area has Raytheon "Basic Point Defense" missile battery armament embedded on several building rooftops there, using Sea Sparrow air defense missiles, much in the same fashion that Moscow has a system that NATO code named 'Yo Yo' that maintains radar surveillance and provides protection to the Kremlin and other high value targets from military incursions. In other words, the Pentagon was protected not only by these missile batteries, but also had in place a number of adjacent fighter bases which provided a fairly high level of protection given the fact that the plane inbound to the Pentagon from the east was not supersonic as are the adjacent fighter jets based in the area, and therefore easily could have been intercepted and at the very least, temporarily deflected off course if not shot down, if need be, long before it reached the target on the building, known as 'The Catchers Mit' due to recent renovations which added several inches of KEVLAR armor to that face of the building to protect the occupants. For those of you who are not familiar with Kevlar armor and how it works, the only much more vastly superior but significantly more expensive armor is ceramic in nature and is often used jointly with Kevlar to protect personnel from high energy armor piercing rounds fired by tanks and other anti armor weapons such as are mounted on most military attack helicopters, for instance, such as the 30mm cannon and the infamous Obama well used 'hellfire' anti tank missile system.
In addition, there is a system, known as "Identification Friend or Foe" aka I.F.F., which uses a special MODE 4A feature that only military aircraft use, whereupon special encryption. Additionally, a mission specific MODEX aka SEDSCAF number for each plane is assigned and if it does not meet the PLAN OF THE DAY for the area, IT STILL IS NOT GOING TO PASS MODE 4A MUSTER. It would be shot down. No "if"s, no "and"s and no "but"s!!!!
The proper MODEX / SEDSCAF NUMBER is what enables an aircraft them to penetrate prohibited or military restricted airspace such as that which surrounds both the White House and the Pentagon, as well as a number of military installations around the globe. This feature is necessary to prevent the possible mis-identification of a civilian aircraft by military air defense personnel who man radar scopes in the Washington, D.C. area, 24/7, watching for unauthorized aircraft who do not have the proper MODE 4A response capability or code in use with their on board transponders. Only military aircraft have this Mode 4A capability, or what is often referred to as 'crypto Beacon Video' military ATC specialists.
In any case, there was plenty of warning that an 'unknown' and presumed 'hostile' target was inbound to the Washington, D.C. area from the area around West Virginia to the east, and more than sufficient time existed to scramble fighters and or light off the Basic Point Missile Defense or BPDMS radar systems (AKA as N.S.S.M.S.) and missile defenses that are installed in rooftops there in the Washington, D.C. area since the mid 1980's. Basic Point Defense uses a CW target illuminator radar to allow the semi-actively guided Sea Sparrow missile to radar home on reflected energy coming back from the target aircraft after the radar has locked onto the target. Though these are short range, they are so effective many high value targets in the Navy use this system, with it's infamous MK-112 Fire Control radar system. It's known that NATO's Sea Sparrow was in place in the mid 1980's in Washington, D.C. as point defense against air attack. It's not unreasonable to assume that an updated version of N.S.S.M.S. / Mk 112/MK-115 would be there in September, 2001., by any stretch of the imagination. In all likelihood, it would be a version of the PAC-3 'Patriot' Missile system, another Raytheon toy. One more point would like to make is that the White House, which this aircraft would breeze right past, had agents on the roof with shoulder fired STINGER MISSILES, and on this particular day, you can rest assured that with the unknown target hurtling toward Washington, D.C., those agents were on that roof with those STINGER MISSILES out of their cases and on their shoulders as they scanned the clear morning sky for the coming intruder plane. Why did they not fire at it?
So, on September 11, 2001, what took place was a plane that was not a scheduled air carrier flight, per the Bureau of Transportation Statistics or BTS database, departed Boston's Logan Field from a departure gate that does not match the coordinates transmitted by the ACARS system, as well as stored in the provided by the N.T.S.B., flight data recorder records, on that non-scheduled American Airlines flight, aka 'FLT 77' per the government's submission, and this plane left Boston's Logan Airport with a hijacker on board who was capable of flying a very sophisticated and complex airplane that the average pilot in the F.A.A. pilot registry could probably not really fly with such precision. This plane took off, climbed to it's cruise altitude, and then over W. Virginia, was hijacked in 3 minutes time, and then executed a 'standard rate' turn which no hijacker would have performed with such precision, and immediately turned inbound to the perfect heading that would take it directly to the Pentagon, even though for hijackers to do this, would have meant they would have had to know exactly where the aircraft was immediately — and I do mean, IMMEDIATELY — and then have the requisite knowledge of how to re-program the complicated FMS computers in the aircraft to display target area data to them, because as you might have guessed, they did not bring their own GPS system with them on the planes that would have given them immediate positional information as well as a much more immediate way of turning the plane onto a magnetic heading that would take it to Washington, D.C. from that nice precise standard rate turnaround in the skies over West Virginia. Impressed? I sure am, as would be many B-757 line captains who fly this airplane every day, especially with the level of complexity the FMS or Flight Management System on that airplane has, that has on at least one occasion, led to the crash and destruction of a similarly equipped American Airlines B-757 in the mountains just outside of Cali, Colombia just a few years before this.
What was more alarming that day is that during the '3' minute hijacking interval, neither the cockpit door opened (reported via the Digital Flight Data Acquisition Unit or DFDAU as it is known as) and the autopilot did not disengage. Now imagine yourself being Captain Chuck Burlingame and his copilot, sitting in their seats, when these hijackers slid under the door crack on the floor and re-constituted themselves as full fledged box-cutter wielding terrorists, who then proceeded to cut the heads off these two airmen who's job is to protect their aircraft and it's passengers at all costs. Neither of these guys were 98 pound weaklings, yet in three minutes they had been incapacitated and were out of their seats without touching either the yokes or the rudders, which would have immediately DISENGAGED the aircraft's autopilot system which was flying the machine at that time. The plane did not yaw, roll, pitch or otherwise change any flight parameter but remained perfectly on course, and for some reason, two minutes later the hijackers finally decided to turn OFF the transponder to make it a bit harder for ATC to be positively sure this plane was the same one they were watching before the hijacking took place. Now, one more thing you need to know is that for either of the flight crew to either push the talk button on the yokes or to change the transponder code to one that tells the ATC personnel monitoring the flight that they were in a 'hijack' situation, would have taken mere seconds to do. Yet, this was not done. And the autopilot did not disengage though it is presumed the two pilots would have resisted and fought for their very lives and at least kicked the rudder pedals and or moved the yokes. Yet they did not do any of these things. Merely holding the push to talk button and screaming whilst having one's head cut off would have gotten someone's attention, I do think. Too many ways the crew could send a duress message to the ATC en route centers, and not once was this attempted. Why? The best and most reasonable reason is that these were not hijacked planes at all, but planes flown by military personnel or crews who thought they were innocently participating in the drills. And as such, these would NOT have been passenger flights, as it is illegal to use passengers in military exercises under any circumstances, due to the risk involved. This is another clue that points to the fact that no hijacking took place in this aircraft at all, because had that been the case, they had plenty of time to use a duress system to alert ATC that they were under attack in that cockpit.
In any case, the precision turn executed and the immediate orientation onto the course to the Pentagon is kind of indicative of a professional pilot and not a hijacker being at the controls, because the crew who flew that plane knew precisely where the plane was when they turned directly onto a course which would then take them directly into the target, which that morning was the Pentagon. Given the fact that it is quite impossible for these freshly in the cockpit hijackers to know where the plane was when they took it over, and furthermore, to know the exact on course heading back to the Washington, D.C. area to attack the Pentagon, is again quite telling of who really was still at the controls of this plane. It surely was not a hijacker who just got into the cockpit a couple minutes ago, based on this immediate orientation and turn onto course to the target. This process would have taken several minutes. It did not take several minutes. It was immediate. Mighty clairvoyant airmen these guys were, and powerful too, to overcome the crew in three minutes time while ensuring the autopilot never disengaged even for a split second, nor had the cockpit door opened to let them in. (See cockpit door diagram below)
Then, later as they got closer in, they did something puzzling for a crew of neophyte hijackers. On their way down thru Flight Level 180, or 18 thousand feet, they magically, without having listened to the ATIS or automated terminal information service, broadcast from Dulles International Airport that morning, these guys somehow knew the barometric pressure reported on that automated broadcast though no controller passed that information to them, and they set that in the Kollsman window on BOTH of the cockpit altimiters, simultaneously. That's not only clairvoyant, that's SYNCHRONIZED knob twisting going on there, by any pilot's standards. Machine precision out of hijackers turning two knobs at the same time in perfect, instantaneous fashion, is extremely unlikely for these guys, yet that was exactly what took place when both the hijacker and his co-hijacker buddy, who must have gotten VERY lucky to pick those barometric pressure numbers for DCA that morning out of their asses, because they had no way of knowing them otherwise…as no radio in the cockpit was tuned to the ATIS frequency, as that is recorded in the FDR data and not reflected in the data the N.T.S.B. released from that plane's Flight Data Recorder. Notwithstanding the absurdity of this kind of coordinated crew work, it really ranks as one of the most glaring issues of the morning because the crew could not have known those numbers they put into both altimeters via the Kollsman setting knobs that morning on their descent. They could NOT know them nor could they have so precisely guessed them.
