What hit the pentagon?

What Hit the Pentagon?

Where the Pentagon was struck on 9/11/01 is indisputable and is strong circumstantial evidence that the attack was an inside job. However, what hit it has remained controversial in some circles, given the refusal of authorities to produce definitive evidence to support the official story that American Airlines Flight 77was the attack plane. With security camera video from nearby businesses having been seized minutes after the attack, and only five selected video frames released by the military, we are left with seemingly contradictory physical and eyewitness evidence.

• Many eyewitnesses accounts describe a 757-like jetliner approach and collide with the Pentagon.
• Photographs of the impact damage seem difficult to reconcile with the collision of a 757, since they show neither the imprint of such a plane on the facade nor large recognizable pieces of aircraft.

These apparent contradictions stem partly from misconceptions about the physics of plane crashes. The contradictions vanish when one considers possible manipulations of a 757 crash, such as the destruction of portions of the plane just before impact. However, theories that nothing like a 757 crashed into the Pentagon have been so effectively popularized that mainstream media attacks on 9/11 skeptics frequently identify them as disputing only one aspect of the official story: that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. 

The Missile and/or Global Hawk Theories

Based on interpretations of the physical evidence — in many cases based on fallacies – several researchers have proposed theories that the damage to the Pentagon was caused by a missile, and/or a small lightweight remote-controlled plane, such as a Global Hawk. Variants of this theory became popular among skeptics of the official Flight 77 crash story in early 2002, despite their disregard for the eyewitness evidence that the plane seen approaching the Pentagon was a large twin-engine jetliner.

Much of the support for the missile and/or Global Hawk theories is drawn from the five frames of Pentagon video, despite their suspect source and signs of forgery.

The Two-Plane Theory

A second theory, also advanced in 2002, was researcher Dick Eastman’s small plane theory (or two-plane theory). It holds that a Boeing 757 did indeed swoop down toward the west block of the Pentagon, but disappeared into a blinding pyrotechnic display, making it appear that it had crashed into the building, while in fact it had cleared the facade, overflown the Pentagon, and then banked sharply to land at Reagan National Airport, whose runways are only about two miles away from the Pentagon. As the jetliner was disappearing into the fireball, a small attack jet, such as an F-16, approached from a different trajectory and crashed into the wall, producing, in combination with a missile, the damage to the facade and interior.

This theory has the advantage over other no-757-crash theories that it is consistent with the many credible eyewitness reports of a jetliner. However, it neither explains the eyewitness statements that the plane collided with the building, nor the lack of a single eyewitness statement supporting the idea that a 757 overflew the Pentagon and then landed at the nearby National airport. Also, the theory raises questions about the fate of the passengers of Flight 77.

The 757 overflight theory is perhaps the weakest part of the two-plane theory. The Pentagon is surrounded by highways, and by densely populated areas such as Pentagon City to the south. Wouldn’t a 757 overflying the Pentagon in a direction perpendicular to normal air traffic have been witnessed and reported by numerous individuals?

The Engineered Crash Theory

According to the above theories, no 757 crashed at the Pentagon on 9/11/01, despite the abundance of eyewitness reports of a large jetliner crashing. Some of these theories suggest that events were engineered to fool people into believing that Flight 77 had crashed. Some include elaborate stage-magic tricks, such as a drone painted like an American Airlines plane, and the use of motors and cables to pull down lamp poles.

Many no-757-crash theorists want us to believe that the attack was engineered to trick eyewitnesses into thinking a much smaller attack plane was a jetliner. But we can equally imagine that the attack was engineered to make the site of a 757 crash look to many observers like that of something else.

Eric Bart

French researcher Eric Bart proposed that the airliner was shredded by shape charges both before and after it entered the building. His theory accounts for the eyewitness near-consensus in favor of a 757-type jetliner crashing, for details in eyewitness statements not consistent with a simple crash, and for the pattern of damage to the Pentagon not explained by other theories.

