Anyone who has studied 9-11 at all knows it was an inside job.
Bush was not surprised. His brother Marvin's security company closed down one tower the week before and brought in lots of cables and other equipment. The towers, including building 7, were dropped by controlled demolition. The planes provided a dramatic cover story- great pix.
Rumsfeld had control of scrambling planes transferred to himself, exclusively, a few months before, and then disappeared that morning, so no planes intercepted the four hijacked airliners. Instead, there was a "stand-down" of NORAD. By some strange coincidence, a military exercise was being run that am which simulated planes crashing into buildings, so that the air traffic controllers were confused about whether the "attack" was real or part of a drill.
The buildings were pulverized, but the passports of the hijackers were miraculously thrown clear and quickly "discovered". There was no investigation, only a coverup that blamed the CIA and recommended police state measures to prevent future "attacks".
Then there's the lack of plane parts and small hole at the Pentagon. The flying out of the Bin Laden family the next day. The millions made on selling airline stocks short by those in the know. The confusion about passenger lists. The rejection of FBI reports about possible terrorists at US flying schools. And on and on.
There are so many videos that its hard to choose, but my favorites is 9-11 Mysteries at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003 If you are not certain that 9-11 was an inside job, please watch this video. It's 1 1/2 hours of factual material that will convince you. You owe it to yourself and all the rest of us to learn the truth about 9-11.
Most Americans, even those who are working for peace and impeachment, are reluctant to believe that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest actually planned and implemented 9-11, even though their long range plan (PNAC) clearly states that they need "a new Pearl Harbor". The Reichstag fire is a better parallel, since it was also an inside job.
Polls show widespread skepticism of the cover story, and suspicion that Bush allowed 9-11 to happen, ignoring warnings from abroad and from his own intelligence service. But to think that he actually helped plan it, that demolition charges were set in the Towers by his brother's company- that is a depth of evil that most of us can't even begin to contemplate.
Why is this? Why, when we all know so well what liars and connivers the Bush people are, how little they care for human life, or truth, or honor, how greedy they are for power and how ruthless they are in pursuing it, why is it so hard to believe that they planned and carried out 9-11?
The degree of denial is astounding.
The cover story is paper thin. Osama was blamed within 24 hours, with no investigation. It's obvious that the 9-11 Commission asked the wrong question,- not whodunit, but why were the signals missed? It's obvious that Osama, no matter how bright and charismatic, could not have orchestrated such a massive attack from caves in Afghanistan. It's obvious that the Saudi hijackers, if that's who they were, were allowed into this country with no screening, allowed to take flight lessons, allowed to get on airplanes with box cutters- but how could all this be known, when the twin towers were pulverized? Etc. etc.
When denial is so strong, it's because people don't want to know the truth. The implications are too overwhelming, too frightening. Facing the truth about 9-11, that it was an inside job, planned and carried out with the help of the Bush family and administration, means facing the fact that we are saddled with a monster, a satanic creature, that will stop at nothing to gain total power.
It means facing what fools we are, what cowards we are, not to call a spade a spade.
It means seeing through the pious cloak of false Christianity and false patriotism that Bush has assumed.
It means facing the terrible danger we are in, of losing every ounce of precious freedom our forefathers fought so hard to obtain, and that we so take for granted.
It means looking frankly at our helplessness, our gullibility, our willingness to accept any form of hypocrisy, as long as we are allowed to go on shopping.
Carol S. Wolman, MD is a psychiatrist in Northern California. A lifelong peace activist, she has written extensively on the psychology of our times. She is a cochair of Bay Area Impeach Bush-Cheney. You can join or form a local group at http://impeachbush.meetup.com/
She ran for Congress in '06, and is now a Gteen candidate for Congress in CA district 1. She is a coordinator of The New Broom Coalition, for a clean sweep of Congress.
