Just a quibble on the Lie Detector issue to start:
Lie detector tests are always bogus. A real astute criminal, trained operative, and/or Psycho (especially) can always pass. It just takes a bit of training and knowledge. And a certain kind of nerve. An innocent person will often not pass, simply because the procedure frightens them.
The only thing interesting about the Lie Detector element in this case is:
1) Someone thought if Van de Velde passed it, somehow that would show he was innocent. (Sheeple! What can you do?)
2) VdV has refused to take any more tests, beyond the one he has already taken which was administered by some FBI-connected operative.
#2 means VdV is very upset by the situation and is not a top-rated psycho. A top-rated 100% psycho wouldn't flinch when proclaiming innocence. So best guess....He's a medium-rated psycho intelligence operative who botched the job.
The police have some reason for believing Van de Velde guilty.
The people who argue for his innocence seem to make him appear more guilty.
The excuses they give as to why he must be innocent ("The State Dept. wouldn't give highest security clearance to a murderer" "Why would he drive one half mile past his house and kill her on a street corner?") don't ring true.
The answer to the first apology is "untrue." And the answer to the second has no bearing on whether or not he did it.
Why would his defenders have to go so far out on a limb to find a reason for his innocence. Wouldn't an: "He wasn't there He didn't do it" suffice?
( You will find the same absurd lines of apologetics among the 9/11 government story supporters: "If they really did it why would they be so stupid and obvious as to pretend to find the passport of the hijacker [sic] in the street where nothing else remained?" !)
As we know, (as 9/11 researchers), considering VdV's specialty, his background and standing as an intelligence operative, the extent Jovin did her thesis on his special "field of interest" - "Osama bin Laden" - her strange murder and VdV's connection to her, the events leading up to her death, the timing with the deadline of her thesis, all adds up to too much of a stretch to imagine a mere coincidence.
Sorry, no bite.
The "dating" issue, VdV's lack of social skills, reputed trouble with woman, history of stalking, is a red herring.
The police probably concluded it was a passion crime since she was stabbed 17 times? (Or maybe there are other reasons, not disclosed, for their conclusion?) However, the precise method could have been staged, done coldly and deliberately, to make it look passionate. Or he, whoever performed the deed (most likely "he"), could've been enough of a psycho to get "into" it, without personal motive. The police may have helped with the red herring.
(Anyone see "The Departed," the latest Scorsese which takes place in Boston? It's based on a true story. In real life the two leads were brothers. And in real life the criminal liaison brother, the one in the Police Dept., is still alive somewhere under a false ID. Yes, and the FBI was in cahoots with the local police department. And not in a nice way.)
I don't believe you rise to 5 levels above top secret security clearance without some very special attributes. And pacifism isn't one of them.
I speculate VdV's political power and insider status made him feel he could get away with it. He may have made a mistake in the "information" he gave Jovin, didn't know how to get out of it, stonewalled and put off discussing her thesis.
But when it finally came down to it, couldn't dissuade her from publishing the "info" he had mistakenly provided or recruit her either. That's, perhaps, why she got out of the car. He could've have angered her and that would have been the trigger for her to get out of the car without a destination. The random location near his apartment tends to make me believe she got out of the car herself when they could not come to agreement.
When VdV said to local television reporters soon after the murder, "I never hurt her," it could be he told the truth? Maybe another specialist co-worker did it. Sort of like James Jesus Angleton saying in regard to the murder of JFK (which happened while he was spy-master head of CIA), ~"I don't know who killed John. There are many mansions..." when he was forced by Congress to testify about it.
Perhaps VdV had to cover his ass and the Black or Latino man seen with them all, on the street before it happened, helped out. That explains certain details - the lack of apparent struggle. (But then again, she was stabbed from behind. Maybe that accounts for it.) Certainly, VdV was trained at some point for "self-defense" and had a clean-up crew.
