2,973 humans died with the attacks of 9/11. "Bin Laden" and "Al Qaeda," the Bush clan cried. The world believed them. In the meantime even scientists doubt the Bush version. Now, Swiss university professors Albert A. Stahel and Daniele Ganser raise new questions.
"Something is not correct," says strategy expert Stahel in "World Week", and here he refers to the "incomplete" official US Government 9/11 Report of 2004.
The university professor confirms his criticism in BLICK: "Osama Bin Laden cannot be 'the large godfather' behind the attacks. He did not have enough means of communication".
Dr. Stahel doubts that a passenger airliner crashed into the Pentagon: "For trainee pilots it is actually impossible to crash into the building so exactly. Seven hours after the Twin Towers collapsed, the World Trade Center Building 7 next to it also collapsed. The official version: It burned for a long time. Nothing at all is clear." click here
Just a fellow news researcher. I often find it hard not to be buried in the spin. So I figured I would share some articles that wont receive any attention.
Seems to me that the number of scientists, professors and such who have explicitlly expressed doubt about the Official Conspiracy Theory is much greater than those who have explicitly expressed belief in that fantasy.
by
richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 789 comments)
on Sunday, June 1, 2008 at 7:13:08 AM
I don't like to give credit to terrorist, but the 9/11 attack was well planned and well executed. When has this Administration ever done anything well? If Bush had done this, it would have looked more like the response to Katrina or Valarie Plame. I am not really taking up for Bush, but his MO is generally to attack people by sneaking around and destroying or neglecting the programs or agencies that keep the playing field level. In a word, a technique that is petty and lazy rather than diabolically clever. We have the goods on Bush and company for a lot treasonable acts already. If there were justice in this country, he and his cabinet would be wearing stripes right now.
by
vidiot (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 224 comments)
on Sunday, June 1, 2008 at 9:59:11 AM
Let's see, Bush and his guys are so incompetent that they have managed to steal scores of elections, turn the corporate media into Pravda West almost, invade two countries and give themselves carte blanche to attack any number of countries, so long as they are not too big and powerful that they can bite back. They can bully and coerce most of Europe, NATO and the rest of the West into going along with their agendas, have disrupted fruitful actions on global warming for years (yeaa Exxon!), allowed all of their buddies into the Gulf Coast to rip off the peoples of Louisiana and Mississippi, and on and on. Who are you trying to kid that they can't execute their agendas. Some of the chaos they have let happen they actually wanted to see happen. It's called Disaster Capitalism.
by
Mac McKinney (42 articles, 69 quicklinks, 164 diaries, 1071 comments)
on Sunday, June 1, 2008 at 10:09:41 AM
Vidiot is repeating the now very hackneyed conflating of Bush with the Neocon agenda and machinations. As you point out, Mac, they have been very effective; indeed apallingly so.
In any case, it was 'Bush' who 'Did' 9/11. At the most, he endorsed it. Elements of our 'secret government' and perhaps a couple of other national intelligence services were involved.
by
richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 789 comments)
on Sunday, June 1, 2008 at 11:02:16 AM
Should have typed: 'It was NOT Bush who did 9/11. He is, as they say, merely the 'useful idiot'. He can play the buffoon. The real work is done behind the scenes by the COG folks.... we know who leads them. And he cannot be characterized as a fool. Evil Incarnate, perhaps, but not a fool.
by
richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 789 comments)
on Sunday, June 1, 2008 at 11:05:25 AM
Do you really mean Bush "plays" the buffoon? Back in 2002 when he was in Okla City trying to 'splain why he was a'fixin to cluster-bomb freedom around the world...
"See, we love -- we love freedom. That's what they don't understand. They hate things. We love things. They act out of hatred. We don't seek revenge. We seek justice -- out of love."