e x c e r p t

title: Shaped charges

authors: Eric Bart

source The shaped charges were ignited before the nose touched the wall. That’s why some witnesses reported signs of an early impact, before the plane touched the wall : “It seemed like it made impact just before the wedge“ Joe Harrington “I heard a sonic boom and then the impact“ Joel Sucherman Other witnesses understood that the plane hit the ground before the wall : “It didn’t appear to crash into the building, most of the energy was dissipated in hitting the ground, I saw the nose break up, I saw the wings fly forward “ Donald “Tim” Timmerman “The fuselage hit the ground and blew up“ Mary Ann Owens “The nose of the plane curled upwards and crumpled before exploding into a massive fireball” Vin Narayan But there was no mark of the plane on the ground. Other witnesses reported an impact on the building : “The large aircraft struck the outermost corridor (E-ring) of the five-ring building at ground level (the second floor)”Aviationnow “The aircraft went in between the second and third floors.”Lincoln Leibner Why did some witnesses thought [sic] that the plane hit the ground before the wall ? I see two reasons. First, the explosion of the charges created white flashes around the fuselage that seemed an early contact with the ground. Second, shaped charges in a plane have a recoil effect like powder in guns. Their explosions should have push [sic] back the fuselage and slow it down, giving the impression that it hit something. It could also make the wings detached [sic] and fly forward because, unlike the fuselage, they were not slowed down, “I saw the wings fly forward”. The Penny Elgas statement : “At the point where the fuselage hit the wall, it seemed to simply melt into the building. I saw a smoke ring surround the fuselage as it made contact with the wall. It appeared as a smoke ring that encircled the fuselage at the point of contact and it seemed to be several feet thick. I later realized that it was probably the rubble of churning bits of the plane and concrete. The churning smoke ring started at the top of the fuselage and simultaneously wrapped down both the right and left sides of the fuselage to the underside, where the coiling rings crossed over each other and then coiled back up to the top. Then it started over again — only this next time, I also saw fire, glowing fire in the smoke ring.” The analysis of this report is complex. However I’ll try here. First I believe Penny Elgas. Under adrenaline things go definately slower. The report she gave is so unexpected that I don’t think she made it up. It’s just a pure factual report. The interpretation she gave is false. : “the rubble of churning bits of the plane and concrete“. The smoke moves are too perfect. My speculation : The “churning smoke” is the white flash of inside charges. Penny Elgas saw the white flashes of these charges exploding in two overlapped and opposite helices. There was not a single large shaped charge in the plane. I did not see any large shaped charge on the web. The best anti-bunker weapon (BLU-113) is only 1.2 foot large (diameter). Instead, there were many shaped charges (one feet diameter) inside the plane. Roughly, a one foot diameter will make a one foot hole. These charges were arranged in circle inside the fuselage and along the fuselage. Thus it was possible to make a large hit on the wall with small shaped charges. These charges were not fired all at the same time (probably to be more silent or for having a “hammering” effect on concrete). So what is the best sequence for igniting all theses charges ? Maybe things are simpler then I first thought. All the plane (fuselage and wings) is laid on a rigid structure. This means that the bottom of the fuselage is strong and the top is fragile. So, when a charge explode near the bottom of the fuselage, it destroys the stiffness of it. I think that the charges where put in two overlapped and opposite helices (clockwise and counter clockwise). The explosion started at the top front of the fuselage, continued downward and backward on each side, joined at the bottom and continued upward and backward, and so on …, as Penny saw. When explosions occur at the bottom, the plane fuselage stiffness is damaged. Thus, next charges to explode are less strongly tied to the fuselage. The further they are from the bottom, the more difficult it is to tie them strongly to the fuselage. Thus, next charges have to be attached close to the bottom. That’s why I think it continued upward (and backward) on each side of the fuselage, because next charges can’t be mechanically attached far form the bottom. “Then it started over again — only this next time, I also saw fire, glowing fire in the smoke ring.” The glowing fire is the fireball itself that comesafter the white flash.

site: eric.bart.free.fr/iwpb/ page: eric.bart.free.fr/iwpb/inv2.html

Bart theorizes only about the use of shaped charges in the destruction of the plane. However, it is possible to imagine other types of weapons may have produced a similar result. If these weapons were ground-based rather than installed in the plane, it would be easier to imagine that the event involved Flight 77, since the perpetrators would not have required physical access to the plane to prepare the attack.

The Remote-Controlled 757 Theory

The simplest theory that answers questions about the piloting skill required by the approach maneuver and the location of the strike is the remote-controlled 757 theory, in which an American Airlines 757, perhaps Flight 77, is flown by remote control into the Pentagon. The engineered crash theory is a subset of the remote-controlled 757 theory. Its added element of explosives or other weapons destroying portions of the aircraft prior to impact helps to reconcile the crash of a 757 with the crash impact damage shown in photographs, but this element is consistently targeted by critics defending no-757-crash theories. Researcher Mark Robinowitz, webmaster of oilempire.us, has suggested that speculation about crash engineering, like that about exactly what hit the Pentagon, has served as a distraction from the provable fact of where the building was hit and its implications. On The Pentagon attack: How the ‘no plane’ theories are used to discredit 9/11 skepticism and distract from proven evidence of complicity he provides evidence that the the no-757-crash theories may be rooted in a false-flag psy-op to discredit skepticism of the official story.

page last modified: 2010-12-18

The World Trade Center Attack

The World Trade Center Attack The seven-building complex comprising the World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan was totally destroyed in the 9/11/01 attack. News reports emphasized the impacts of the 767 jetliners with the Twin Towers and the ensuing fires. Yet these events, spectacular and deadly, produced far less loss of life, and relatively little destruction compared to the total collapses of the towers and Building 7 that followed. Buildings 1 Through 6 World Trade Center buildings One through Six occupied a super-block bounded by West, Vesey, Church, and Liberty Streets. The Twin Towers, or 1 and 2 World Trade Center, exploded into small pieces and fine dust, severely damaging the four low-rise buildings in the complex surrounding them. Large portions of Buildings 3, 4, and 6 were crushed. Severe fires raged in Buildings 4, 5, and 6 for several hours following the explosions of the towers. Our analysis of the destruction of the Twin Towers divides the events into four parts: Jetliners impact the towers Fires follow the impacts Explosions level the towers Vast dust clouds follow the explosions Building 7 Building 7, or 7 World Trade Center, occupied its own block across Vesey Street from the WTC complex. Although projectiles hurled in all directions by the exploding towers caused extensive superficial damage to buildings surrounding the WTC complex, including gashes in 3 Financial Center to the west and the Bankers Trust Building to the south, they did not produce severe structural damage to those buildings. No photographs of 7 World Trade Center that can be corroborated by other photographs or videos show significant structural damage to it. Yet the building collapsed totally at 5:20 PM, showing all the features of a standard controlled demolition. FEMA’s inconclusive report tentatively blamed the collapse on small fires that burned for most of the afternoon. e x c e r p t title: Waking Up From Our Nightmare authors: Don Paul and Jim Hoffman A question arises from the obvious demolition of WTC 7: Why destroy such a valuable piece of real estate? We know that WTC7′s developer and lease-holder, Silverstein Properties, and WTC7′s mortgage-holders, the Blackstone Group, Banc of America Securities, and General Motors Acceptance Corporation, received a Court-awarded amount of $861 million dollars from Industrial Risk Insurers in February 2002. We know that about $386 million had been invested in WTC7 before its destruction. The Court-award meant that Silverstein Properties and the mortgage-holders would share in about $475 million of profit. [8] Silverstein Properties is headed by Larry Silverstein, a large contributor to Democrat and Republican office-holders. Silverstein Properties became the primary owner of the WTC Twin Towers less than two months before 9/11/01 (Westfield Malls was Silverstein Properties’ minority-partner). Buying from the New York Port Authority, Silverstein Properties invested only $15 million toward a total purchase-price of $3.2 billion for a 99-year lease on holdings worth an estimated $8 billion. The low-rise office buildings WTC 4, 5, and 6, and 400,000 square feet of retail space were included with the Twin Towers in this deal. Silverstein Properties immediately took out extensive insurance policies on its new holdings. One clause in Silverstein Properties’ insurance policies for the new WTC holdings soon proved instrumental. Quoting the British Financial Times of September 14, 2001, the American Reporter wrote that ‘ the lease has an all-important escape clause: If the buildings are struck by “an act of terrorism”, the new owners’ obligations under the lease are void. As a result, the new owners are not required to make any payments under their lease, but they will be able to collect on the loss of the buildings that collapsed or were otherwise destroyed and damaged in the attacks. ’ [9] Silverstein Properties is still contesting the amount of pay-out due for destruction of the Twin Towers—$3.55 billion for one ‘occurrence’ or $7.1 billion for two ‘occurrences’. The “terrorism” clause in his lease has given Larry Silverstein leverage in negotiating his new deal for the site. [10] 8. ‘Rebuilding Begins for 7 WTC Despite Unanswered Questions’, Peter Grant, Wall Street Journal, July 10, 2002, http://homes.wsj.com/columnists_com/bricks/20020710-bricks.html . 9. ‘No Fraud, but Huge Profits Seen in World Trade Center Attacks’, Joe Shea, The American Reporter, August 1, 2004, reprinting piece from September 2001, http://www.american-reporter.com/2,421W/1494.html . site: http://www.wtc7.net page: http://www.wtc7.net/store/books/wakingup/index.html