And then they did something quite unusual. They were able to penetrate that highly protected airspace without the proper MODE 4A military I.F.F. response, and no communications with ATC of any kind, no clearance issued of any kind, and they flew a nice leisurely 330 degree turn after passing right past the White House, the more desirable high value target, than their intended Pentagon target could ever dream to be. After they completed the turn, they managed to accelerate the aircraft well beyond 150 knots faster than it could ever possibly fly at that altitude, even full throttle. They did this without touching the rudder pedals for even one moment after their hijacking of the plane several minutes earlier, too! Needless to say, to perform a coordinated turn as the N.T.S.B. flight data recorder data shows, they would have had to use rudder inputs, but they never touched the aircraft rudders once during their entire time in the cockpit after they slid under the crack below the cockpit door to gain entry. Was this because neither of them had legs? They walked onto the plane and did not require wheelchairs, so is it not a little strange or odd they never ever once touched the rudder pedals in that plane?
After careful analysis of the flight data recorder stuff provided to us by the N.T.S.B., in their recreation, we see the fact the rudders and the yoke were not moved nor did the autopilot disengage while the crew fought for their very lives in that cockpit. And, at no other time did the rudders ever get so much as a passing foot kick. At the very least, these guys would have probably inadvertently tested them a bit with their feet, yet they never touched them. And to do the nice 330 degree turn into the building, they would have absolutely NEEDED TO USE THE RUDDER to carry this out in what is called COORDINATED FLIGHT without slipping or skidding the plane in three dimensional space that morning. We know they flew a perfectly coordinated turn because the data the N.T.S.B. released to us shows us that. To do this, the rudders would have absolutely, beyond all reasonable doubt, been needed to accomplish this. No accomplished pilot could do that 'flat footed' with his or her feet not on the rudders. Impressive performance here, execution of coordinated high G turns without rudders used at all by the hijackers.
Directly under this airplane's wonderful fantasmagorical RADAR HOLE the track was lost over, was a long range, height finding military radar system known as FPS-117. This radar, mounted right on top of a ridge, was virtually directly underneath FLT-77 when the radar track was lost. This radar has a nominal range of 200 miles, and has the capability to be in 'redcap' or reduced capability mode without full power output of it's transmitter, and still offer short range primary or skin paint track of aircraft flying within 80 nautical miles of it. This radar station was in operation on Sept. 11, 2001, and was not called out in any documentary evidence as being out of commission or off-line that morning, yet the government asserts that a 'radar hole' existed in it's tracking or service volume area that morning, and nobody reported this long range height finder radar as either in low power final driver or 'down' for maintenance. How can this be? How can we have lost track of this target over W. Virginia that morning with a very powerful, very capable long range height finding air search radar below that did not need MODE C to get a rudimentary and somewhat less precise altitude resolution from it's multi beam array scanning the skies there that morning? Very very good question.
In any case, as nobody really had ascertained that this plane was, in fact truly the same one that was tracked outbound into the approximate vicinity of this FPS-117 radar site, it is astonishing that virtually everyone in official channels automatically assumed this unidentified airplane which had no transponder replies, and had no communications with ATC of any kind, was still the one and the same airplane seen on radar going the other way. Based on this assumption, a whole lot of ATC specialists have been wrongly trained because their protocols prohibit making an assumption like this without specific NORDO or NO RADIO procedures that tell ATC that the crew has heard transmissions from the ground and has followed instructions issued so ATC can now state that this plane is in fact the one they lost radar track on and had lost communications with. Those protocols for identification of unknown air targets have been in place and used very successfully for many decades and yet they were ignored and this unknown track was decried as 'FLT 77' by everyone on the ground. Mighty convenient that a radar hole that should not have been there allowed this window of uncertainty to be there, and then a nonsensical non-standard supposition as to who the target indeed was, superseded tried and true protocols for target identification in lieu of two-way radio contact or transponder replies from the target. This is mighty smelly stuff here, regarding the radar hole and the assumption that this was still FLT-77 with no empirical evidence to support that assertion of any kind. In other words, NO air traffic control person has the right to make that assumption under any circumstances, but this was instantly done on Sept. 11, 2001 for some unknown or heretofore unknown reason that morning. Why?
An ATC specialist named Danielle O'Brien was watching this radar target track inbound at a high speed, and in her official statement about it, she cited not only the drastically higher speed inbound but an unusual degree of target maneuverability, more or less telling her colleague, another controller, that to her it looked too fast and maneuvered to abruptly to be a commercial airliner. In light of this, designating this plane as the one and the same which was NORDO and lost track on the outbound leg just before the infamous radar hole over W.VA, becomes even more questionably nonsensical to two experienced ATC personnel watching it fly into the Washington, D.C. class bravo restricted airspace that morning. In any case, this observation by Ms. O'Brien and her co-worker seems to at least on it's face indicate that whatever aircraft that was on the inbound track certainly was much more maneuverable and significantly faster than a B-757, even as the official RADES 84 data contradicts her and her colleague. How can this be? Is it that the controllers were in fact 'wrong' and the later produced RADES 84 radar track data much more correct? Both of them cannot be correct. One is blatantly incorrect and intentional disinformation. But which one is telling us the truth? The same people who told us the radar hole existed over W. VA, on top of an operational long range 3-D height finding radar system?
In any case, the plane continues inbound, without interception. And by all indications, the manner in which the aircraft is being controlled tends to reflect skilled airmen at the controls and not neophytes who had difficulty controlling a Cessna 172 Skyhawk and were denied rental of one due to their inability to pass a pre-rental checkout for that. Is anyone seeing the big picture here yet? The took over the plane in a scant 3 minutes, without disturbing the asleep crew and pulled their slumbering inert bodies out of the seats and did not touch either the yokes or the rudders during the time they removed these snoozing crewmen who were so asleep at the wheel they didn't even use any of the simple and very tried and true duress procedures to alert ATC they were being interfered with. Somehow I don't think so.
In any case, the hijackers then descended, and flew right by the White House and a contingency of secret service agents who had to at that point been standing on the roof with the over the shoulder STINGER missiles at the ready, waiting for them to come into firing range. FLT 77 was indeed well inside STINGER firing range as it whipped past the White House on the way into the Pentagon that morning. Were those agents taking a nap? Or had they simply been told not to fire on this plane? I know that in 1987, the secret service crew who guards that building were armed with STINGER MISSILES because an ATC specialist warned me to not fly lower than 1,000 feet over that building on my way further north that evening or risk getting one up my, uh, tailpipe. SO we know someone dropped that ball that morning, or did they get told to hold their fire?
What we know from the FDR recreation the N.T.S.B. provided to us, is that this plane executed a very high speed descent at a vertical descent rate that was at the very least, 4,400 feet per minute, easily 3,000 feet per minute faster in the dive than normal landing aircraft typical do on their final approaches to a runway. This equated to a terminal velocity in the end of more than 150 knots beyond the never exceed speed for this aircraft at this altitude. Oh, I know, I have seen in the blogosphere the 'hogwash, these planes fly at 585 miles an hour all day long' said over and over again, so therefore this speed limit we cite clearly must be 'wrong' and not correct. Is it? The sad reality for those same people who cite this 585 miles an hour speed, is that this speed can only be achieved and maintained in less dense air, at very high altitudes. Down low, in very dense air with significantly higher drag coefficients applicable to the plane down so low, the plane's cannot achieve these speeds. And the only limit is not just the drag limitation, but the fact that with the increase in speed in a banked turn, comes the increased force of gravity or 'G' forces. On September 11th., this aircraft pulled '6' G's on it's turn into the building that day, at a speed more than 150 knots beyond it's design limits at this altitude.