If this sumbitch was "playing the buffoon," he deserves an Oscar...
by
Sheila Samples (51 articles, 3872 quicklinks, 42 diaries, 403 comments)
on Monday, June 2, 2008 at 9:54:53 AM
Bush's 9/11 flights across the US in a mindless panic indicate to me that he was not involved in the planning or execution, as does the transimission to AF1 from the White House of the message reading "Angel is Next"... a clear warning using his internal code name. The stunned and haunted expression on his face during his 7-minute paralysis in that Florida classroom indicate his disbelief, and fear for his own safety.
I believe also that Bush could not be trusted with 9/11 information prior to the attack, as he's apt to blurt out state secrets in order to make a snide joke. His repeated references to 9/11 as "winning the Trifecta" are indicative of this, as are his references to a "shadow government."
by
JonmarkP (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 67 comments)
on Sunday, June 1, 2008 at 1:05:22 PM
Bull's eye but Bush's whole hearted approval of what has happened ever since 9/11, in Afghanistan & in Iraq, proves Bush being in bed with the same CONSPIRATORS all along. He must have known what would trigger the latter events. The way he reacted to the 9/11 news on camera showed a man waiting for the news to come through to him at about the time it did!
by
syed mahdi (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 125 comments)
on Sunday, June 1, 2008 at 1:21:34 PM
As I pointed out, that article was written 20 months ago.
Certainly someone would have followed up on it by now. Why this would be the biggest story of the century! The reporter who breaks the story would be famous and rich. Think about it, you could sell the story to Hollywood and get a Charlie Sheen to play you. You would win the Pulitzer prize hands down and maybe even have a shot at the Nobel prize!
Like Marvin the Martian said: “Where’s the Earth shattering KABOOM?”
by
Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments)
on Sunday, June 1, 2008 at 2:35:57 PM
People like MR. howard above should be asking why the government doesn't release the videos of the pentagon attack. If he believes that 911 had nothing to do with Washington insiders then he also believes that such hidden evidence shows no conspiracy, so why not come clean? That's my main question? Personally I tend to believe gross negligence by government officials who in fact were warned that something big was on its way but did nothing to stop it. That in itself is enough reason to thwart a real investigation. Or what if a rogue group out of the pentagon did the dirty deed without civilian government knowledge? That also is good reason not to proceed with a real investigation. Something is not right with the formal explanation and until the questions are answered we will all wonder.
by
Archie (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1144 comments)
on Sunday, June 1, 2008 at 2:41:57 PM
Co-author of this article in the Swiss newspaper was Daniel Ganser, the political scientist who wrote Nato's Secret Armies - Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe, which is a terrific book showing how MI6 and CIA armed and trained lots of 'stay behind' networks after WW2 - supposedly in case of Russia over-runing the place. These effectively became right-wing terrorist cells which carried out terrorist attacks and assassinations at the behest of Nato, with top level cover in the defence ministries and armed forces and police of numerous European countries, most of which cover this supra-national infiltration up to this day, and which ofter arranged for the Reds to get the blame - e.g. Red Brigade blamed for the Bologna railway station massacre [cf Madrid??]. False-Flag Terrorism as state policy - see also Rumsfeld doctrine of P2OG.
Ganser's book is a huge eye-opener which desrves to be much b etter known.
by
Keith Mothersson (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 44 comments)
on Sunday, June 1, 2008 at 2:58:44 PM
I've long thought the most likely explanation of 9/11 was that an attack was coming, the Bush Administration knew it was coming and either ignored it and let it happen, or possibly helped it along in some ways. Bush himself may have ignored it and others (e.g., Cheney) may have helped events along.
Is it possible that the whole event was a false flag operation planned in Washington? Sure, its possible.
Is it possible that 19 hijackers armed with utility knives and almost no flying experience planned and executed this under orders from a diabetic living in Afghanistan? Sure, although it does seem a bit far-fetched and a little like a bad television script.
No matter which of these is closer to the truth, the thing that still amazes me is that, while 9/11 happened on Bush's watch he seems to receive none of the blame for it. Is it not the President who, like the captain of a ship, is ultimately responsible for a botched defense operation?