The police couldn't actually arrest him since it's blocked by higher ups? Someone in the Police Dept nevertheless refuses to clear Van de Velde's name.
And ultra-right-wing good-looking woman commentators are set to the task of framing it a "Left-wing conspiracy" by the oh-so-very radical and liberal Yale University!?
Schlussel blames (see below) VdV's supposed wrongful loss of status on the partiality of the Media - with anti-University and anti-Intellectuality as the blinking star at the top of the plastic Christmas tree:
Yikes! She's makes VdV look bad! At least to anyone with 1/2 a brain left.
->"And unlike a real murderer he's never even been charged." Schlussel says.
(Apparently the Jovin parents are angry with the University too, for trying to encourage people to put it behind them - ~"Get over it. Or it will destroy the reputation of callous Yale."
Think about that!
With the Yale reputation as it stands?! Association of the Skull and Bones etc. and the Bushes?! They are worried about this!
Ah, Maybe rightly.
Especially how could W. have graduated there?!. And how could he have bragged at a Commencement ceremony, during his tenure as President of the US, that he had read one book while studying as a student during his time at Yale?
In the Right-wing criticism of Yale.... what about... should the suspect in the case have been a radical, progressive or free-thinking professor? The reactionary Right-wing Pit Bull hoards of blow-hards would be panting after the suspect's neck, carrying ropes, prepping his ass for a torture session, putting his trash under a microscope for 24/7 surveillance, while blinding him with klieg lights under unremitting Media coverage!
(It didn't bother the Wingers to ruin a previous President's official (because supported by the Media) reputation for integrity when there was, for instance, no evidence then or now that said President ever actually had intercourse with his intern. And even if he did? What if he did? So what?)
And what about the Democrat intern who disappeared/was murdered the summer before 9/11/01? Chandra Levy?
Did it stop the Right-wing blowhards when there was supposedly no good evidence against the suspect in that case either? Did anyone cry tears or complain that their careers had been unfairly ruined? Was there a complaint against the Media for it? No, just righteous indignation and complaint that the suspect couldn't be pinned.
But now the wing-nut flag wavers are all in tears over Van de Velde's humiliation?
And if VdV guy plays his cards right maybe he can profit from the dark side of his personification and get a new career, like O.J. or "Ollie" North!
But VdV doesn't seem to have even the minimum charisma for that.
The 17 stabs makes one think there was emotional involvement and the killer was truly angry?
Not necessarily. I'm not sure on that point. Some types of psychos just get "into" it. Those just happen to be very rare. And usually don't work in rich neighborhoods against popular co-eds ... since they don't want to get caught!
Are the VdV supporters stating that it's a conspiracy by the police against him...and that's why the police deliberately ignored other leads. Or did the police already know who did it and just couldn't get him for it?
And because VdV wouldn't take a police administered lie detector test? Does that mean he's not a bona fide psycho?
Maybe he was afraid a particular question would trigger him? And he really didn't need to take it!? Since he wouldn't be arrested anyway.
DNA evidence is worthless in a politically charged murder case, in Boston. Or probably anywhere. So the fact the DNA under her fingers doesn't match him means nothing.
And what about the class "project" Jovin objected to: where the class was set the task of figuring out if they could gather sufficient info for themselves, from the Internet, to minutely and rigorously plot a terror attack. The plan was how to drop sarin out of an airplane over FL?! Jovin refused to enlist her parents as information sources to help out.
She spoke up on that, and refused the assignment, against others in the class who went along, which shows her fine character.
What was Van de Velde, anyway, getting young top students and brains to help with a "terrorism" project - simulating a terrorist attack?!
This video proves that in a high speed crash between a plane and a wall much of the material should bounce off on the outside.
You don't see, in this example, some of the material turning to dust while some of it survives intact. You don't see the plane penetrate the wall even slightly, as the "plane" appeared to do completely in the videos of the 9/11 South Tower event.