We know this because we called Boeing and asked them if these impossible speeds were even possible at these altitudes. Their answer, was a laughable; "Uh, no!" by their spokesperson. But to get back to the turn and the necessity of one when the building was clearly right in front of the hijackers faces as they descended, is anyone's guess. But some of us surmise the turn was necessary because the imperative was not just to whack the building just anywhere, but to strike it in a particular location. That location, is known as the recently heavily reinforced and renovated 'Catchers Mit', and the portion of the building that was hit was filled with Navy comptroller's office personnel who were tracking the missing 2.3 trillion dollars cited during hearings on Capitol Hill on the prior morning, held by Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney.
We can only wonder at this point what the rationale was for circling and exposing this plane to shoot down, hence preventing it hitting it's target. Nevertheless, the hijackers circled. But they did so in a fashion that absolutely flies in the fact that extremely unskilled and untrained pilots were at the controls. They executed this high speed turn and somehow managed not to lose control of this plane in a region of it's control capabilities that would absolutely mandate that the pilot have exceptional flying skill to do this maneuver without losing control of this aircraft. Do you still believe that Hani Hanjour was in the cockpit flying this plane now? That is a stretch, in any reasonable persons estimation to still believe that, if we can trust ANY of the data the N.T.S.B. released to us from the FDR on that aircraft. But this was not the end of the superb airmanship exhibited by Hani that morning. He got better at it!
What is so much more impressive is that Hani flew the plane so low that he clipped '6' light poles on the approach to the building at 460 plus knots, but when he did this, the leading edges of the wings did not shed a single piece, nor were the fuel tanks ruptured, which at that time were more or less full of highly flammable JET A fuel. We know '5' of the six poles were sheared, yet no huge fireball explosions as wings were impacting the poles, and nary one piece of leading edge components such as the leading edge slats, were even damaged or left the plane. Now that is mighty impressive flying! That Florida instructor pilot who declared him to be incompetent and quite incapable of safely renting a Cessna 172 Skyhawk, surely had him pegged wrong, didn't he? Didn't he?
Anyway, what is even more phenomenal, is this aircraft was flown down in a region less than ½ wingspan from the ground, known to any experienced pilot as 'ground effect' region or zone. The importance of knowing this, is that no airplane at full throttle flown in ground effect, would want to continue to descend further. Matter of fact, at 465 knots, the plane would have, without full nose down pitch (which the flight data recorder shows was not the case) would have been required to overcome the 'ground effect' cushion and lift coefficient going on, and the plane would have had no choice but to climb. To force it into the building more or less at the base of the wall where it hit, on the ground floor level, the hijackers would have had to be using FULL NOSE DOWN PITCH to do this.
Not true, says the FDR data given to us by the N.T.S.B. No aircraft in GROUND EFFECT wants to descend further into it at high speed. They all want to climb and even with 10 or more degrees of commanded nose down pitch, a plane of that class would still want to climb out of ground effect due to a huge surplus of lift it was generating. Any pilot wants to challenge this, be my guest. Simply is not disputable here. It cannot be done. This particular aerodynamic fact is irrefutably the most damning road block to the whole cockamamie story about the final portion of this outrageous flight.
Interestingly, the N.T.S.B. gave us two sets of data. One set shows that the FL-180 reset took place per their recreation (and I will get to that again here in a second) and furthermore, the derivative data they provide to us shows that this reset did not take place at all, per the FDR data. How can this be? According to the N.T.S.B., the .csv or comma separated variable data was a derivative of the Crash Protected Memory file in the L-3 Model 2100 Flight Data Recorder on this airplane. Yet, this clearly is not the case at all.
The last data record the N.T.S.B. has from this recorder places the aircraft INSIDE THE OUTER WALL at a height of 380 feet above ground level. This is extremely problematic for the official story, because we know that per their version, the plane did not nose dive the building from on top of it, but impacted the outer wall after hitting '6' poles on the approach that did not fold over or shear because they were made out of balsa wood that morning. The poles were not made of balsa wood. They were heavy aluminum. They are a trajectory record. A record that belies the fact that a B-757 could not fly the profile the FDR data set says it did, and still strike those poles at those heights. The plane was simply TOO HIGH to strike those poles if we are to trust the FDR data even a little bit. So what gives with the poles? If they were planted as some assert, then why plant something that destroys your FDR premise totally? Very good question here, at the very least, it infers someone snuck the pole through the window of the taxi cab that the one pole narrowly missed pegging the driver of that morning as it flew off the ground after it was hit by 'something' and then driven through the windshield of that taxi. People like to cite the fact these poles have blowtorch marks on the bases of them and were planted. Were they planted. Know anyone who can javelin throw one of these poles through the windshield of a taxi cab? I don't.
Now one thing I had not mentioned so far is that there is one problem with this altimeter setting that took place, well beyond the fact the hijackers had no constructive way of knowing the proper number to put into the Kollsman window. Remember how I told you that after the hijacking they had waited a number of minutes to turn to 'off' the aircraft's transponder? Well, when they did that, they just negated the main reason for any aircrew doing the altimeter reset to the local barometric pressure setting the crew had no way of knowing what it was because as I stated, they neither tuned in the ATIS frequency for Dulles airport, nor had they gotten this from ATC that morning, and to my knowledge, ATC had not broadcast this to anyone on that frequency the plane's radio was set on. So first, I have two questions. How did these clueless hijackers so very perfectly twist both Kollsman window knobs on both altimeters and set them to the heretofore unknown DULLES barometric pressure without knowing what that number was, and second, why would they bother with the primary reason they'd do that, turned to the 'off' position way back long ago over Pennsylvania? They were not going to execute a landing at Dulles, so precision on the altimeters was neither necessary, nor was it done to allow the plane's MODE C or altitude reporting via the transponder, to allow ATC to warn other traffic about the American B-757's altitude as it descended through very congested airspace.
Needless to say, only an experienced line crew would have done this step, and certainly not after turning OFF the transponder, which was the last way ATC had of knowing the altitude of this plane as it barreled into the Pentagon at an impossible 465 knots, well beyond it's capability. How did the hijackers know this number to set, and how did they both set both altimeters exactly at the same moment in time, per the FDR record? On the climb through FL-180, that's easy to do, it's a mere button push to put in the baro reference of 29.92 for everyone at high altitude to be using THE SAME REFERENCE. Not so on the descent. This required precision well beyond the capability of these neophyte and highly inexperienced, incapable airmen.
Well, from an experienced pilot's standpoint, going back to W. Va. Where they executed the standard rate turn that no hijacker would have bothered with in the first place, that was one of the first clues beyond the impossibility of entering the cockpit without opening the door, or hijacking the plane without the crew either changing the transponder code to 'hijack' and broadcasting it on the radio. Second, the no disengage of the autopilot doesn't work for me, as the crew would have kicked the rudders and the yokes and the autopilot would have disengaged during any STRUGGLE to take the plane over.
And for the rudders to be static and non moving for the rest of the flight, except for small deflections attributable to 'air loads' or deflection by the relative air movement against them, the rudders were for all practical purposes, 'dead' meaning the hijackers legs were not working, or both hijackers exercised EXTREME body control and kept their feet off of those pedals. And they executed a 330 degree COORDINATED turn without slipping or skidding the plane, at an impossible 465 knots airspeed, when an accelerated stall most assuredly would have been the likely result of such a course of action on their part. We know the rudders worked on the climbout as Burlingame used them to compensate for thrust related yaw on takeoff, and that's reflected in the FDR data record. After the hijackers took over, the rudders might just as well have been dead weights down there under their feet, because they simply were never again used. Why? Or more appropriately is 'How?' with regard to the total lack of rudders by the hijackers, while maintaining COORDINATED FLIGHT?????
When the last known FDR records show the plane 380 feet above the ground, well inside the wall of the building, position wise, and I might add, at a height that would have precluded nailing those '6' poles on the way in without shedding leading edge parts or causing massive fuel tank ruptures and fireballs, I have to say; "uh no" to all of this foolery here. The initial claim by the government as to 'why' the FDR record ends too high and inside the building's perimeter is that the recorder failed '6' seconds before impact. Oh really? By the very standards the recorder must meet, it could not be so far behind recording the data as this, as it would by those same standards probably still be recording for at the very least, 500 milliseconds after building impact, even if the sensors feeding the DFDAU had ceased to exist due to impact destruction with the outer wall. For the government to claim that the recorder was simply 'not caught up' as they asserted, or had suddenly without explanation, failed, without the plane having hit anything yet, as it clearly was too high, is both absurd and ridiculous. Time after time the excuse is the FDR just couldn't keep up with the data being pushed into it from the DFDAU. In reality the FDR is in fact capable of keeping up. It has to faithfully and accurately store data in a fashion that allows accident investigators to determine what happened to the plane in it's final moments of flight, hence it cannot be hobbled in a way that makes it a 'historical' artifact collector of the plane's better moments before impact. It's job is to tell investigators right up to the moment of aircraft breakup, what the plane was doing. In this case, for at least 400 to 500 milliseconds (half a second) after building impact or total airframe disintegration and power loss. That's per it's mandatory specification it must meet to be certified for use on Part 23 category aircraft.
