These numbers might seem surprising, given the precious little positive exposure our movement has received from the mainstream media to this point (with the exception, of course, of the excellent coverage of the Jones 9/11 Symposium by CSPAN). But I believe what they actually reveal is that as people continue to witness things like the mountain of Bush lies that launched the disaster that is Iraq, his pathetic lack of any kind of coherent plan to get us out, warrantless wiretapping, secret examining of our banking records, bogus signing statements, his belief that he is above the law, and his obvious contempt for the Constitution ("Stop throwing the Constitution in my face...It's just a goddamned piece of paper"), they're putting two and two together, questioning everything, doing their homework and learning the truth for themselves.
Imagine where these poll numbers will go if the mainstream media really starts giving the truth movement some legitimate coverage.
From the Zogby poll, incidentally, it's also very interesting to note that 43 percent were not aware of the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 on 9/11. This was a 47-story building that did have small fires burning in various places, but was not hit by any airplane, nor by either of the falling twin towers, yet collapsed straight down, at free-fall speed, into its own footprint at around 5:30 that afternoon. There has never been an official explanation given for the collapse of building 7, and the 9/11 Commission completely ignored the collapse in its final report.
Is it not disturbing that a 47-story building became the third steel frame structure in history to completely collapse on its own, the first two being WTC towers 1 and 2 earlier that same day, and the 9/11 Commission didn't care enough to even comment on it? Many have burned for as long as several days, but no steel frame building anywhere in the world had ever collapsed due to fire before 9/11, and none have collapsed due to fire since 9/11.
Pentagon False Flag
As far as the Pentagon is concerned, there is no concrete evidence of a 757 crash. Something obviously did hit the building, of course, but photos indicate that it was something much smaller. A 757 is 155 feet long, 44 feet high (to the top of the rear stabilizer), with a 124 foot wingspan and two engines that are each 8 feet in diameter, each weighing 6 tons. The building is 71 feet tall.
The initial Pentagon impact (before the partial building collapse) left a round hole approximately 16 feet in diameter, with fully intact windows directly above and to each side. There was no initial damage to the building where the wings, engines or tail of a 757 would have hit.
Whatever really did hit the Pentagon is no doubt seen clearly on the security videotapes that were confiscated from the nearby gas station and Sheraton National Hotel by the FBI within minutes of the impact on the morning of 9/11, which is why they have never been released. Doesn't it seem odd that our TV screens were plastered with thousands of images of planes flying into the World Trade Center in the first few days after 9/11, yet we have never been shown the full motion video of the Pentagon impact that is known to exist? What are they hiding?
The PNAC Factor
No story on this issue would be complete without mentioning the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a neo-conservative, pro-war "think tank", hell bent on mobilizing America's massive military strength to serve their own worldwide imperial mission.
PNAC counts among its membership such prominent people as Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secreatry Donald Rumsfeld, Cheney's former chief of staff Scooter Libby, Rumsfeld's former assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz (who now heads the World Bank), and Jeb Bush, Governor of Florida and the president's brother.
In September of 2000, PNAC issued a report called Rebuilding America's Defenses (you'll need a pdf file reader – get it free from Adobe), which is basically their war manifesto.
Wolfowitz is said to be the main architect of the manifesto, which is based on a document called "The Wolfowitz Doctrine", written in 1992 by then Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Wolfowitz and his then assistant Libby.
Of course, PNAC couldn't initiate their plan without having people in very prominent positions in government to pull the right strings. That's why Cheney, when tapped to lead the search for George W. Bush's vice presidential running mate for the 2000 election, chose himself. He then of course made sure his long time, war mongering, neocon friend Don Rumsfeld (they go back to the Nixon administration together) was inserted as the new Defense Secretary, another key position. Wolfowitz and Libby followed to fill their respective positions in the new Bush government.
See my original article on 9/11 – "The Ugliest Truth", for details on the cozy little 35 year friendship between Rummy and Uncle Dick, as well as many links for you to explore regarding the truth about 9/11.
The problem the PNAC had, even with all the right people in place, was that they couldn't launch a war and initiate their plan just because they wanted to. The people would never go for it, and Congress would never fund it. They needed an excuse.
John Perry is a morning radio personality in his home state of Connecticut. He started paying closer attention to life inside the Beltway several years ago, when it became obvious to him that his "representatives" were not interested in helping independent webcasters, who to this day remain under attack and faced with extinction, thanks to the nefarious efforts of the RIAA to maximize consolidation of Internet music distribution. He had been attempting to launch his own Internet radio business at the time, and remains hopeful that someday it may still happen.He says the experience has made him a more responsible citizen, and for that, at least, he is grateful. "They pissed off the wrong guy," he likes to say. He promises to remain vigilant, holding accountable those who promise to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. "Far too many of the people we send to Washington don't take their oath seriously," he says. "It's our responsibility as citizens to let them know we're paying attention, and we're not going away."
Check out his new video commentary format at johnperryonline.com
We have to make sure we always tell the truth.....
You say in the article that WTC 7 was not hit by the collapsing towers.
THIS IS NOT TRUE
I'm not trying to say you're wrong in general, believe me, I'm right there behind you on this, but you can't just post lies and expect to gain traction. It's slips like this that are used to discredit everyone.
There was a big chunk taken out of one corner of the building. Was this enough to cause collapse? Of course not, it wasn't deep enough to affect the internal steel structure of the building.
Keep up the good work!
Jeff
www.wikiprotest.com
by
Jeffrey Henderson (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments)
on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 at 12:48:50 AM
I meant to say "not directly". Some debris from the collapsing north tower did indeed significantly damage WTC 7.
But...Enough for a perfectly symmetrical, freefall speed collapse? No possible way.
Building 6, however (which stood right next to the north tower), did indeed take a direct hit from the collapsing north tower. Despite sustaining massive structural damage and being completely gutted by fire, it did not collapse.
Building 5 was also damaged by tower debris and completely gutted by fire, and also remained standing.
Funny, you never hear any of the "official story" shills talking about these two buildings...
Thanks again for catching my mistake.
JP
by
John Perry (31 articles, 33 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 81 comments)
on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 at 5:06:13 AM
Pretty much sums up exactly what is happening at the moment, they need stopping.
Feel free to upload any media at my site www.mymediascript.com/demo
I am inviting all people that know what is going on to add as much as possible, the truth needs to come out.
by
Tommy (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Saturday, August 12, 2006 at 6:20:10 PM
4 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