Alleged conman stole $4m from lenders

AN alleged conman concocted an elaborate scheme in a bid to steal millions of dollars from mortgage lenders while ripping off innocent homeowners, a Melbourne court has heard. Former solicitor Gabriel Werden, 45, has been charged with six counts of stealing $1.5 million from banks and financial institutions in the past year, the Melbourne Magistrates Court heard today. Police allege he fraudulently tried to obtain a further $2.5 million from lenders, with up to 10 false mortgage applications still in the system. Fraud squad officer Detective Senior Constable Blake Young alleged that Werden placed advertisements in a Melbourne daily newspaper in 2010 and 2011 spruiking a mortgage refinancing business. But instead of refinancing clients’ homes, he would apply for loans and buy their properties under false names, pocketing the cash through false bank accounts when the transactions settled, Det Sen Const Young alleged. Werden would pretend to be the buyer, real estate agent, conveyancer and solicitor when applying for the loans, it was alleged. Werden, who was arrested in North Melbourne on Tuesday, allegedly used his black BMW sedan as a mobile office and juggled his affairs on three different mobile phones. “I believe that the accused is a professional fraudster,” Det Sen Const Young said in opposing Werden’s bail application. He told the hearing Werden had a long-term gambling problem and allegedly outlayed $37,300 at Crown Casino over 28 days this year, and more than $90,000 over 50 days last year. Werden brought in more than $5 million to the casino in 1998, $2 million in 1997, $5 million in 1996 and $570,000 in 1995, Det Sen Const Young said. He told the hearing he believed Werden’s gambling problem sparked the alleged fraud. Det Sen Const Young argued Werden would flee overseas if he was released on bail. Werden, who represented himself in court and indicated he would plead not guilty to the charges, argued he was not a flight risk and should be granted bail. Magistrate Franz Holzer disagreed. He said the charges Werden faced involved large sums of money and were “at the extreme end of offending”. He said the offences, if proven, were “sophisticated, planned … behaviour which involved repeated and gratuitous fraud over a lengthy period of time, on a large scale”. Mr Holzer remanded Werden in custody until his next court appearance on November 30.

Facebook Official app for iPad

The other day I was browsing through the App Store on my iPad when I noticed something: both the top free and top paid applications for the device were apps for accessing Facebook. And as I kept going down the top apps lists, I kept seeing Facebook apps. In fact, of the top 40 apps (free and paid combined), a full 7 of them were ways to use Facebook on the iPad.

In other words, nearly 20 percent of the top apps being downloaded for the iPad are apps that allow you to use Facebook on the device. And not one of them is actually made by Facebook. Because they refuse to make their own iPad app for some seemingly illogical reason.

Facebook, it’s time.

Facebook not having their own iPad app is strange for a few reasons. First of all, they’ve been making an iPhone app since day one of the App Store. And in fact, it’s the most downloaded app of all time in the App Store. And they regularly update it and use it to release new features that aren’t available on the site yet (like event check-ins recently).

So it’s not like they hate iOS. Nor do they hate native applications. They also make apps for Android, Windows Phone, and other devices.

And it’s very clear that there’s a huge demand for a native Facebook iPad app. See: the information up top.

What’s crazy is that Facebook is letting other developers not affiliated with the company own this space. That’s great for those developers, but it’s potentially bad for Facebook. Most of the apps that promise a “native” iPad Facebook experience are simply Facebook’s touch-optimized site wrapped in skins. And most of them are mediocre — not to mention very ugly. And many of them even charge customers for those experiences!

That’s the way thousands (if not millions) of users are experiencing Facebook on a daily basis. These developers effectively own the Facebook brand on the device. In fact, many of them use “Facebook” in the title of their apps, which just leads to further confusion that they may be official apps. (I wonder how many customers think they’re paying Facebook money for these apps?)