Many discrepancies existed with that Flight Data Recorder record and the N.T.S.B. recreation. First, the final flight path of the plane the government says was flown, does NOT MATCH this record. This is not an assertion. This is a fact.
Second, the FDR itself was found 'twice' at the Pentagon. Now for those of you who are unfamiliar with the actual location of the unit on the American Boeing 757 aircraft, it is in the tail of the plane to preserve it for as long as possible as most planes do not crash 'tail first' into anything even if the government claims the box can quit without provocation or reason, six seconds before impact with anything. The unit was found both at the entry hole, and deep in the building, underneath more or less 'intact' pilot seats. This is a bit problematic in the sense that the box itself has insufficient mass to penetrate the building on it's own without help after the severe deceleration of the plane as it struck the heavily reinforced 'Catcher's Mit' outer wall with the Kevlar jacketing and, furthermore, how did it get found 'twice' when only ONE flight data recorder exists on this plane?
What is even a better question, is how did the data in the crash protected memory module get downloaded from the crash protected solid state memory a full DAY before the discovery of the unit on the premises? That's right from the time stamp on the data given to us by the N.T.S.B. Now I know that you're thinking; "oh, someone forgot to set the time on the system that downloaded the data then, obviously."
Well, unfortunately there is a very precise process for setting the derivation bench system to take that data from a crash system and download it, and part of that process means you cross check the time the system says it is at. And most assuredly, there are many many other safeguards that are done to ensure that the data is not written to. Unfortunately for this data record set, it was written to. And that was not accidental.
The reason we know this, is that the only way data in the file header or preamble could be erased or reset to 'zeroes' is that the requisite jumper wire required on the bench setup that would be used to dump the CPM or crash protected memory data from the recovered CPM module, had to be in place when it would have been both not normally there at all and an intentional 'addition' by someone, and second, the bench unit used to talk to or communicate with the CPM module would not have any AIRCRAFT ID or FLEET ID data loaded into it as a NOT FOR FLIGHT unit., and upon connection with the never ever ever in place jumper wire EXCEPT FOR INTENT TO WRITE operations which would be prohibited by any reasonable data extraction protocols for a crash unit, the jumper had to be there to ERASE these two critical links to the plane itself that would not otherwise be blank. On this unit's FDR data, both fields are inexplicably 'blank' or zero'd out.
On bootstrap, the FDR does a BIT TEST or built in test function. Part of this BIT test is to validate the header / preamble data in the front of the file in the non-compressed portion of the CPM memory data, against the FDR UNIT's own ROM values for AC ID and FLEET ID. In the case these do not match on bootstrap, the FDR sends a 'FDR FAIL' or command priority message to both EICAS flight displays in the cockpit. Furthermore, the pre-download checklist used by ANY agency downloading CPM memory module data stipulates that the requisite PIN JUMPERS to enable a CPM module write operation be verified ABSENT or NOT IN PLACE to prevent accidental record modification or data erasure. The only way the AC ID and FLEET ID data could be zero'd out on this box is that the jumper on the bench unit used to extract the data, was, in fact, there. That was the LAST linkage of that file to the airplane known as N644AA, other than serial numbers the F.B.I. and N.T.S.B. repeatedly refuse to provide to us under very specially and properly written F.O.I.A. requests. In any case, if this data was somehow erased or zero'd out by some technician before that aircraft took off, the unit would have failed BIT on power up on the airplane's essential bus, and that is a 'no go' situation. Only a not for flight unit would write 'zero's to that header and preamble data, and only a NOT FOR FLIGHT unit would ignore the BIT failure due to masking in the BIT ERROR MAP of the unit. In all likelihood, on this particular airplane, the FDR would have been a Sunstrand model 700 FDR, versus the L-3 Model 2100 unit, based on data from other aircraft in the production string. Are we to believe that this machine got the L-3 unit and the sister ships produced on the line got the others by accident? I don't think that's too very realistic, although it is possible. An FDR FAIL message is a "no push-back" for any Part 23 airplane, prohibiting flight.
We have covered the flight to the building pretty well, but notwithstanding these issues I have mentioned, we now have a big problem. The dearth of airplane wreckage, and for that matter, copious amounts of unburnt fuel that would have been splashed all over the lawn after the light pole hits,which would have deeply embedded those poles into the wings at the very least to the fuel tanks. A 465 knot airliner full of JET A hits light poles full of fuel and the wings don't rupture and explode on impact with these poles? Only in a roadrunner cartoon could this be like this, folks. This is NOT reality.
In addition, the hole in the building was a single hole. No engine penetration holes, no wing entry slots, and no fuel anywhere. Where did the wings and significant parts of the horizontal and vertical stabilizers go? Where did 5,300 gallons of JET A fuel go? Where were the bodies the luggage, the parts of the plane that COULD NOT HAVE PENETRATED THE BUILDING go to? How did '2' Rolls Royce, 7 ton hurtling engines with the equivalent mass of a locomotive engine at that speed, not punch holes in the building and yet only ONE engine is found in the building, after presumably taking a back door in because it surely didn't go through the front wall with no entry hole, for sure!!
The entry hole was 16 feet across. Vertical and Horizontal structural members were visible right after impact. The fuselage of a B-757 is significantly wider than this. The two, nearly 7 ton, RB-211, Rolls Royce engines on this plane were an every so solidly predictable 48 feet apart, meaning we could easily know where they'd penetrate the building given this fact. There are no holes there at those locations. The floor slab there at the place an 80 ton plane moving at 465 knots final speed has impacted, is not chipped, cracked or damaged in any way. How can this be?
Well, to any reasonable person, this cannot be. It is not reasonable to state that the lion's share of an 80 ton aircraft could totally disintegrate. Fire could not consume it all, as the fire post impact was not really that intense because computer monitors and open books were neither melted nor singed post fire. Matter of fact, until the building collapsed, the minimal damage at the Pentagon was almost laughably NOT possibly from any airplane impact. A Toyota Tercel with fifty gallons of jet fuel in it would have created more damage, in all likelihood. An 80 ton airplane with more than 5,300 gallons or nearly twenty tons of fuel hits the building and no fuel is there all over the premises, no wings, no fuselage, no body pieces?
In the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui (http://twilightpines.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=25&Itemid=67) the alleged 20th, hijacker, the government presented photographs of the dead occupants of FLT 77, the non-scheduled, per the BTS flight that allegedly hit the building that day. None of the bodies were really dismembered in any photos they presented, nor were they burnt. They were for the most part, fully UNBURNT and INTACT human beings. These people hit a heavily reinforced building in an aluminum airplane at 465 knots, and maintained their body integrity? I don't think so. I truly don't think so.
Years later, N644AA was stricken from the F.A.A. registry, after remaining, just like the other '3' aircraft, as viable registrations in the F.A.A. database, until 2005. To date, there has been not one single component per the requisite aircraft production 'trailing documents' Boeing requires to build airplanes and certify them, positively identified from any of the wreckage recovered, far less than a ton, by the way, from an 80 ton airplane. What is interesting about the 'wreckage' the government touts is from N644AA or the non-scheduled flight 77 from Boston Logan that day, is that one piece (shown below) being handled by presumably F.B.I. agents (with badges in their pockets, by the way!) at the site that morning, has corrosion streaming from rivet holes that had rivets in them moments earlier.
Another larger piece has jungle vines still wrapped around it. A pilot who's flown this particular American Airlines plane identified the one part on the lawn as having come from a much earlier version model B-757-200, same genus as the one that crashed near Buga, Colombia in 1995. Hmmmm??? In the end of December 1995, an American Airlines B-757, on a night approach into Cali, Colombia, got lost on the approach due to improperly programming the same FMS system the hijackers so adroitly reprogrammed on Sept. 11, 2001 and turned onto course using, and the plane's crew failed to retract spoilers on the missed approach and slammed into the mountain there in what is called Controlled Flight Into Terrain. All but one soul were lost on that plane's crash. There was very little post crash fire, and the wreckage sat in the Buga, Colombia jungle for months before it was fully recovered and shipped to the U.S.