Under previous administration, similar attempts were stopped (I recall something along these lines was foiled during the millennium celebrations). However, Bush was never held to account for allowing this tragedy to happen on his watch. Remarkably, I still hear Bush supporters praising him for keeping it from happening again.
by
PrMaine (10 articles, 8 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 341 comments)
on Sunday, June 1, 2008 at 4:11:42 PM
The forces behind 9/11 were spawned and stewarded by many of the same players as Iran/Contra and the October Surprise. It has never bothered this force to break the law of this or any other country. It is not solely an American entity in fact its controlling Heirarchy is most probably foreign. It is not the first time that this government has attempted to hide the truth from its people even when U.S. people were killed (U.S.S. Liberty or the Beirut Barracks Bombing). However, its players make concious choices rather to engage in illegal activity.
Aircraft did hit the towers, but it was other forces that brought the building down and was responsible for the majority of the deaths on that day. The fact that our government will not pursue or admit truth on these matters indicates knowledge that is illegal, embarrassing, or Treacherous.
by
Sleeper (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 276 comments)
on Sunday, June 1, 2008 at 5:36:27 PM
Personally, I don't feel like I know enough to pass judgement on what happened on 9/11, but I do feel that something this momentus deserves more investigation than a stain on a blue dress.
Let's hope that the Obama administration will order a thorough and honest investigation. In fact, once he is in office let's do more than just hope for this.
by
PrMaine (10 articles, 8 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 341 comments)
on Monday, June 2, 2008 at 4:28:12 PM
While the most plausible scenario from the average person's point of view is that the government merely allowed a group of determined terrorists from outside the US to attack, because they are too incompetent to pull it off themselves, this does not account for the implosion and collapse of the three towers at free-fall or near-free-fall speeds and other matters involving physical impossibility that have convinced the scientific community of a conspiracy. Are we to believe that terrorists got inside the buildings and set up explosives with thermite without being detected? There are trails all over the places leading straight to the government.
by
Patricia 0rmsby (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 133 comments)
on Sunday, June 1, 2008 at 5:32:14 PM
this does not account for the implosion and collapse of the three towers at free-fall or near-free-fall speeds
None of the towers collapsed at free fall speed. Please stop repeating this misinformation. The speed of the collapse of the towers was entirely consistant with strucutral engineering and physics.
and other matters involving physical impossibility that have convinced the scientific community of a conspiracy.
no, ther are no matters of physical impossibility. The scientific community does not consider there to be anything unusual about the building collapses. (real scientists, that is)
Are we to believe that terrorists got inside the buildings and set up explosives with thermite without being detected?
There were no explosives and no thermite in the buildings. There is no proof, of any thermite and explosives in the buildings. In fact, the evidence pretty much rules out the presense of thermite or explosves in the buildings.
by
Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments)
on Sunday, June 1, 2008 at 6:52:13 PM
The speed of the collapse of the towers was entirely consistant with strucutral engineering and physics.
Just what do you know about structural engineering and physics? Don't be shy. Tell us what you have your degrees in and what you have accomplished in either of these fields.
You say:
The scientific community does not consider there to be anything unusual about the building collapses. (real scientists, that is)
Well, I'm a real physicist, and I say Patricia has got it right. At the link below I explain why one Manuel Garcia got it wrong. You'll also find my credentials here:
Just what do you know about structural engineering and physics? Don't be shy. Tell us what you have your degrees in and what you have accomplished in either of these fields.
Well David, I guess you got me there.I ma not a licensed structural engineer.But then again, neither are you.So that puts us on an equal footing on that topic.In addition, engineering is the key topic here, not physics.
by
Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments)
on Monday, June 2, 2008 at 10:57:19 AM
Well, I'm a real physicist, and I say Patricia has got it right.