It's true that the F-4 is perhaps made of harder material and more sturdily built, since it's made to travel at higher speeds and that it is smaller than a commercial airline. But if it is harder, then why isn't it even less likely, than a 767, to disintegrate into nothing upon impact?
So the proponents of the authenticity of the Media videos have it both ways - the "plane" is hard enough to penetrate the outer rigid wall of steel columns, but disintegrates to nothing once it gets inside - where it presumably is met with a lot of air and some central columns.
Did "it" lose momentum upon breaking the shell of the building? As one would assume. (But how could "it" lose momentum if the side of the building appeared to give no resistance?)
To follow this "logic" of no loss of momentum "it" would hit the central core with less force than "it" hit the outside of the building? But this would somehow be enough force to totally disintegrate the "plane?"
Or if not, the intense fires would burn up all the plane parts?
Yet if a fire from a plane crash can burn up all the parts and leave no debris, why is it this has never happened before? (I fully expect the Media perps/suggestibility specialists to start occasionally to stage such "events" from now on, to normalize freaky occurrences.)
Why were supposed plane parts, which don't even match the parts of a 767, then found in the neighborhood? (I should say "put on display" there?). When none were shown to fall away in the video presented? Why weren't these parts found in the regular rubble of the "pile?" But instead all about in the street? (Especially when there is no exit hole on the North side of the South Tower for any of this debris to have exited.)
If a plane breaks up so well upon impact with an immovable object, as it does in the above video - and I will say steel columns, attached to the side of a Trade Tower, are relatively immovable, then why didn't the "plane" appear to break up, i.e. do the same thing it did in the test above, in the videos everyone is shown of the event?
Here's an example of the columns immovability:
None of the steel column segments appear to break off where they were attached i.e. pop out, when hit.
So the columns must've been pretty well secured and attached. The set-up was rigid enough that when a force was applied THE WHOLE BUILDING MOVED.
To quote a structural engineer, Pegelow, who spoke recently on the Alex Jones show, ~"The Trade Towers were not a House of Cards, where one event could push their stability over the edge, and trigger a complete collapse."
If the "plane" truly and cleanly punched out a hole in the side of the building, where did the force come from to cause the building to sway?
If the "plane" truly and cleanly punched out a hole in the side of South Tower, that means a section of wall, in the outline of a plane, put up no resistance to the entry of the "plane."
If the wall *had* put up resistance, some of the plane would've broken up. If it put up none, the building wouldn't end up swaying.
The steel columns were just, supposedly, punched through - without dislodging from where ever they were attached from below.
That would mean the mass of the entire South World Trade Center was behind the "kick" it received from the "plane."
The "impact" didn't punch out the entire column. So this implies the columns were all quite well attached and that the side of the building was, of a piece, a relatively rigid barrier. Made of steel, which is stronger than AL. Planes are made of AL for its lightness. So the side of the building was strong compared to the plane.
The wall, shown in the test video above, is made of a specially prepared cement-like material - which one would assume is softer than steel. It's meant to cushion any impact, so as not to be penetrated, as it would be if more rigid, less giving.
The Trade Tower sides were also all designed to "give" upon having force applied. That is how they withstood wind storms. Witnesses state that the building swung upon "impact." (Not sure how many reading this have felt that swing of a Trade Tower in the wind, from inside of one. But you could feel it quite clearly on a windy day. It induced fear in me, and a kind of sea sickness.)
So even though both "rigid" barriers were designed to "give" upon impact, in only one case, if you compare the video representations of what happen to South Tower on 9/11 and the test for nuclear power station safety, did you see the plane break up *completely* upon impact, and the barrier successfully and totally resist penetration.
And that, we assume, was in a real world test. Why the discrepancies between the records? The cement barrier looks hardly scratched.
So why wasn't any material repelled by the wall of the WTC Tower, if it was indeed hit by a real plane? Why did the "plane" totally penetrate the wall of the Tower like a hot knife into butter?