Facebook has come down on this type of brand-jacking in the past in the App Store. But it keeps happening because there is so much demand for a Facebook iPad app. A search for “Facebook” in the App Store on the iPad brings up 989 results. Some are simply apps that use Facebook Connect and have it in their descriptions, but many of them are apps designed solely to give users a native app Facebook experience. And many do subtle things to try and trick users into thinking that they’re official apps.

It has been over a year and Facebook still has not gotten out in front of this problem.

Contrast this with Twitter which is proactively trying to take control of their user experience across platforms by telling third-party developers not to focus on making new Twitter clients. Obviously, that has caused some controversy since Twitter has long thrived on such community-built clients. But it also makes sense: Twitter wants to control the way users experience their product. It’s just hard to believe that Facebook doesn’t.

Or do they?

Even though Facebook has indicated time and time again that they’re not too interested in building a native iPad app, there are no shortage of whispers that (at least) one such app has been in testing for quite some time. Facebook CTO Bret Taylor has indicated that the iPad was an unfortunate casualty in the way Facebook’s device teams were broken up until recently. At the same time, he would only commit to the company being at work on a better tablet-optimized experience — not necessarily a native application.

In fact, Taylor and Facebook have been talking up the HTML5 benefits in recent months, as opposed to native app development. On paper, that sounds great. But Facebook has to realize that native applications are still going to be far superior to anything done with HTML5 for at least a few years. Even Facebook employee (and the guy who built Facebook’s iPhone app) Joe Hewitt clearly understands this.

Facebook’s actual website works pretty well on the iPad in the Safari browser, but it lacks key features such as new message notifications when you’re away because it’s not native. And there’s no way to upload media. And it can’t access some of the powerful APIs that native apps can access. And Facebook’s single sign-on aspect won’t work without a native app.

Again, Facebook needs an iPad app. And if I had to bet on it, I’d bet that despite their stubbornness on the issue, we will eventually see one. Some are projecting Apple to sell upwards of 45 million iPads this year. Facebook simply cannot ignore that. Imagine Friendly or one of the other popular Facebook iPad apps making up a sizable chunk of visitors. I can’t see Facebook allowing that to continue happening.

Finally, with a native iPad app, Facebook can actually innovate in the space. Just like Twitter pushed new ideas forward with their iPad app (which pointed towards the work they would eventually unveil for New Twitter), Facebook can play around with new types of touch interfaces and interactions on the platform.

A Facebook-built iPad app would be the most popular app on the device without question. It would be installed on nearly every device out there. It’s time for Facebook to stop playing around and build the damn thing.

Is Google+ available to everyone yet

After months of waiting, Google finally unveiled on Tuesday its new social project, Google+. It’s an ambitious gambit that aims to turn all of Google’s services into one giant social platform, and in the process steal some thunder from Facebook while making Google – for once – a big player in social networking.

Google has redesigned the top navigation bar to work across all of its services. It’s very similar to the notification bar found in Facebook, which alerts users about new activity concerning their accounts.

“We’d like to bring the nuance and richness of real-life sharing to software. We want to make Google better by including you, your relationships and your interests,” wrote Senior Vice President of Engineering Vic Gundotra in a blog post.

Google+ has a handful of sub-services designed to match various social needs. Circles lets users decide which of their friends and followers can see individual updates or other pieces of content. It’s a feature Facebook took quite a while to develop with “Lists”. Hangouts works with each social Circle by creating access to a multi-person video chat. Sparks is a customized feed aggregator of content curated from across the web.

Google+ also has a mobile aspect, which could be especially appealing to people using Android phones. Nearly every update made through Google+ lets users add location data. The company also addressed the problem of unreliable data networks by building in Instant Upload. The feature will save pictures that get cut off through faulty connections and upload them later on. Finally, there’s Huddle, a real-time group messaging feature.

While it’s clear that Google as spent a lot of effort on Google+, the company has a poor track record with social products. Social network Orkut, Google Buzz and Google Wave are all examples of products had at best mixed results.

Some, like blogger Dave Winer, are skeptical of Google’s ability to challenge Facebook by turning its search product into a social network. In a blog post titled “Google Yawn“, he writes:

“…All you do is make your core product heavier. The thing you wanted to kill (Facebook) doesn’t go anywhere. It hardly notices what you did. The users might care to the extent that they’re annoyed… Products like the one Google just announced are hatched at off-sites at resorts near Monterey or in the Sierra, and were designed to meet the needs of the corporation that created it. A huge scared angry corporation.”

At least in Facebook’s case, it didn’t need a series of videos to explain how to use its service. Google, on the other hand, has six total videos demonstrating the various uses of Google+.

Google+ is now available on Android Market and the mobile web. The company is testing the full roll out of the service, which is available by invitation only.