Piece of fuselage James Hanson, J.D., traced back to a crash in Cali, Columbia, in 1995
More than one person has asked the F.A.A. and N.T.S.B. to show us the wreckage of both aircraft, but the U.S. government cannot tell you where the wreckage is from the Buga, Colombia crash. Certainly it didn't dissolve. Or walk off. Or get lost on it's own. The government asserts that they have the wreckage safe in Iron Mountain, locked up. If so, why not show us both sets then. We'd love to see them, and the Boeing production trailing documentation that shows every single serial number of these components, With so many clues that exist that point to out and out 'fraud' and 'lying' by the U.S. government about the nature of what happened at the Pentagon that day, they failed to tell the American public that depleted uranium was detected and decontamination procedures for D.U. as it is called, were taken at the Pentagon that morning. Why?
First, the renovation to 'The Catchers Mit' did not incorporate D.U. for obvious reasons. Second, for it to be there, it means a form of 'munitions' was used in the Pentagon attack or it would not be there. Oh, I know, Boeing used it in the construction of N644AA when they built her, so that explains it. No. The only known use of D.U. in any civil Part 23 or transport category airplane in U.S. registry is on the McDonnell / Douglas DC-10/MD-11 aircraft. It is used as anti flutter ballast in the horizontal stabilizes of that aircraft type. Not used in B-757, or any other commercial airplane other than the DC-10 / MD-11 genus aircraft. Post cleanup of the Pentagon / Department of Defense poured as much as 24 inches of gravel and aggregate in the approach area where the blow-back from the impact with that wall was known to contain D.U. contamination. How the D.U. got there is a big mystery.
I don't think I need to tell you what conclusions to draw here, but from a number of very valid stand points, the entire government story about the Pentagon attack is completely not adding up. It cannot add up. It never did add up. Not for a second. If we are to believe the official story, a number of very very impossible breaches of physics, aerodynamics, airmanship and common sense took place on September 11, 2001. Interceptors were not launched and directed to this flight as it came in over West Virginia–and hurtled toward the building. No possible way the plane could possibly have the proper MODE 4A reply to the military radars scanning the skies over Arlington that day.
The issues cited about the flight itself are both nonsensical and unreal to any trained and experienced pilot. And to be certain, it's laughable and sad that people can see the pristine, no parts from the pole strikes, no jet fuel from tank ruptures, lawn, and the total bulk of an 80 ton airliner not present when it could not have possibly flown through the hole and left the vertical and horizontal structures still in that entry hole, with no engine or wing penetrations or vertical or horizontal stabilizer structures, body parts, luggage and other components all over the lawn there. After the initial explosion, there was very little visible wreckage there. A fighter pilot dispatched to overfly the scene reported back that there was no evidence of any aircraft impact there of any kind. Not until a 'spook' U.S. Navy C-130 Hercules overflew the place. Later this pilot stated he never got within 4 nautical miles, when in fact eyewitnesses saw him directly overhead. Why did he lie? What was his real purpose for being in the air that morning? You don't just jump into a C-130 and fire it up in a minute and launch. Just the pre-flight would have taken several minutes to perform. In other words, it had it's orders long before it launched that day because it was not a fighter with a crew sitting in it ready to intercept someone intruding in that airspace. This was a specially equipped 'spook' bird, an intelligence asset bird, and like the orbiting E-4B which was in the sky before it all went down that morning as a part of 'Amalgam VIRGO' and other Richard Cheney exercises, this plane too was also an exercise asset. But for what purpose? For what purpose?
April Gallup, a Pentagon worker who carried her son through the hole the plane allegedly disappeared through, saw not one body part, not one plane component, and smelled zero jet fuel when carrying her son on her shoulders out to safety that morning, just moments after the plane hit. At the very least, April would have been wading through pools of unburnt jet fuel, blood, and viscera, and working her way through miles of wiring from the plane. As it worked out, she saw no evidence of any aircraft, body parts, other signs that N644AA had just flown in there and disintegrated into small pieces as the government asserts.
April Gallup - Was there a bomb in the Pentagon?
Of the more than 80 video cameras that would have let us see N644AA's final flight to the Pentagon that day, the F.B.I. has chosen to show us '5' frames of video that do not show a B-757 just prior to building impact. And interestingly, eyewitnesses who worked at the Arlington National Cemetery and who were interviewed extensively after the event, substantiate a de-facto 'flyover' of the building by a very large transport category aircraft, one eyewitness, identified as 'NEIT-428', describes a scene where he could see the face of the pilot just after the explosion from whatever struck the building, banking away and flying towards Washington, D.C., and his testimony is NOT the only testimony that supports the flyover. The very data the N.T.S.B. provided to us proves that the airplane or aircraft the data may have come from absolutely was over the roof of the building at a height well above it before the data record ended for no apparent reason, because the plane simply had at that point impacted NOTHING YET and was too high for an impact with the Pentagon. Why?
When NEIT-428 was questioned about 'why' the government seemed to be unconcerned about his steadfast unchanging testimony about the flyover he witnessed that day, he simply stated; "they must not think me to be important enough.." Of all of the eyes that were there that day, his were the most uncolored by technical issues. He simply saw what he saw. He saw the pilot's face as the aircraft flew over the Building after the explosion, and banked away towards Washington, D.C. Even though the interviewer constantly tried to lead him other directions, he steadfastly stuck to his story. He refused to be deflected or convinced to tell something different. The investigator who was sent to interview him repetitively lead him in the questioning and this man steadfastly refused to have words put into his mouth. And he was not alone.
The government cites so many eyewitnesses who swear almost on a stack of bibles that they saw the plane impact the Pentagon that day, but to the last person, these eyewitnesses neither were in position to see the impact, or were otherwise proven to not be able to see that airplane strike the building that day like NEIT 428 and his co-workers were from their exceptional view at the cemetery across the highway. You'd think that Based on all of the controversy, the F.B.I. would just release some of those videos to prove NEIT-428 and the hosts of others who saw the flyover, totally in error, wouldn't you? Seems reasonable to me. And it should seem reasonable to you if you believe that the job of the F.B.I. is to protect something called JUSTICE in this country. Clearly their job is something quite different based on the nice clear pictures of their agents with badges in pockets strewing weathered wreckage from the 1995 Buga Colombia B-757 crash that morning. They most assuredly seemed to have been pre-positioned to grab those videos so fast that morning so we would never ever see them. We got 5 frames out of miles of tape recorded on almost 90 cameras. Why?
Someone has been lying to us about what happened at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.
[Source: Veterans Today article 13 Mar 2012 ++]


text:
- Home
- Parliamentary Business
- Senators and Members
- News & Events
- About Parliament
- Visit Parliament
Permalink Prev Next Return to results list
- Title
- Database
Senate Hansard
- Date
- Source
- Parl No.
- Electorate
- Interjector
- Page
- Party
- Presenter
- Status
- Question No.
- Questioner
- Responder
- Speaker
Carr, Sen Bob
- Stage
- Type
- Context
- System Id
Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Table Of ContentsDownload Current Hansard View/Save XML
Previous Fragment Next Fragment
- Start of Business
- Indirect Tax Laws Amendment (Assessment) Bill 2012
- Fair Work Amendment (Textile, Clothing and Footwear Industry) Bill 2011 [2012]
- Broadcasting Services Amendment (Regional Commercial Radio) Bill 2011 [2012]
- Insurance Contracts Amendment Bill 2012
- Excise Amendment (Reducing Business Compliance Burden) Bill 2011, Customs Amendment (Reducing Business Compliance Burden) Bill 2011
- Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency Bill 2011
- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT
- Superannuation
- World Down Syndrome Day
- Walsh, Mr David, Gibson, Ms Miranda
- Transport Industry
- World Forestry Day
- Member for Dobell
- Small Business
Defence Exercises
(Ludlam, Sen Scott, Carr, Sen Bob)
Carbon Pricing
(Edwards, Sen Sean, Wong, Sen Penny)
(Sterle, Sen Glenn, Carr, Sen Kim)
Member for Dobell
(Fierravanti-Wells, Sen Concetta, Carr, Sen Kim)
Murray-Darling Basin
(Xenophon, Sen Nick, Conroy, Sen Stephen)
Military Justice
(Johnston, Sen David, Evans, Sen Christopher)
Harmony Day
(Furner, Sen Mark, Lundy, Sen Kate)
- Defence Exercises
Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2011
- Second Reading
In Committee
- Mason, Sen Brett
- Collins, Sen Jacinta
- Mason, Sen Brett
- Collins, Sen Jacinta
- Mason, Sen Brett
- Collins, Sen Jacinta
- Mason, Sen Brett
- Collins, Sen Jacinta
- Mason, Sen Brett
- Collins, Sen Jacinta
- Mason, Sen Brett
- Collins, Sen Jacinta
- Mason, Sen Brett
- Collins, Sen Jacinta
- Mason, Sen Brett
- Collins, Sen Jacinta
- Mason, Sen Brett
- Collins, Sen Jacinta
- Mason, Sen Brett
- Collins, Sen Jacinta
- Mason, Sen Brett
- Collins, Sen Jacinta
- Mason, Sen Brett
- Collins, Sen Jacinta
- Third Reading
- Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2012
- Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2011-2012, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2011-2012
- Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2011
Content Window
Wednesday, 21 March 2012
Page: 2491
Page: 2491
Senator BOB CARR (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (17:00): Mr President, I am advised by the Parliamentary Library that I am Senator number 548. All those senators, of course, are household names, their likenesses hanging like relics on the walls of a thousand schools, their names tripping to the tongue of a grateful nation and their public service celebrated in every corner of Australia. But you might suspect I jest!