9/11 truth tells us, if nothing else, that the government we were raised to believe exists is a - myth -. We have so easily been led... usually by the Judas goats right into der schlachthaus. But led we have been. 9/11 awareness should lead alternatively, if one has not retreated into the safety of the "consensus trance", to the growing awareness that our democratic republic has been lost for many many years. The shell, institutions and illusions linger on. But the core, the shadow government, has become pure evil. We have to decide if we are truly willing to pay the price that confronting evil entails. Because if 9/11 truth ever gets to where it actually threatens the 'powers that be'....(the plutocrats)... you can expect more draconian measures of control to be implemented. The camps have been built and/or upgraded.
Impeaching Bush and Cheney - while it will be gratifying and they do need to be impeached and then tried at the Hague for war crimes - will simply be an act of removing the current middle management team. It will only happen if it is 'allowed' to happen.
dr rw
by
richard (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 649 comments)
on Saturday, February 17, 2007 at 11:33:54 AM
I am not convinced of the existence of a higher being.
I am not convinced either of 9/11 being plotted by Bush/Cheney.
For the same reason--not enough evidence.
Not that I think Bush/Cheney are above doing such an evil thing; I know that they are horrible people with not a shred of ethics. I am sure the elections were rigged; so was the intelligence leading to the bloody war in Iraq. And I know people in the Us and elsewhere are illegally spied on, abducted and tortured by decision of this aadministration.
However, that's no proof. Aknowledging that those guys could have done it does not equate with doing it.
The ''demolition crew'' theory? How can they be so sure that a plane with full tanks blowing up like a bomb cannot wreck tall buildings? Are there known precedents?
If it was not a plane that hit the Pentagon, how come this plane never landed?
I am willing to accept the notion that the Bush administration knew that something was cooking and let it happen-Pearl Harbor all over again.
However, just look at Bush's face when he was reading ''The Pet Goat'' and an aide whispers in his ear; the guy has the unmistakable expression of a deer caught in the headlights.
by
francine (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 168 comments)
on Saturday, February 17, 2007 at 1:26:32 PM
This article is the first time I have read anyone expressing the thing that first bothered me about the official theory about the 9/11 hijackers. That is that this complex story appeared so quickly, with such a short investigation and without any proof that doubters could examine.
The look on Bush's face when he first heard about the towers has also bothered me, but another interpretation has always seemed quite plausible to me. It seems to me that his expression was quite like the boy caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Even if elements of the administration were involved in facilitating or planning 9/11 that does not mean that Bush was informed about it. When the towers were hit, he could well have recalled being warned about the potential for an attack and he may have feared repercussions for failing to take any steps to prevent it.
This is all by way of saying that I agree with the contention that we need a very serious, in-depth investigation of what happened. At this time we have many theories and tantalizing evidence, but that is not proof and that is not a serious formal investigation on which to base momentous decisions.
by
PrMaine (7 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 229 comments)
on Monday, February 19, 2007 at 8:39:57 AM
1. The amount of evidence implicating elements of our government in the orchestration of 9/11 is simply overwhelming. Take WTC 7 as just one of hundreds of facts/events pointing to government complicity that day.
There is substantial evidence for molten steel below WTC 7 and the twin towers. See www.journalof911studies.org/and www.911research.com. All of these issues have been resolved long ago. Also note in particular the article by Kevin Ryan completely debunking NIST on the issue of WTC 7 - (also debunks, Pop Mech, Garcia et. al. in the process).
