Wednesday, April 26, 2006


dear prof. nadler:

i caught your interview on ATC this evening.

it propelled me to look up your cv. pretty impressive.

but, i am compelled to ask, for a woman as provably intelligent as you must have been, may still be, why do you think the events of 11/09/01 were the results of terrorist attacks?

is it just convenient for you to accept the propaganda? or are you an academic attorney[as opposed to a criminal trial attorney] who can excuse the destruction of evidence, the destruction of chain of custody? or are you just a citizen who prefers to overlook the outrageous prevarications that the usg has propounded concerning the events of that day?

many days out of the year, i function as a forensic metallurgist. i care to inform you that the only truths that we know about that day are these......

1. wtc 1, 2, 7 collapsed as if in a controlled demolition.

2. something collided with terrain at the pentagon, but it is highly doubtful that it was a boeing 757 airliner.

3. perhaps some aircraft collided with terrain outside of shanksville, pa. but the official story that the earth swallowed up the evidence is utter rubbish.

succinctly, the usg's story for the events of that day is the most fanciful, outrageous conspiracy theory ever devised.

and i would have thought that an attorney, especially a professorial attorney at a very prestigious law school, someone who should have as good a grasp on facts[the discipline of empiricism] as i have, would have pondered the usg's conspiracy theory and found it lacking in any foundation[proofs].

so, i found it quite unseemly when i heard you discussing the testimony of victims of 09/11/01 "arab terrorist attacks" trotted out in the moussouai trial by the doj[i prefer dop].

have you ever thought what evidence has been proffered to sustain the notion of "hijackings"?

cell phone calls from some of the airliners. i am still bumfuzzled as to why this "proof" goes unchallenged in the msm. i have to tell you, everyone in the wireless industry knows that this aspect of the usg story is a lie. you cannot conduct cell phone conversations from airborne aircraft traveling linearly at normal cruising speed at any altitude. circling a cell tower, as long as your altitude was below 5,000-8,000 ft, yes a connection could be established and sustained. BUT THE AIRCRAFT FROM WHICH CELL PHONE CALLS WERE MADE WERE NOT FLYING THAT WAY THAT DAY.

now, do you know why you cannot make a cell call from an aircraft that flies faster linearly than 150nmph? it is because the handshaking required to make a connection with the cell tower cannot occur...traveling at speeds way in excess of 150nmph, before handshaking can occur, the aircraft has traveled out of the cell towers range.

as of this date, the only proofs proffered for any hijacking are cell phone calls that could not have been made. you are an attorney, a professor of law, how do you arrange this grotesque fiction in your mental schema? how is it that you describe the events of that day as "terrorist attacks" when there has been no valid evidence ever presented that any "terrorists" hijacked any aircraft that day?

by the way, years later, cell phone calls can still not be made from airliners traveling linearly at cruising speed. at any altitude. and you could know that if you followed technology and the efforts that have been made over the last few years to enable cell phone calls from airliners using satellites. as of this date, this technology has not been implemented. there are large numbers of we passengers who do not relish the idea of having the joker in the seat next to us yelling into a cellphone for hours.

so, throw out the usg attempt to use cellphone calls from airliners as any valid proof. once you do that, counselor, there is no proofs of any hijackings.

well, that is enough for now. perhaps if you have any legitimate interest in reality, we can discuss jet A fires, structural steel, et alia.

if i can capture your curiosity, if i can complete this dialogue, perhaps you will become a voice of intellectual honesty, rather than a trumpet of cant.

before i close, can you tell me how moussouai has been incarcerated? has he been subjected to sleep deprivation techniques? and other abu ghraib-like abuses? as if a resident of mt carmel outside of waco, was he bombarded by tapes of the cries of dying animals? succinctly, did the usg drive him mad? personally, understanding the usg as i came to know it, i know that they "brain-f*cked" him. and i think that you know that, too. if you do, why do you refrain from speaking out?

in closing, do you even consider these realities as you arrange your personna?

or do you just parrot the usg propaganda?

do any pro bono defense work, by the way?

would appreciate your reply, prof.


Post a Comment

<< Home