In truth, it is a very great honour to be here; to be able to serve our country, a country whose history, geography and people you think you know, in this Senate. In truth, since I was 15 and finished reading Finn Crisp's biography of Ben Chifley, I have been inspired by the honour of representing my 'grand old party' in a parliament.
A friend of mine, John Wheeldon, served in this Senate—the late John Wheeldon, who represented Western Australia in this Senate. I remember listening to the radio as a student and hearing his maiden speech in the Senate in 1965 when he was opposing waterfront legislation introduced by the Menzies government. John Wheeldon once said to me that he was so enamoured of serving in politics that he would rather have been a member of the Legislative Council of British Guinea than editor of the Times. Norman Mailer, the American novelist, who I counted as a friend, said on one occasion that he had an adolescent crush on the profession of writer. I could say that as an adolescent I had a crush on the profession of being a Labor member of parliament.
I am advised by the Parliamentary Library that I am the only premier of New South Wales of any persuasion to serve in the Senate, although there are former premiers—five of them—who served in the House of Representatives. I pay tribute to one of them, a political opponent, John Fahey. I fluked an election win against John Fahey, who was a formidable premier, and someone who the Liberal Party of New South Wales should pay its courtesies and respects to. I have always admired him, and he went on to be a very sound finance minister, although not up to the standard of my colleague, Senator Wong.
If I have to pick another former premier of New South Wales who served in this parliament, it is George Houston Reid. And I wonder if the Senate would pardon me if I dwelt for some minutes or so on a man who, with a drooping moustache, a slipping monocle and a high, pipsqueak voice, served as an opposition leader in New South Wales, as premier from 1894 to 1899, for one year as Prime Minister of Australia and as the first High Commissioner. He was the man who bought Australia House. Then he went on to serve in the House of Commons. This, I might add quickly, is my last territorial claim on the Australian parliament!
Reid was described by Dr Evatt in a beautiful book that captures the flavour of Australian politics over 100 years ago called William Holman:Australian Labor Leader. William Arthur Holman, the second Labor Premier of New South Wales and later a Nationalist member of the House of Representatives, was himself a former New South Wales premier serving in this parliament. Evatt, in this book on Holman, spends a bit of time on George Reid. He says:
Under the average height, weighing over seventeen stone, Reid soon overcame the severe handicap of so rotund a figure. With a piping voice and slow enunciation, he was able to employ his single eyeglass so effectively that, although his audience laughed often, they always laughed with him and not at him. Indeed, he often employed a very keen sense of humour for a very serious purpose ... Reid was one of the greatest platform speakers and one of the ablest parliamentarians in Australia. The critical crowds of the industrial electorates began to realise that Deakin's rhetorical flourishes lacked the substance, the logic and the argument of Reid, well wrapped up as his speech often was in satire, humour and plain rollicking fun.
Evatt went on to write:
His enemies had confidently expected that Reid's fondness for the pleasures of the club, the theatre, the ballroom and the table would ensure his failure as Premier. These social temptations, it was thought, would frequently divert him from his parliamentary duties, so if the protectionists could not put him out, at least Parkes, Wise or McMillan—
Free Traders like him—
would put him out. But Reid's enemies were profoundly disappointed. Until 1899 he reigned almost supreme in New South Wales.
But when my forebears in the New South Wales Labor Party did vote him out, because they got a better deal on shopping hours reform from his opponent—support in return for concessions—Reid was deprived of the chance to come here as the first Prime Minister of Australia. Leadership of the conservative forces passed to the protectionist, Alfred Deakin, and away from the Free Trader, Reid.
Reid was passionate about free trade because he believed in social justice. He believed that there was something wrong in the colony of New South Wales getting most of its tax revenue from customs duties, because that increased the cost of living of working families. That was why he was a Free Trader. He fought battles to get a reformed budget—a different fiscal policy—through the Legislative Council of New South Wales, going to the people when the upper house rebuffed him. He argued for a tax on land and an income tax to take the place of this total reliance on inequitable customs duties that hurt poor families.
He said in one brilliant speech:
The working classes are spoken of as selfish and grasping, but they have gone on for nearly 40 years bearing nearly twice their share of the taxation of the country without organised opposition to this positive injustice affecting them. Put that alongside the conduct of the Legislative Council and I would like you to tell me which is the narrow, selfish, grasping class in the community.
It is an honour to be making my maiden speech here, years after I thought I had left parliamentary service behind, and to be doing so while serving the country as Minister for Foreign Affairs. I subscribe to the view that Australia is a creative middle power and an activist middle power that defends its interests—which is, after all, the essence of foreign policy—but which sets itself a model of good citizenship. I acknowledge straightaway that large slabs of bipartisanship exist in foreign policy, not least in the treatment by the coalition of our commitment to Afghanistan, and I believe that 1,550 Australian fighting men and women would be grateful for that.
I remember celebrating the end of the Sydney Olympics in October 2000. The closing ceremony was a wry celebration of the Australian character. I remember that as I left the stadium I passed Henry Kissinger, the former US Secretary of State, and because the ceremony had been full of esoteric references to thongs and Hills hoists and other Australian symbolism I thought I should not apologise but explain. I leant over and said to Henry, 'Henry, you've got to understand we are a very funny people.' He had a distant, quite emotional look in his eyes and he said, 'You know, this is the only other country I would consider living in.' I thought that a tribute to what I described three weeks ago as the sweet, funny, brave country we call Australia.
The fact is, the land we call our own—the land owned by these sweet, funny, brave people—is being transformed, as is the rest of the planet. Yes, since the late eighties I have been an unapologetic believer in the grim reality that human activity is changing the earth's climate. Everything I have looked at in all those years has strengthened my belief that this is the truth. Each decade has been warmer than the previous decade since the 1950s. Australian annual average daily maximum temperatures have increased by 0.75 degrees Celsius since 1910. Average global mean sea level for 2011 was 210 millimetres above the level in 1880. Average global mean sea level rose faster between 1993 and 2011 than during the 20th century as a whole. And so the indicators accumulate, all of them pointing to and all of them confirming the fact that it is human activity that has driven this process.
An article in the Economist magazine over a year ago did not question the reality of this phenomenon or the role of humans in driving it but only posited that it was too late to stop and we had to adapt. The Economist said this global warming was mankind's 'craziest experiment', and I do not think we could have put it better. Bill Clinton described global warming as nature's weapon of mass destruction and the brilliant author Bill McKibben, in his book Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet, reminded us that this is the way we live now. This phenomenon is upon us. What was prophecy when I first started reading about it in the late eighties and early nineties is the way we live now. He said in his book:
Here's all I'm trying to say: the planet on which our civilization evolved no longer exists. The stability that produced that civilization has vanished; epic changes have begun. We may, with commitment and luck, yet be able to maintain a planet that will sustain some kind of civilization, but it won't be the same planet, and hence it can't be the same civilization. The earth that we knew—the only earth that we ever knew—is gone.
His book plays with the spelling of 'earth'—eaarth—which is his device of reminding us that the earth today is different from the earth of only a decade or two ago. Human activity has changed it. This is how we live now. It is upon us. It is the way we live.
I do not want to waste the time of the Senate by rehearsing arguments. I have here a list of countries that have implemented a price on carbon or an emissions trading scheme and I have a list of those that are applying a tax—implicit or explicit—higher than the one we have. I wish I had been in this house to have participated in the debates on this issue from 2009.