Steel and iron cannot melt from hydrocarbon fires alone (that includes kerosine, jet fuel, gasoline, furniture, your hair, my pet goat... all hydrocarbons, etc.). The highest a hydrocarbon fire can reach is about 1700 F (unless oxygen is forcefully added to the fire as in a blast furnace). Steel and iron melt at about 2700 F. WTC 7 fires would not even be hot enough to significantly and sufficiently weaken the steel for a collapse. Even then, it would not be a symmetrical heating of all 27 core columns which is required for symmetrical collapse. NIST itself gives collapse due to fire as having "a very low probability". There were no huge fires at WTC 7. And in any case, much of the heat from any fires that did exist would have been wicked away by the steel itself... (ever soldered? ever welded? or brazed? - you would understand). And the damage to the structure itself was not seen by observers to be of sufficient magnitude to bring the structure down. And EVEN if it had been - which is was not - , it was asymmetrical damage and WTC 7 would not have fallen into its own footprint. The building was brought down by controlled demolition. It meets all of the criteria for controlled demolition:
Characteristics of Demolition:
1. Sudden Onset
2. Straight down
3. Nearly Free Fall Speed
4. Total Collapse
5. Sliced Steel
6. Pulverization of concrete
7. Dust Clouds
8. Horizontal ejections (squibs)
9. Demolition rings
10. Sounds of explosions
11. Pools of molten steel
(all supported by photographic evidence and eyewitness testimonies)
How many impossibilities, plus improbabilities does it take to see that any hypothesis other than CD is simply ludicrous. It is suggested that those who have trouble with this revisit 10th grade physics, intro to logic 101, and review philosophy of science, scientific theory building and the role of empirical data. Or, failing, that, simply watch the damn thing (WTC 7) collapse. And remember that the terrorists are in Washington DC.
2. Regarding lihop/mihop.... there is no real distinction.... To 'Let it happen on purpose' requires actively 'not' acting when action is in fact the standard protocol (e.g., launching jets when transponders are turned off). A Lihop argument becomes a 'Made it happen on purpose' by definition.
There were 15 separate war games/operations underway on 9/11. All uniquely occurring on that single day. What are the odds against that happening by chance. 99.99 to .01?.....
So many anomolies. So many 'coincidences'.... So many lies. Simply go to www.911research.com or www.911truth.org and review them for yourself. There is no reason not to become knowledgable except for psychological denial resulting from cogntive dissonance. It may be hard for the novice researcher of these issues to imagine elements of our government could be complicit. But governments (including that of the U.S.) have a long history of committing 'false flag' operations to galvanize their citizenry to support war. 9/11 was simply the most spectacular. All set to justify a 'war on terra' that will 'never end'.
by
richard (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 649 comments)
on Saturday, February 17, 2007 at 2:46:02 PM
This is the kind of material 911 Truth Deniers need to read, much like the submission the other day.
There is no time to waste explaining to people with an agenda of obfuscation. Send them on their way to watch 911 Mysteries, 911 Press for Truth, Terror Storm, Why We Fight, Loose Change, and 911 Revisited...or to the many blogs that discuss and analyze all the possibilities for how the horrible events of that day were orchestrated by the power elite.
Don't take the bait of the shills like Francine, who ask the most elementary of questions, primarily to delay and dumb down discussion of this critical matter.
Thank you!!
Styve
by
Styve (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 37 comments)
on Saturday, February 17, 2007 at 2:51:50 PM
Fact is as long as 9/11 truth stays on the Internet and fringe radio talk shows it will never gain momentum or legitimacy. It's got to get on prime time TV. Uncensored, uncut. It's got to have high profile voices Masses will be comfortable with hearing and so receive this version of events.
Why hasn't this been on 60 minutes or dateline already? Anyone know?
by
"Hoss" David P. (51 articles, 5 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 339 comments)
on Saturday, February 17, 2007 at 2:56:52 PM
Revealed in Senator Church's hearings a couple of decades past. The CIA had for many years infiltrated the media, many tentacles, many, many journalists. Would anybody with a lick of sense think they stopped doing it at that point? They are just probably a hell of a lot better at it now. Bernays-ian techniques of propaganda and the science of psychological manipulation have progressed a great deal in the thirty years since I studied social psych as a grad student. Don't ever expect the main stream media to be truthful either. Five (5)! corporations own about 90% of all electronic and paper media. Guess where their sympathies lie. It don't take no weatherman to know which way the wind blows...
by
richard (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 649 comments)
on Saturday, February 17, 2007 at 4:55:49 PM
There are many facts that tell us that the story we are told just doesn't add up. I think the most convincing is the free fall of the Towers in 10 seconds. The only possible explaination is with the use of explosives. Otherwise I believe the calculations come in at around 96 seconds if each floor falls into the floor below it on down.
I think it was definately a false flag operation,but even lacking proof there has definately been a cover up. Why? Something to hide? This is the beginning of the last episode of this problem with terrorists.