Child commissioner to attend Universal Royalty Pageant at Northcote Town Hall

Getty Beauty Pageants Protest Protesters from “Pull the Pin on Beauty Pageants for Children” demonstrate today. Picture: Getty Government sends child safety commisioner Must report back with findings from pageant Protesters seek ban on pageants for under-16s VICTORIA’S Child Safety Commissioner will attend a controversial beauty pageant being staged in Melbourne. The state government has requested Bernie Geary attend the Universal Royalty Pageant today to monitor the event. The pageant, which began at the Northcote Town Hall yesterday, has attracted a blaze of publicity with protesters concerned that the US-style competition sexualises children. Children’s Minister Wendy Lovell has asked Mr Geary to observe the pageant and report back to her with any findings. She said any regulation of beauty pageants would need to exempt “innocent” events, such as kindergarten baby show fundraisers. “We need to have a balanced approach to these things and so far we haven’t seen a need for regulation,” Ms Lovell said. Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar. Related Coverage Kids protest beauty pageants Herald Sun, 46 minutes ago Police prepared for child pageant Perth Now, 1 hour ago Princess pageant turns ugly Adelaide Now, 17 hours ago Commissioner to vet beauty pageant Herald Sun, 1 day ago Anti-pageant Facebook page hacked Herald Sun, 1 day ago End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar. “I would never enter a child into a pageant myself, but I think we have to trust parents to make the right decision for their children.” Ms Lovell said she had met pageant organisers yesterday to ensure the event complied “with Victoria’s regulatory framework”. “We were assured in the meeting that it’s not a ‘toddler and tiaras’ type of event, that there will be limited use of make-up and it is far more subdued than what we see on TV.” Mickie Wood, mother and manager of six-year-old American contestant Eden Wood, the star of the pageant, withdrew her daughter yesterday because she feared for her safety, the Nine Network reported. Ms Wood said her daughter had received threats on Facebook including “go shoot yourself” after the Melbourne pageant, run by Texas-based Universal Royalty Beauty Pageant, was announced. Universal Royalty’s Melbourne contest Facebook page had spruiked Eden’s appearance as a key attraction of the show, “in her full rhinestone glamour taking photos, signing autographs”, the advertisement said. But there were no protesters or trouble yesterday as the girls and their mums made their way into the hall. Today, anti-pageant protester Catherine Manning, from Pull the Pin on Beauty Pageants for Children, called for new laws to ban children aged under 16 from beauty pageants. She said performing and competition are important for children, but not when it is based on physical beauty. “To me it was just abhorrent that anybody would stand two girls together … and tell one that they were more physically attractive than the other,” Ms Manning said. “We are very concerned that over in Northcote today, there are little girls who have been primped and preened, and waxed and spray-tanned to look like Vegas showgirls being paraded in front of a panel of judges, to potentially be told they’re not good enough, they’re not hot enough, they’re not pretty enough…. I believe that will have an impact.” Ms Manning, a mother of two sons and two daughters, was joined by protesters at Melbourne’s Fitzroy Gardens today, calling to “let kids be kids”. She said the “toddlers and tiaras” culture entrenched in the US and featured on the television show of the same name should not be allowed to grow in Australia. Greens MP Colleen Hartland and opposition children’s spokeswoman Jenny Mikakos said children under 16 should not be allowed to take part in large-scale beauty pageants. “There is no regulation at the moment, there is no legislation, so these pageants can do as they please,” Ms Hartland said. “We need to start investigating how this is going to be managed and that is the responsibility of the (children’s) minister to do.” Read more: http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity/child-commissioner-to-attend-universal-royalty-pageant-at-northcote-town-hall/story-e6frfmqi-1226104968989#ixzz1TZW8rgdH

Kim Duthie Stalking Ricky Nixon And Stripping In The Street [APRIL 2011]