I am proud to stand here as someone who as Premier of New South Wales introduced three things on this subject. First, I introduced the end of broadacre land clearing in 1996. Peter Beattie in the early 2000s was to implement a similar measure in Queensland. Together that ban on broadacre land clearing in these two states enabled Australia to say that we had met—or almost met—our Kyoto obligation. It was state Labor governments fighting with large sections of the primary producer community that produced that outcome.
Second, as Premier I was proud to introduce what I am assured by the World Bank is literally—actually—the world's first carbon trading scheme. The New South Wales Greenhouse Gas Reduction Scheme came in in January 2003. The European scheme did not come in until two years later in January 2005. We applied a limit to the emissions from the power sector and required offsets where those emissions were exceeded.
Third, I was proud to stand with representatives of the house-building industry and the environment movement in 2004 and introduce what I am assured were the toughest standards for new housing in New South Wales on energy and water. Those BASIX standards have stood the test. They have built into houses a requirement for natural air conditioning to minimise the reliance on air conditioning, for example, producing that 40 per cent reduction on energy use.
I want to share a pessimistic vision with the Senate. What if the shock we have sustained to the planet and to our way of life through changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere that surrounds the earth is actually a precursor to another huge environmental shock? Bear in mind that global warming has caused, by this crazy experiment, a change in the chemical composition of the atmosphere around this planet. If you had gone up and filled a test tube with air from one of the highest mountains on the planet in, say, 1950 and then did the same thing today, the air you would be trapping in the test tube would be chemically different. It would be a different product. This is the experiment we are engaged in. This is what we are living in. But what if this shock, this chemical experiment with the earth's atmosphere, is only the first of a series of shocks we might sustain?
And what about the oceans? Their chemical composition is changing as they absorb more and more of the carbon that our civilisations have been emitting. According to one measurement, the Southern Ocean, which lies between us and the environment of Antarctica, absorbs about 40 per cent of all the human-driven carbon dioxide released around the world each year. The chemical composition of the oceans is changing—a process known as ocean acidification. Currently about one-quarter of the carbon dioxide released each year by human activities is absorbed by those oceans. As the concentration of carbon dioxide increases, the water becomes more acidic. Its chemical composition changes as that of the atmosphere has been changed, and so many disastrous implications follow. Among other things, there is a change in the exoskeletons of marine animals. They become brittle and frail, introduced to a sort of osteoporosis.
Then there is what is happening to the earth's coral. I spoke a moment ago with a group of ambassadors from all around the world, UN ambassadors brought to Australia to discuss with us our bid for the United Nations Security Council. It was the UN ambassador from Serbia who said that, as a diver—Serbia is now a landlocked country, but the ambassador used to represent Yugoslavia—he cannot find a coral reef that is intact from chemical change. When I told him I was going to give a speech and refer to ocean acidification, he understood implicitly the change that is going on.
We are an island state with the third-largest marine jurisdiction in the world. My parliamentary colleague Senator Feeney tells me that, with our landmass and that of the South Pacific, we occupy 20 per cent of the earth's surface. We have a great issue here. With our partners, the small island states of the South Pacific, there is a lot involved in it. I understand that those small island states are eager to have us make a commitment to the blue economy.
My colleague the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, who I see in the gallery, is going to go to Rio+20, the UN Conference on Sustainable Development, in June, with bold Australia ideas, a program and a sound record in this country of ocean management. But this is a global challenge.
I want to address another global challenge. One month ago, US soldiers burnt copies of the Koran at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan. Days later, young people destroyed 238 war graves in Benghazi, Libya. Whether intentional insult or error of judgment, such acts can look like cultures at war. Senators may recall the sense of cultures being at war that was felt on hearing reports of the terrible dynamiting by the Taliban of the Buddhas of Bamiyan—those statues carved in stone 15 centuries ago. At such times, people might subscribe to the notion that we are being tugged toward the nightmare that the American writer Samuel Huntington predicted in his 1996 book the TheClash of Civilisations and the Remaking of World Order. I remember King Abdullah of Jordan saying at a Davos conference in 2004:
Let us avert the clash of civilisations, and help the overlap of cultures.
I think those were eloquent words. That notion of an overlap of cultures, I think, is inspiring, especially compared to the alternative notion of monochrome monoliths destroying one another's statuary, smashing one another's grave sites and burning one another's books.
There have been in the world's history some marvellous cultures of tolerance, and we should dwell on them. In southern Spain, in medieval times, Moslems, Christians and Jews lived and worked together in the polity known as al-Andalus. Andalusia, of course, springs from that Arabic noun. One of the caliphs, Abd-al-Rahman III, who ruled between 912 and 961—his name has probably not been spoken in this Senate chamber for many years—appointed a devout Jewish scholar, Hasdai ibn Shaprut, as his foreign minister. Why recall this all these centuries later? Simply because of the symbolism. Here was a Moslem ruler who appointed a Jew as his foreign minister. It is what King Abdullah must have had in mind: an overlap of cultures.
In that civilisation, al-Andalus, while Christian Europe's libraries were small, the caliph's library at Cordoba reportedly burst with 400,000 volumes. Jews in this civilisation had their sacred writings translated into Arabic, because they liked the sinuosity of the language. As Maria Rosa Menocal wrote in The Ornament of the World—a beautiful book that I commend to the Senate—this was a society that had the courage to 'live with its own flagrant contradictions'.
I have sometimes asked Chinese politicians as we have talked over dinner, 'What was your favourite dynasty?' More often than not, they nominate the Tang dynasty, ruling between 618 and 907. It was a time, according to many of my Chinese interlocutors, 'when China opened to the world and the world opened to China'. Its sometime capital was Xi'an, a walled city of one million people, with mosques and churches and Buddhist monasteries where ancient texts from India were being translated into Chinese. Persian princes in exile made it their home. The grid-like streets were thronged with tradesmen, horsemen, acrobats and musicians who travelled from central Asia along the silk route. You can see statuettes showing them with their non-Chinese features and dress in the museums of China today. They were staples for Tang dynasty tombs. According to recent research, it seems Chinese civilisation, especially under the Tang and Song dynasties, was more cosmopolitan and diverse than we can imagine from this distance. The empire was full of roving foreigners learning from Chinese civilisation. China opened to the world and the world opened to China.
Sydney businessman John Azarias recently wrote an account, that was published in the Financial Times, of the Greek Alexandrian poet Constantine Cavafy whose: 'constant companions of the mind were the multi-ethnic worlds of the Seleucids, of the Ptolemies, of Byzantium and of the Ottomans'. It was, as Azarias said, 'a quintessentially Alexandrian spirit'. Again, this culture was untidy, overlapping, contradictory and pluralistic—not a culture demanding conformity to a single religion or language—surely rich enough to fit King Abdullah's ideal of 'an overlap of cultures'. As I remember hearing Bill Clinton say once: 'Our differences make us interesting. Our common humanity is more important.'
We should ask what we Australians can do, in our modest way, to steer the world away from Koran burnings, the bombing of Buddhas and the despoilation of brave soldiers' graves towards peaceful overlap and pluralism. We can make sure that our multicultural society continues to tick over. I do not think there is a need to fetishise multiculturalism or to give it a capital M but, simply, to relax into our easygoing Australian ethnic and cultural diversity based on tolerance and respect. We can redouble our efforts in the Alliance of Civilisations—and earlier this afternoon I met another UN ambassador who was a member of that alliance—sponsored by the governments of Spain and Turkey. We can enhance our work in the region for interfaith dialogue. We can work with Indonesians, the largest Islamic nation in the world, which continues to spurn extremism.
As Burma democratises we will give it increased aid, of course, to educate and feed its starving children. We will encourage it to resolve complex internal conflicts and to entrench human rights. But we ought to find a bit of extra money, because I understand that in a corner of Rangoon you can find a few streets that include a synagogue, created by Jews from Iraq in the 1890s, sitting next to a 1914 Sunni madrasa, which in turn faces a Hindu temple not far from a Hokkien temple and not far from Methodist, Catholic and Anglican churches—all nearby.
Running foreign policy is about protecting our national interest, although by every tenet of diplomatic doctrine that comes first and foremost. It is also about being an exemplary global citizen when it comes to protecting human rights and protecting the world's oceans. To this I would like to add that in foreign policy we may also promote and defend cultural diversity, the idea of a planet of seven billion that celebrates and does not deny its contradictions.
Mr President, I reflect for a second or two on the vagaries of political life, the planetary alignment of democratic politics that deposited me on this bench. As I said three weeks ago: I am enlisted for the duration. What an honour to serve.