The Marine Barracks in 1983 that has been mentioned so much in the debate this last week is also shady. Hezbollah had no RDX Rag Bombs unless someone sold them to the Iranian interrests that supply Hezbollah. Its another instance where our intelligence community knows more then they will ever tell us. Why after 23 years do they not pursue telling the Truth as to who's Rag Bombs they were?
by
Sleeper (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 264 comments)
on Saturday, February 17, 2007 at 3:45:15 PM
We conspiracy theorists who dare to suggest that all is not as it appears are repeatedly asked to produce evidence of conspiracy. Yet conspiracy is the way of mankind from the death of Able when God asked Cane says "Gee no, God I haven't seen him anywhere" Cane conspired to mislead God about what actually happened. The famous death of Julius Caesar, "Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look, He thinks too much; such men are dangerous." This conspiracy was famous because as soon as the first blade entered into Caesar's body a line was drawn. Were you with the conspiracy? Or were you against of the conspiracy and perhaps it's next victim. It wasn't the active participation that joined you to the conspirators circle but merely the quiet acceptance. The concept hasn't changed much over the centuries from the conspiracy to murder Christ to the introduction of the royal food tasters.
Funny isn't it how those who might be that might be the victim of a conspiracy never doubt their existence. So many Roman Emperors were murdered in the later days of the empire that the job was unwanted by many of those eligible. Two royal princes in medieval England were placed under the protection of their uncle and soon disappeared. Their bodies were found buried in the walls of the tower of London hundreds of years later. Many suspected foul play at the time but who would dare approach the new King and make such a charge, for then as now they had a low opinion of conspiracy theorists.
But that was ancient history! We have become so much more civilized than the ancients were, right? One of my favorite cartoons of all time is of the evolutionary chart showing the accent of man from the small ape to the upright modern human. Underneath the evolutionary chart was another chart entitled "Ethics" and it paralleled the evolutionary chart except it is the same little ape in every frame. Funny because it is all too true, so let's look at some modern conspiracies that are either outright lies or the manipulation of actual events for political advantage but conspiracies nonetheless.
Remember the Maine, The Maine, a battleship of the second rank explodes and sinks in Havana Harbor and despite the Captains descriptions of the explosion coming from the area of the engine room and heroic efforts of Spanish sailors to rescue the Americans. And even though the Captains diary described how the new Spanish Governor in Cuba had matters well under control. The American press claimed it was a Spanish plot and fans the flames of war. Congress appropriates 50 million dollars for war and when the smoke clears the United States has its first colonies and a lease on Guantanamo in Cuba. What do you suppose they would have said at the time if you had suggested it was only mechanical malfunction?
The first woman President, on the morning of October 2, 1919 Mrs. Woodrow Wilson found her husband unconscious on the bathroom floor of their White House quarters. President Wilson had suffered a stroke - a massive attack that left his left side paralyzed and impaired his vision. She immediately summoned Dr. Grayson. Then the conspiracy began in earnest. The two of them formed a bulwark between the invalid President and the rest of the country, simultaneously shielding Wilson from intrusion as well as hiding his condition from outsiders.
For the next seventeen months the President lay bed ridden unable to write more than his own name. This fabrication was carried on not just to the general public but to the Washington insiders as well. Mrs. Wilson would take requests from visitors to the President and then return from his sickroom with an answer or his signature scrawled on paper she was for all intents and purposes the first woman President a secret that stayed hidden from the people for fifty years.
The Gulf of Tonkin attack, on August 2, 1964 according to the defense department the US destroyer Maddox was just peacefully cruising along minding it's own business on a routine patrol when it was deliberately attacked by North Vietnamese patrol boats and then followed up by another attack two days later. President Johnson informs the nation of this vile attack and announces US bombing of North Vietnam in retaliation.