Well, what would Judy Wood say?She has a PhD in engineering and she has some of the strangest ideas on 9/11 that have been proposed so far.Would she agree with you?Do you agree with her?You are attempting to make an appeal to authority without and substance to your argument.
At the link below I explain why one Manuel Garcia got it wrong. You'll also find my credentials here: ---Your paper is funny.On one hand you accuse Manuel Garcia of “proof by intimidation,” yet you open the paper with a long paragraph on your background.To me this is nothing more than a blatant appeal to authority.
I could critique the flaws in your argument presented in that link, if you want, but let’s sick with the topic at hand.The key to the whole Physics based argument for the 9/11 conspiracy related collapse theory is the so called “free fall” collapse times.The argument goes thus:“the buildings collapsed at near free fall speed (some people have even argued that they collapsed faster than free fall. ).This would have been impossible because (insert reason here).Therefore, the explosive / incendiary of your choice had to have been used to “assist” the collapse.
Now there are some major problems with this argument.What is meant by “near free fall?”The records of the day indicate that the total collapse time for all portions of the buildings were significantly longer than free fall.Even the most conservative estimate of 15 seconds for the total collapse of one of the towers puts the collapse time at 30 percent longer than free fall.
Is this significant?I think so.I think that the collapse speed of the buildings is what should reasonably be expected based on the effect the structural and fire damage that they incurred on the specific building designs.You may not agree, but since we have previously determined that your opinion is the same as mine in regard to the structural performance of those buildings, then in order for you to prove your point, you need to provide some substantive calculations for proof.Calculations that take into account the engineering designs of the building.I have yet to see those types of calculations from the truther camp.
by
Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments)
on Monday, June 2, 2008 at 11:00:59 AM
David, It is my understanding that Mark Roberts, and several others in fact, have challenged you to defend your position in a debate. So far you have declined to do so.
Why?
by
Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments)
on Monday, June 2, 2008 at 11:03:27 AM
Unmitigated drivel. You wonder why these people carry on like this. Perhaps, like Bush, they can't do any different. Then the question becomes how can a psychology become so volatilised. You expect it in a Bush and other "great men", who go round and round, losing their bones along the way, but not in an ordinary person. This is not normal.
Sydney, Australia
by
Robert Hoogenboom (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 169 comments)
on Sunday, June 1, 2008 at 10:19:29 PM
The Dr Judy Wood scientific peer review of observations and scientific data about the trade towers going down. http://www.drjudywood.com/
I read it here first. So,
Until you use engineering quotes as to free fall and other concepts related to demolition, your argument is moot. The thing I learned from this work of Dr. Wood, is that nuclear blasts create an effect like the nine/eleven events we watched unfold on our idiot boxes, yet couldn't fathom...because we can't perceive what we don't know, and to argue about it is even worse. Check these links out, then quote the scientists who, yes, are on the case.
In the same vein as Sleeper posted, let's conider an historical precedent. The burning of the Reichtag propelled the Nazis into power, and an earlier article exposed an unsettling idea. Could it be that Bin Laden was a bumbling van der Lubbe who opened an oportunity for the Goerings of our counrty to spring into action?
"From Goring's Reichstag President's Palace an underground passage, built to carry the central heating system, ran to the Reichstag building. Through this tunnel Karl Ernst, a former hotel bellhop who had become the Berlin S.A. leader, led a small detachment of storm troopers on the night of February 27 to the Reichstag, where they quickly scattered gasoline and self-igniting chemicals and then made their way quickly back to the palace the way they had come. At the same time a half-witted Dutch Communist with a passion for arson, Marinus van der Lubbe, had made his way into the huge, darkened and to him unfamiliar building and set some small fires of his own. This feeble-minded pyromaniac was a godsend to the Nazis. He had been picked up by the S.A. a few days before after having been overheard in a bar boasting that he had attempted to set fire to several public buildings and that he was going to try the Reichstag next."
by
Kiel Pratt (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 14 comments)
on Sunday, June 1, 2008 at 5:55:55 PM