text:
Mall project dedicated, Norris hands out bricks
Charlottesville Mayor Dave Norris, with City Councilor Satyendra Huja beside him, stands in the shadow of the unfinished Landmark Hotel as he begins the dedication ceremony for the completion of the Downtown Mall re-briking project today. A marching band was supposed to play, but sudden showers chased them away. Norris handed out original Mall bricks to a long list of folks responsible for the new Mall project, and the original one, including former city manager Cole Hendrix, state delegate David Toscano, ex-councilor Meredith Richards, and at least seven or eight folks who didn't show up.
6 comments
Kudos - the perfectly composed news shot! Celebrating the completed Downtown Mall re-bricking in the shadow of the seriously incomplete hotel.
The photo combined with the last clause of the last sentence pretty much sums things up. Good job.
Superb photo/story combo. Superb!
With such a beautiful event as celebration, I'm just sorry the project didn't cost a few million more to live up to the spectacle.
Still can't believe they gave up the one of a kind " Halprin Mall" for this boring design.
Many things in Charlottesville are done well, but I do believe it would be an excellent idea to have a fiscal conservative who is also environmentally conscious and understands maintenance and infrastructure on Council. There is also a desperate need for someone who will challenge staff and not back down, but call on citizens to support them. Staff has a growth agenda and is often in line with the county and not the city residents interests. It is in their interest to promote bigger government = more staff, more power, higher salaries.


text:
BOSTON, MA – UMBC guard Rodney Elliott (Baltimore, Md./John Carroll) has been named a finalist for the 2014 Kyle Macy National Freshman of the Year award, as announced by CollegeInsider.com on March 31.
The finalists include Deandre Bembry (St. Joseph's), Myles Davis (Xavier), James Daniel (Howard), Rodney Elliott (UMBC), Joel Embiid (Kansas), Tyler Ennis (Syracuse), Shannon Evans (Buffalo), Kahlil Felder (Oakland), Aaron Gordon (Arizona), Khallid Hart (Marist), Vincent Hunter (UTEP), Rysheed Jordan (St. John's), Tim Kempton (Lehigh), E.C. Matthews (Rhode Island), Jordan Mickey (LSU), Jabari Parker (Duke), London Perrantes (Virginia), Cameron Payne (Murray State), Bobby Portis (Arkansas), Julius Randle (Kentucky), Jonathan Starks (Tulane), Sindarius Thornwell (South Carolina), Noah Vonleh (Indiana), Paul Watson (Fresno), Andrew Wiggins (Kansas) and Marquis Wright (Siena).
Elliott became UMBC's first men's basketball player to earn Rookie-of-the-Year honors in 11 league seasons. The son of former Maryland Terrapin standout Rodney Elliott, Sr. earned Rookie-of-Week honors a UMBC-record five times during the 2013-14 campaign. He finished the year as the leading scorer amongst all league freshmen with 15.0 points per game, which was the fifth-best overall figure in the conference. In addition, Elliott was fourth in America East in assists (3.6), sixth in assist-to-turnover ratio (1.0), and eighth in steals (1.3).
The 6'0" point guard became UMBC's second NCAA Division I player and America East's lone competitor this season to record 400 points (451), 100 rebounds (118) and 100 assists (108) in a season. The first-year player's 451 points scored in the most by a freshman in UMBC's 27 years of NCAA Division I competition.
Elliott was just selected as the America East Fans' Choice Player of the Year, UMBC's first in the eight-year history of the award and the first Retriever freshman in any sport to earn the selection.
The Kyle Macy award is presented annually to the top freshman in Division I college basketball. The 1975 Indiana "Mr. Basketball" played his freshman season at Purdue University. Macy averaged 13.8 points a game as a freshman, while leading the Boilermakers in free throws, shooting .859 percent from the line on the season. He started in 25 of 27 games, helping them to a 16-11 season record.
After playing his freshman year at Purdue, Macy transferred to the University of Kentucky in 1976. He started every game for the Wildcats in 1977. A three-time All-America and three-time All-SEC player, Macy was a member of Kentucky's 1978 National Championship team. In his senior year of 1979-80, he became the first Kentucky player ever to be named consensus Southeastern Conference Player of the Year.
The winner of the 2014 Macy award will be announced at the CollegeInsider.com Awards Banquet on April 4 in Dallas, site of the Division I Men's Basketball Championship.
CollegeInsider.com has been covering online sports almost as long as online sports coverage has existed. CI migrated from a print format to the web in 1996 and the following year the first Coaches Columns appeared on the site. These columns gave fans the opportunity to hear from a host of Division I coaches in a more relaxed, free form environment and were an immediate hit. Over the years, CI has consistently provided some of the most compelling print material on the Web, helping to bring fans of college hoops closer to the game they love. The site has continued to evolve, providing even greater access to the game across a host of platforms.


text:
Relationships with
Photo Credit: Benjamin Bratt's picture is courtesy of NNDB. Photographic illustrations of Benjamin Bratt are copyright © by their respective holders. The images are published with permission or as allowed by the copyright law's fair use or quotation provisions. If any copyright holder objects to an image being included, please notify us and it will be removed immediately.
Disclaimer: This information about Benjamin Bratt is derived from astrological interpretation of Benjamin Bratt's date, time, and place of birth.


text:
Kylie Jenner Dyes Hair Blue Just in Time for Kim Kardashian's Wedding [PHOTOS]
Kylie Jenner has found a hobby in experimenting with her hair, with her latest move including a rich blue — a bold move and color, since big sis Kim Kardashian's wedding is less than two weeks away.
The youngest member of the Jenner-Kardashian clan has been changing up her hair all year, starting off with the dramatic cut from long hair to cute bob. It wasn't long after that that she started dying the ends, trying out a subtle dark-to-light brown fade before going for a full-on dramatic ombre.
Maybe when Kylie started adding chunks of blue-green to her hair last month she was easing her way into the world of vibrant hair colors. Whatever the case, she's made the plunge. Earlier this week the 16-year-old committed to color, dying nearly her whole head of hair a bright, bold blue.
It looks awesome, and definitely fits her this-side-of-edgy style, but how will it fit in among the formal décor of Kim and Kanye West's wedding? It won't blend into the background of their family photos, that's for sure.
All 'something blue' wedding jokes aside, it is Kim's big day, so hopefully there are no hard feelings if the bride-to-be requests a hair change!
See Pop Stars Without Makeup


text:
At the Parc du Mont-Tremblant, the belvedere located on the top of the mountain gives us an impressive 360 degree panoramic view of the whole region and the big storm advancing over the Tremblant Lake.
Later that saturday, the storm killed a mother and her 9-years-old son in Temiscouta region, eastern Quebec. Their car plunged into a lake and was swept away when a section of the road was washed-out by flash floods.
Produced by Montreal360.ca


text:
Dean & Pat Jodry's 1949 Plymouth Coupe
Dean Didn't Want To Pass Up The Chance To Own One Again
Figuring out what to build next is a challenge for any custom guy looking to make a change. For Dean Jodry, the issue was decided when he opened the classified section of a local newspaper and saw an ad for an early 49 Plymouth five-passenger coupe. As a kid, Dean learned to drive in an identical car, and he didnt want to pass up the chance to own one again.
Dean was already driving a really cool customa 50 Merc that he and his wife Pat drove all over the place, getting a load of attention wherever they showed up. But after 10 years, Dean was feeling the itch to get into something differentnot just different from his Merc, but different from most of the stuff hed seen on the street and at custom shows. Different like a 49 Plymouth.
As it turns out, the 49 was beyond what Dean had expected. It was a one-owner stocker, complete with the original drivetrain. Although it had been garaged behind the owners house for a few years, it ran like a fresh car during Deans testdriveand the drive home.
The Plymouth was so together that, for a while, Dean was tempted to do a complete restoration. In the end, his customizing instincts prevailed, and he knew the car would benefit from some tasty modifications. Before laying a hand on the car, he sat down with M.K. John, a local pinstriper and graphic artist who created a concept drawing of a subtlybut extensivelycustomized 49. From there, the car went to The Body Shop in Grand Island, Nebraska, where Gary Gerberding got busy turning the car into a real-world application of Johns illustration. John called Gerberding to remind him that the work in metal would be a helluva lot harder than it was with a pencil. He was right, but the guys at The Body Shop came extremely close to the concept.
Deans Plymouth is an early 49 model that retains the styling of the 46-48 carsbut by the time it was done, the styling was definitely one-off. The chrome-heavy body was cleaned of most external pieces with the exception of the beltline trim. The completely reworked body was painted PPG Custom Copper and dropped over airbag suspension with a Mustang II frontend. A dressed-up GM crate small-block makes the car a reliable driver.