In fact the USS Maddox was actually engaged in aggressive intelligence-gathering maneuvers - in sync with coordinated attacks on North Vietnam by the South Vietnamese navy and the Laotian air force. The first attack was questionable while the second attack was a total fabrication. Captain James Stockdale a navy pilot over flying the area said "And our destroyers were just shooting at phantom targets - there were no PT boats there.... There was nothing there but black water and American fire power." Even Lyndon Johnson later in 1965 said, "For all I know, our Navy was shooting at whales out there."
Yet this dog was sold to the American public as an aggressive escalation by the communists. Congress passed the Tonkin Gulf resolution giving Johnson carte blanche in Vietnam and fifty thousand American lives later this is history. A total fabrication a lie sold to the American public as Gods honest truth set in stone an irrefutable fact.
The Pentagon Papers, a study initiated in 1967 a 7,000-page, top-secret history of the political and military involvement in the Vietnam War with a focus on the internal planning and policy decisions within the U.S. Government. Most, but not all of the Pentagon Papers were leaked to The New York Times in early 1971 by a former State Department official Daniel Ellsberg, The New York Times began publishing excerpts as a series of articles the papers revealed, among other things, that the US government had deliberately expanded its role in the war by conducting air strikes over Laos, raids along the coast of North Vietnam, and offensive actions taken by U.S. Marines well before the American public was told about the actions, all while President Lyndon Johnson had been promising not to expand the war.
The First Iraq war, US Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie goes to interview Saddam Hussein and in this case I think it best to let the participant's speak for themselves,
July 25, 1990- Presidential Palace- Baghdad U.S. Ambassador Glaspie – "I have direct instructions from President Bush (one) to improve our relations with Iraq. We have considerable sympathy for your quest for higher oil prices, the immediate cause of your confrontation with Kuwait. (pause) As you know, I lived here for years and admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. We know you need funds. We understand that, and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. (pause) We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your threat s against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship - not confrontation - regarding your intentions: Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait's borders?"
Saddam Hussein – "As you know, for years now I have made every effort to reach a settlement on our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two days; I am prepared to give negotiations only this one more brief chance. (pause) When we (the Iraqis) meet (with the Kuwaitis) and we see there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death."
U.S. Ambassador Glaspie – "What solutions would be acceptable?"
Saddam Hussein – "If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab - our strategic goal in our war with Iran - we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (i.e., in Saddam s view, including Kuwait ) then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States' opinion on this?"
U.S. Ambassador Glaspie – "We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America." (Saddam smiles)
On August 2, 1990, Saddam's massed troops invade and occupy Kuwait.
One month later, British journalists obtain the above tape and transcript of the Saddam - Glaspie meeting of July 29, 1990. Astounded, they confront Ms. Glaspie as she leaves the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.
Journalist 1 – "Are the transcripts (holding them up) correct, Madam Ambassador?"(Ambassador Glaspie does not respond)
Journalist 2 – "You knew Saddam was going to invade (Kuwait ) but you didn't warn him not to. You didn't tell him America would defend Kuwait. You told him the opposite - that America was not associated with Kuwait."
Journalist 1 – "You encouraged this aggression - his invasion. What were you thinking?"
U.S. Ambassador Glaspie "Obviously, I didn't think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait."
Journalist 1 – "You thought he was just going to take some of it? But, how could you? Saddam told you that, if negotiations failed, he would give up his Iran (Shatt al Arab waterway) goal for the Whole of Iraq, in the shape we wish it to be. You know that includes Kuwait, which the Iraqis have always viewed as an historic part of their country!" Journalist 1 – "American green-lighted the invasion. At a minimum, you admit signaling Saddam that some aggression was okay - that the U.S. would not oppose a grab of the al-Rumeilah oil field, the disputed border strip and the Gulf Islands (including Bubiyan) - the territories claimed by Iraq?"
(Ambassador Glaspie says nothing as a limousine door closed behind her and the car drives off.) Into redacted history
And yet the first President Bush tells the American public the exact polar opposite of these statements.
CIA Plots against Cuba, Many pretexts were suggested for attacking Cuba, one was to fake hijackings of American airliners. This complicated scheme recommended putting a group of college students on a charter airliner, having this plane rendezvous with an unmanned drone off the coast of Florida, landing the passenger-carrying plane at an auxiliary field and then shooting down the drone with U.S. warplanes pretending to be Cuban MiGs. Some how I get the feeling they marked this page Not now maybe later!