Making a power of attorney or guardianship – frequently asked questions

Making a power of attorney or guardianship – frequently asked questions
Do I have to register the power of attorney?
How private are the forms?
When are the signed forms used?
Is it possible to ask someone to sign a power of attorney for me if I cannot physically sign the form myself?
How can someone make a power of attorney if they cannot read English?
If I change my address or my name, do I have to change the documents?
Do I need to make certified copies?
Should I see a lawyer?
Do I have to pay my attorney or guardian?
How do the people that matter, such as doctors and hospital emergency staff, know I have filled out these forms if I am too sick to tell them?
Are these documents valid in other states or countries?
Do I have to register the power of attorney?
Powers of attorney made in Victoria do not have to be registered
How private are the forms?
You decide who gets copies of these forms. They do not need to be produced until your guardian or attorney needs to act on them.
When are the signed forms used?
The forms need to be shown to prove the attorney’s or guardian’s powers. The person who needs proof will probably want to see the original or certified copy and take a copy.
Before hospitals accept the power of an agent, they are entitled to see an original or certified copy of the power of attorney. Aged care facilities should make sure they have copies of the documents when a person enters residential care.
Is it possible to ask someone to sign a power of attorney for me if I cannot physically sign the form myself?
Yes – as long as you have capacity. The enduring power of attorney (financial) form has a space for a person, who is not a witness or the attorney, to sign on your behalf and in your presence. We recommend similar wording be used on the other forms. For example:
I, … [person signing at your direction prints his/her full name] …, state that:
(a) I am the person signing at the direction and in the presence of the donor as the donor is unable to sign
(b) I am at least 18 years old
(c) I am not a witness for this document or an … [attorney/alternate attorney/guardian/ alternate guardian] … for the donor.
[Person signing under your direction and in your presence signs here.]
* A donor is a person giving decision-making power to another person.
Related pages
Powers of attorney and guardianship forms
How can someone make a power of attorney if they cannot read English?
If a person cannot read English, they should only sign a form once it has been translated and they are satisfied that they understand what the document says. The interpreter must be qualified.
We suggest the following words are added to the form below the person’s signature, to make it clear that the document was translated:
Signed as a deed by … [name of person making the power] …, having first been read out and translated into … [language] … by … [name of interpreter] …, the donor being … [nationality] … and … [language] … being the customary language understood by the donor.
Witnesses who don’t read English
It is sensible for the witnesses to be able to speak English and the language of the donor. (A donor is a person giving decision-making power to another person.)
We suggest that these witnesses complete and sign the statement below:
Certificate of witnesses
This enduring power of attorney/guardianship was read out and translated to the donor into … [language] … by … [name of interpreter] … and the donor appeared to understand the same and approve its contents.
[Witness signs under this statement]
The interpreter should also provide a signed statement to say they have translated the power of attorney or guardianship form. This statement should be attached to the form.
Related pages
Powers of attorney and guardianship forms
If I change my address or my name, do I have to change the documents?
No.
Do I need to make certified copies?
You can use a photocopy of the original power of attorney or guardianship so people know what you want, but it has no legal power. If you need a copy of your power of attorney or guardianship to have the same power as the original forms, it needs to be certified to be valid.
Your attorney, guardian or agent should get a certified copy.
Note: Do not leave certified copies with organisations where someone could use them pretending to be your attorney or guardian.
Who can make a certified copy?
If you want to make a certified copy of a general power of attorney, you can certify it yourself. All you need to do is add at the bottom of each page ‘This is a true and complete copy of the corresponding page of the original’ and sign and date it. On the last page you must write ‘This is a true and complete copy of the original’ and sign and date it.
For the other powers of attorney or guardianship, a copy should be certified in the same way by a justice of the peace, a legal practitioner, a public notary, a financial services licensee under the Corporations Act 2001 or a regulated principal under the Corporations Act. People who are authorised to administer an oath (an oath is not a statutory declaration) can also certify a copy.
Should I see a lawyer?
It is your choice. If you feel confident that you understand the forms and your affairs are straightforward, you may not need to see a lawyer. However, you may choose to get legal advice if you:
are struggling to fill out the forms
have a complicated family situation
have complex financial arrangements
think someone may challenge your appointments and you need help getting evidence to support your capacity.
Do I have to pay my attorney or guardian?
If your attorney is a friend or relative, you do not have to pay them. If your attorney is a lawyer, accountant, trustee company or other professional entity, then you will have to pay for their services. Make sure you understand their fees.
How do the people that matter, such as doctors and hospital emergency staff, know I have filled out these forms if I am too sick to tell them?
You should tell your treating doctors about the powers you have in place. Some people like to have the enduring power of attorney (medical treatment) sighted and copied when they enter hospital for serious surgery, in case it is needed.
In emergency situations, staff do not usually have time to sort out documents until a patient is stable. However, if you have decided that you do not want to be resuscitated, this will be respected if there is evidence that this is what you want. Evidence includes a Refusal of Treatment Certificate, available on the Office of the Public Advocate website.
Related pages
Enduring power of attorney (medical treatment)
Related websites
Office of the Public Advocate – Refusal of medical treatment
Are these documents valid in other states or countries?
The laws in each state differ. Many Australian states and territories accept each other’s powers of attorney, but not all.
The financial powers are more likely to be accepted, but most states do not have an enduring power of attorney (medical treatment), so the Victorian form would not be recognised.
Other countries may give some recognition to your powers, if they are able to do so under their laws. Your attorney or guardian might tell them what care or treatment you want, but it is unlikely that the country will accept your attorney’s or guardian’s authority as legally binding.

Theft – By Andre DiCioccio Australian Lawyer

Theft
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“Stealing” redirects here. For other uses, see Steal (disambiguation).
“Thief” redirects here. For other uses, see Thief (disambiguation).
For other uses, see Theft (disambiguation).

Criminal law
Part of the common law series
Element (criminal law)
Actus reus · Mens rea
Causation · Concurrence
Scope of criminal liability
Complicity · Corporate · Vicarious
Inchoate offenses
Attempt · Conspiracy · Solicitation
Offence against the person
Assault · Battery
False imprisonment · Kidnapping
Mayhem · Sexual assault
Homicide crimes
Murder · Felony murder
Manslaughter
Negligent homicide
Vehicular homicide
Crimes against property
Arson · Blackmail · Burglary
Embezzlement · Extortion
False pretenses · Larceny
Possessing stolen property
Robbery · Theft
Crimes against justice
Compounding · Misprision
Obstruction · Perjury
Malfeasance in office
Perverting the course of justice
Defenses to liability
Defense of self
Defence of property
Consent · Diminished responsibility
Duress · Entrapment
Ignorantia juris non excusat
Infancy · Insanity
Intoxication defense
Justification · Mistake (of law)
Necessity · Loss of Control (Provocation)
Other common law areas
Contracts · Evidence · Property
Torts · Wills, trusts and estates
Portals
Criminal justice · Law
v · d · e
In criminal law, theft is the illegal taking of another person’s property without that person’s freely-given consent. The word is also used as an informal shorthand term for some crimes against property, such as burglary, embezzlement, larceny, looting, robbery, shoplifting, fraud and sometimes criminal conversion. In some jurisdictions, theft is considered to be synonymous with larceny; in others, theft has replaced larceny.
Someone who carries out an act of or makes a career of theft is known as a thief, and the act of theft is known as stealing, thieving, or sometimes filching.
Contents [hide]
1 Elements
2 By region
2.1 Theft in English law
2.2 Victoria, Australia
2.2.1 Actus reus
2.2.2 Mens rea
2.3 United States
2.4 Canada
2.5 West Indies
2.6 Romania
3 Notes
4 References
5 See also
[edit]Elements

The actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorized taking, keeping or using of another’s property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use.
For example, if Bob goes to a restaurant and, by mistake, takes Joe’s shirt instead of his own, he has physically deprived Joe of the use of the property (which is the actus reus) but the mistake prevents Bob from forming the mens rea (i.e., because she believes that he is the owner, he is not dishonest and does not intend to deprive the “owner” of it) so no crime has been committed at this point. But if he realises the mistake when he gets home and could return the shirt to Joe, he will steal the shirt if he dishonestly keeps it. Note that there may be civil liability for the torts of trespass to chattels or conversion in either eventuality.
[edit]By region