Why isn't the hole/scar on the South Tower even big enough to allow the supposed "plane" entry, as it is shown in the videos of the event? Why is no plane debris visible in either "mouth"/scar of the World Trade Towers' wounds?
Why isn't there an exit hole on the North side of the South Tower building, even though numerous videos show material and a nose-like object, timed with where the "plane nose" would've been seen, had "it" continued on its apparent trajectory without impediment, exit on that side??
The picture above is the viewpoint from here as shown by the black "x." The Whitehall Building is the large brick-colored and dirty-beige checked one, with brown stripes, at the very left front in the picture above.
The view, is actually looking over the top of the fort. In the top image you can see the fort Clinton, which is a low brick structure at the left. In the picture directly above that's the circular building in the foreground.
Here is the same exact photo from at top cropped and zoomed to imitate the view in the "Ghostplane" rendition as seen in the video.
Below are the approximate locations "x"-ed out: of the viewer, the Whitehall Building and the South World Trade Tower.
Here is a Google Earth screen shot where I have "x"-ed in the three players. It shows the relationship between the viewer, the top of the Whitehall Bld. and the World Trade Tower South. The height of the Whitehall Bld. is represented by the two "x"-s, one on top of the other. The height of the Trade Tower is the vertical line to the right. It's all roughly to scale. If you want it larger, click on the picture.
These are the measures I made. From the front of Whitehall Bld. to observer, 1000 ft. From observer to foot of World Trade Tower South, 3300 ft. Height of Whitehall Tower, 424ft. Height of Trade Tower, 1727 ft. When these figures are mapped out, the line of sight of the viewer, from where I stood in the Park, captures the appropriate top section of the Trade Tower as shown in the above clip, altered in any case. The buildings between the Trade Tower and the Whitehall Bld. are too short to interfere with this sight line. The ones to the right when you're facing it, could very well be covered with trees. It's not uncommon to have the leaves on the trees here in September.
The model is approximate and rough but illustrates some reasons behind the optical illusion many people experience in viewing one of the government-sponsored video clip, "Ghostplane."
When I made my triangles of the correct proportions and drew a sight line - only the top portion of the South Tower was visible - exactly how the scene was rendered in the government released clip.
The Towers appear too short above the Whitehall Bld. This is due to a few things: Please notice the shortening of the perceived distance between the observer and the WB in the "close-up" shot. This comes about through the use of zooming and cropping so the perceived distance is shortened. One has no idea how high up one is looking or how far away. However, the Whitehall Bld is over 400 ft. tall.
Appreciate the scale clearly by looking at the first picture above which shows the Whitehall Bld. in the context of the Battery Park setting. The distances: both between the observer and the building and between the top of the Whitehall building and the ground are clear in the unaltered perspective.
The difficulty in processing the scale here is due to another factor: the unnatural height of the Tower and its obscure distance from the viewer. (The South Tower is over 1/2 a mile away from the observer in Battery Park and is itself 1/4 of a mile tall.)
Much as the gigantic moon, though very far away, will appear larger when it is near the horizon. In this case we only feel the building should be larger. The larger-Moon-near-the-horizon effect is an optical illusion since the moon's objective size doesn't change. It's so far away its apparent size won't change no matter where it moves.
When you plot the distances out between the observer, the top of the Whitehall Bld. and the top of the South Trade Tower, the top of the South Trade Tower is right where it should be and where it is depicted in the screen shot of the video. The World Trade Tower South is so much more huge than we can process and therefore subconsciously "assume" the proportion is wrong. We can't see it as being distant. From what it looks like in the cropped rendition we assume that it must be closer and the size of a regular skyscraper. This is also partly because we are deceived, from the photograph since the Whitehall Building appears there much smaller than it actually is. Most of the building is cropped away in the "Ghostplane" video clip.
Click on picture below for full size image:
If you click on the pictures you can see the larger versions.