Another plan was to selectively clog radio frequencies causing Cuban airlines to crash. Of course not all the plots involved James Bond scenarios Anti Castro terrorists with American backing planted a bomb on an Air Cubana airliner leading to the destruction of all on board and the American sponsored terrorists are out walking the streets of Miami.
The Downing Street Memo's, Titled, Iraq: Prime Ministers Meeting, 23 July 2002,
"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and the facts were being fixed around the policy."
The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran
29 In the judgement of the JIC there is no recent evidence of Iraq complicity with international terrorism. There is therefore no justification for action against Iraq based on action in self-defence (Article 51) to combat imminent threats of terrorism as in Afghanistan. However, Article 51 would come into play if Iraq were about to attack a neighbour.
And to the reams this tasty tid bit, Mr. Bush told Tony Blair of the extraordinary plan during a meeting in the White House on January 31, 2003, six weeks before the war started, according to an updated version of Lawless World by Philippe Sands, a human rights lawyer. He says the President made it clear that he had already decided to go to war, despite still pressing for a UN resolution.
"The US was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach," the book reports Mr. Bush telling Mr. Blair at the meeting.
Conspiracies? Same as it ever was, that little ethic's ape is still running loose in the world all while those who decry conspiracies huddle in their star chambers trying to defend their flat earth beliefs and trying to deny humanities common heritage. The shoe should be on the other foot the burden of proof should be on those who deny conspiracies to deflate them by demanding open and accountable investigations by independent third parties instead of partisan dog and pony shows. The next time some one shakes their head at you scoffing saying there is no conspiracy just ask them, what about The Gulf of Tonkin, and the Pentagon papers and the Downing Street memo's? Conspiracy is a fact non-belief in conspiracies is the fiction.
by
David Glenn Cox (72 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 14 comments)
on Saturday, February 17, 2007 at 5:05:02 PM
''Don't take the bait of the shills like Francine, who ask the most elementary of questions, primarily to delay and dumb down discussion of this critical matter.''
If you think you are going to advance your cause by getting in a huff and insulting anybody who is not convinced by your arguments, you are dead wrong.
Anybody who gets instantly angry when contradicted gives a negative impression of the cause he defends.
I do not think that all people who believe in the wrecking crew theory are conspiracy nuts but some of them undoubtedly are.
And simple questions are often the most difficult to answer.
I have read contradictory arguments on what a kerosene fire can or cannot melt, how a building should or should not collapse , etc.
I am wary of self appointed experts who try to shut up doubters by deluging them with unverified technicalities.
by
francine (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 168 comments)
on Saturday, February 17, 2007 at 5:31:30 PM
With all due respect to you Francine and all others who still challenge the 911 truth assertions put forth by this author.
When I was a young lad I studied at the Royal Conservatory of Music, as part of our ear training we would listen to a series of notes, or notes played together, and define the interval of those notes, or establish which note in a chord was dissonant.
With 9-11, I don't purport to know all the machinations and possible skulduggery that actually did take place preparatory to the event - BUT, the presence of molten metal on all 3 sites tells me something very directly. Namely, it takes a great deal of explosive energy to evaporate and melt steel, especially in the time alloted - you can look at pictures of ground zero - cranes lifting the dripping, molten metal beams, you can look at satellite thermographic imagery taken weeks after the event that still show these hot spots over 1000 degrees - then you can explain to me how these things exist in any way without the presence of explosives (or, as in the case of WTC 7 - a plane full of jet fuel).
Now, are you or anyone else going to explain this ugly F sharp sticking out against the C major chord and try to tell me you can't determine which of these things does not go together?
Peter Zaza
by
CasaZaza (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 109 comments)
on Sunday, February 18, 2007 at 8:22:31 PM
I am of the belief that 9/11 was known in advance by someone/some group in the government. I am by no means sure.