[edit]Theft in English law
In England and Wales, theft is a statutory offence, created by section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968, which provides:
“A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it”.
This offence replaces the former offences of larceny, embezzlement and fraudulent conversion.[1]
The five elements of the offence are defined sequentially in the Act:
Section 2 dishonesty;
Section 3 “appropriation” which occurs when the defendant wrongfully asserts the rights of ownership over the property. This can be by physical taking, but it will also include many different situations (i.e. a failure to return or omission) in which a person may have lawfully come into possession of the property and then keeps or uses the property in an unauthorised way;
Section 4 “property” includes all personalty, i.e. land itself cannot be stolen but anything severed from the land (with the exception of wild flowers) can be stolen, as can intangible property such as a chose in action; however it seems that the term does not extend to all intangible property, as information (Oxford v. Moss) and trade secrets (R v. Absolom, The Times, 14 September 1983) have been held not to fall within the Section 4 definition of property.
Section 5 “belonging to another” requires a distinction to be made between ownership, possession and control:
ownership is where a person is not legally accountable to anyone else for the use of the property:
possession is where a person is only because it had been physically removed but there were two issues to be decided:
did the car “belong to another”? The garage had a lien i.e. a “proprietary right or interest” in the car as security for the unpaid bill and this gave the garage a better right than the owner to possess the car at the relevant time.
what was the relevance of Turner’s belief that he could not steal his own property? The defence of mistake of law) only applies if the defendant honestly believes that he has a right in law to act in the given way. Generalised and non-specific beliefs about what the law might permit are not a defence.
Section 6 “with the intent to permanently deprive the other of it” is sufficiently flexible to include situations where the property is later returned. For example, suppose that B, a keen football fan, has bought a ticket for the next home match. T takes the ticket, watches the match and then returns the ticket to B. In this instance, all that T returns is a piece of paper. Its value as a licence to enter the stadium on a particular day has been permanently lost. Hence, T steals the ticket. Similarly, if T takes a valuable antique but later repents and returns the goods, T has committed the actus reus with the mens rea. The fact that T’s conscience forces a change of mind is relevant only for sentencing.
The maximum sentence in the Crown Court is seven years (section 7).
If the act of stealing is already complete before another comes into possession of the goods, this may be handling. For alternative charges involving deceptions, see the deception offences and the Theft Act 1978 which may overlap with s1 Theft. For the theft of motor vehicles with or without violence, see robbery, blackmail and TWOC.
[edit]Victoria, Australia
Theft is defined at s.72 of the Crimes Act 1958. The actus reus and mens rea are defined as follows:
[edit]Actus reus

West Lavington: the Robbers’Stone. This memorial warns against the consequences of getting caught thieving
Appropriation – defined at s.73(4) of the Crimes Act 1958 as the assumption of any of the owners rights. It does not have be all the owner’s rights, as long as at least one right has been assumed(Stein v Henshall). If the owner gave their consent to the appropriation there cannot be an appropriation(Baruday v R). However, if this consent is obtained by deception, this consent is vitiated.
Property – defined at s.71(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 as being both tangible property, including money and intangible property. Information has been held not be property(Oxford v Moss).
Belonging to another – s.73(5) that property belongs to another if that person has ownership, possession, or a proprietary interest in the property. Property can belong to more than one person. s.73(9) & s.73(10) deal with situations where the accused receives property under an obligation or by mistake.
[edit]Mens rea
Intention to permanently deprive – defined at s.73(12) as treating property as it belongs to the accused, rather than the owner.
Dishonestly – s.73(2) creates a negative definition of the term ‘dishonestly’. The section deems only three circumstances when the accused is deemed to have been acting honestly. These are a belief in a legal claim of right (s.73(2)(a)), a belief that the owner would have consented (s.73(2)(b)), or a belief the owner could not be found(s.73(2)(c))
[edit]United States

Bicycles can occasionally be stolen, even when locked up, by removing the wheel or cutting the lock that holds them.
In the U.S., plenary regulation of theft exists only at the state level, in the sense that most thefts by default will be prosecuted by the state in which the theft occurred. The federal government has criminalized certain narrow categories of theft which directly affect federal agencies or interstate commerce.
Although many U.S. states have retained larceny as the primary offense,[2] some have now adopted theft provisions.
For example, California’s Theft Act of 1927 consolidated a variety of common law crimes into theft. The state now distinguishes between two types of theft, grand theft and petty theft.[3] In California, grand theft generally consists of the theft of something of value over $950 (it can be money, labor or property but is lower with respect to various specified property),[4] while petty theft is the default category for all other thefts.[5] Grand theft is punishable by up to a year in jail or prison, and may be charged (depending upon the circumstances) as a misdemeanor or felony.[6] while petty theft is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine or six months in jail.[7] As for the older crimes of embezzlement, larceny, and stealing, any preexisting references to them now mean theft instead.[8]
In many states, grand theft of a vehicle is charged as “grand theft auto” (see motor vehicle theft for more information).
Repeat offenders who continue to steal may become subject to life imprisonment in certain states.[9]
Sometimes the federal anti-theft-of-government-property law 18 U.S.C. § 640 is used to prosecute cases where the Espionage Act would otherwise be involved; the theory being that by retaining sensitive information, the defendant has taken a ‘thing of value’ from the government. For examples, see the Amerasia case and United States v. Bradley Manning.
[edit]Canada

Vehicle with broken window.
Theft is dealt with by Part 9 of the Criminal Code of Canada which is the part that covers property crime. Section 322 in Part 9 creates a general definition of theft, while other sections such as section 326 (which deals with the theft of gas, electricity and telecommunication services) define special kinds of theft. According to the general definition in section 322 a person steals a thing if he or she takes or converts it fraudulently, without colour of right and with intent to deprive the owner of it, either permanently or temporarily. For the purposes of punishment theft is divided into two separate offences by section 334 depending on the value and nature of the goods stolen. If the thing stolen is worth more than $5000 or is a testamentary instrument the offence is commonly referred to as Theft Over $5000 and is an indictable offence with a maximum punishment of 10 years imprisonment. Where the stolen item is not a testamentary instrument and is not worth more than $5000 it is known as Theft Under $5000 and is a hybrid offence, meaning that it can be treated either as an indictable offence or a less serious summary conviction offence, depending on the choice of the prosecutor. If dealt with as an indictable offence Theft Under $5000 is punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years and, if treated as a summary conviction offence, 6 months imprisonment, a fine of $2000 or both.
[edit]West Indies
In the British West Indies, especially Grenada, there have been a spate of large-scale thefts of tons of sand from beaches.[10] Both Grenada and Jamaica are considering increasing fines and jail time for the thefts.[10]
[edit]Romania

This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (May 2011)

Two young waifs steal a pair of boots.
By the Romanian penal code for theft (furt) a person can face a penalty ranging from 1 to 20 years.
Degrees of theft:
A: Theft (one to twelve years)
When a person steals a thing, or uses a vehicle without permission and no aggravating circumstances apply.
B: Qualified theft (basically three to 15 years, but there can be special cases when the penalty range is from four to 18 years and even ten to 20 years)
Aggravating circumstances – three to 15 years: a) by two or more persons together b) by a person in possession of a gun or a narcotic substance c) by a masked or disguised person d) against a person who cannot defend his or herself e) in a public place f) in a public transportation vehicle g) during the night h) during a natural disaster i) through burglary, or by using an original or copied key j) stealing national treasures k) stealing official identity papers with the intention to make use of them l) stealing official identity badges with the intention to make use of them
Aggravating circumstances – four to 18 years: a) stealing petrol-based products directly from transportation pipes and vehicles or deposits b) stealing components from national electrification, telecommunication, irrigation networks or from any type of navigational system c) stealing a siren d) stealing a public intervention vehicle or device e) stealing something which jeopardises the safety of public transportation.
Aggravating circumstances – ten to 20 years: when the consequences are extremely grave and affect public institutions or the material stolen is worth over 200,000 RON (Approximately US$80,000).
[edit]Notes

^ Griew, Edward. The Theft Acts 1968 and 1978. Sweet and Maxwell. Fifth Edition. 1986. Paragraph 2-01 at page 12.
^ See, e.g., N.Y. Penal law sections 155.00-155.45, found at NY Assembly official web site. Accessed March 17, 2008.
^ California Penal Code Section 486. For the entire portion of the Penal Code covering theft, leginfo.ca
^ California Penal Code Section 487.
^ California Penal Code Section 488.
^ California Penal Code Section 489.
^ California Penal Code Section 490.
^ California Penal Code Section 490a.
^ See Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (1980) (upholding life sentence for fraudulent use of a credit card to obtain $80 worth of goods or services, passing a forged check in the amount of $28.36, and obtaining $120.75 by false pretenses) and Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003) (upholding sentence of 50 years to life for stealing videotapes on two separate occasions).
^ a b AP, “Sand stolen across Caribbean for construction: ‘We will lose our beaches’ unless crime is taken seriously, one official says”, found at MSNBC article. Accessed Octiber 27, 2008.
[edit]References

Allen, Michael. Textbook on Criminal Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford. (2005) ISBN 0-19-927918-7.
Criminal Law Revision Committee. 8th Report. Theft and Related Offences. Cmnd. 2977
Griew, Edward. Theft Acts 1968 & 1978, Sweet & Maxwell. ISBN 0-421-19960-1
Ormerod, David. Smith and Hogan Criminal Law, LexisNexis, London. (2005) ISBN 0-406-97730-5
Maniscalco, Fabio, Theft of Art (in Italian), Naples – Massa (2000) ISBN 88-87835-00-4
Smith, J. C. Law of Theft, LexisNexis: London. (1997) ISBN 0-406-89545-7.
[edit]See also

Look up pilferage or scrump in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Anti-theft system
Asset management (corporate theft prevention)
Confidence trick
Counterfeit
Credit card fraud
Dishonesty
Fence (criminal)
Force-initiation
Fraud
Larceny
Money laundering
Organized crime
Pickpocketing
Secret profit
Skimming (casinos)
White-collar crime
Specific forms of theft and other related offences
Art theft
Bank robbery
Bandwidth theft
Carjacking
Computer crime
Copyright infringement
Data theft
Economic Espionage Act of 1996
Embezzlement
Espionage
Extortion
Identity theft
Kidnapping
Laptop theft
Metal theft
Motor vehicle theft
Organized retail crime
Package pilferage
Piracy
Plagiarism
Receipt of stolen property
Street sign theft
Tax evasion
Theft of services

Sexy Pippa Middleton

Pippa Middleton
Pippa Middleton

PIPPA Middleton or G.I. Jane in disguise?

The fighting fit royal bridesmaid ditched her usual glamorous look for shorts, trainers and a muddy trek through the Scottish highlands on the weekend.

The younger Middleton sister, 27, trudged through rain and over the rough terrain for the Highland Cross- an 80 km endurance race across Scotland that features an exhausting 32 km run followed by a 28 km bike race, People magazine reports.

Impressively, Middleton finished 12th out of 150 competitors.

“I am really tired,” she told reporters afterward. “It was one of the toughest things I have done. I don’t know if I will do it again but I am really pleased to have finished.”

Of course it helps the winding down process if you have your own private helicopter to get home afterwards.

An event organiser said athletes usually take a pre-arranged bus. – People/AP