I am sure that planes hit the trade center and it was the result of the impact and the fuel fire that the buildings collapsed, I've seen the engineering proofs on that. I have also seen the proof of the reason why some of the other buildings in the WTC complex collapsed.
I am less sure about what happened to the pentagon, other than that awful Barbara Olson is apparently nowhere to be found. Slim proof, I'll admit.
If there are government forces that have culpability, my money is that they knew in advance and allowed it to happen, but that is the extent. I do not believe in controlled demolitions or anything of the sort. In the middle of one of the most densely populated cities in the western hemisphere, populated by anti-Bush people, no less, orchestration of an operation to bring down multiple enormous buildings with absolutely no leaks or eyewitnesses coming forward considering the magnitude of what happened is much too much for me to believe.
I also live in NYC as of 2003 and have spoken first hand with scores of eyewitnesses. I grew up in the area and made multiple visits to the WTC throughout my life.
That being said, there are strange things that do not add up that do point to advanced knowledge and less than genuine concern during supposed post 9/11 threat warning periods.
When there was an alert that someone might bomb the citigroup building in manhattan, I decided to do a little test. I put on jeans and a shirt, filled a sizeable leather carrying bag with clothes and books, went to the building, and walked right up to the building and touched it. I am fairly swarthy looking. None of the hundreds of police or military that surrounded the building in a supposed higher security period attempted to talk to me or stop me.
As someone who is former military and familiar with alerts and high security bases and such, this was completely impossible to reconcile.
by
Steven Leser (186 articles, 34 quicklinks, 31 diaries, 1251 comments)
on Saturday, February 17, 2007 at 6:31:21 PM
Since all I've seen from the U.S. government so far is just plain bullshit.
The most obvious case is WTC7; as the government has yet to set forth even a semi-plausible theory as to its collapse.
All I've seen so far is a crude cover-up. See the following link for a fairly comprehensive review:
And the "official" explanation for WTC1 & 2 isn't much better.
As I understand it, the buildings' designers were quite confident that the structures could withstand the impact from a Boeing 707; and a 767 is not much bigger.
Moreover, as the "back-of-the-envelope" calculations in the following link show, it's extremely unlikely that the fires meaningfully weakened the steel.
In any case, let's face it, at this point it wouldn't matter if you had a video tape showing Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc., personally placing explosives, thermite, or whatever inside the buildings, who's going to do anything about it? The Congess? The Justice Dept. or the Courts? The U.S. military?
In fact it wouldn't matter if tomorrow Bush started throwing babies from Air Force One; the Bush dictatorship will be propped up at all costs, at least until the bloodthirsty puppet completes the Zionist PNAC agenda.
by
jpsmith123 (3 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 287 comments)
on Saturday, February 17, 2007 at 8:12:35 PM
When Steven and I are on the same page can the apocolypse be far behind?
The Towers were built on Port Authority land, and thus could be exempted from NYC building codes, which they were. The design lacked the reinforcements common to every other structure of its size and, in fact, lent itself to the "pancake effect" that ultimately doomed them. I understand that conspiracy theorists do not seek dry and scholarly refutations of their oh so thrilling theories and righteous indignations but facts is facts folks.
The real issues here are, as Mr. Leser so incitefully noted, who knew and when did they know? Our Attorney General, John 'lost to a dead man' Ashcroft, stopped flying commercially weeks prior to 9/11, why? Despite the intense briefings of the outgoing administration about the potential threats of AlQaeda and bin Laden nothing was done with that information. Cheney, charged with working with the intelligence committee on terrorism didnt even schedule a meeting until days prior to the attacks.
There is ample room to see complicity and incompetence without taking a position that even the most tolerant of supporters find embarrassing and possibly delusional....even, sadly, if they are true.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Sunday, February 18, 2007 at 10:30:40 AM
Apparently you didn't even look at the links I provided? Sad but typical.
The government and the media (or do I repeat myself) have been lying about Iraq, and now lying about Iran; telling vicious, crude, in fact outrageously transparent, incessant lies, but the event that basically started it all, 9/11, well they would neeeeevvvvveeeeer lie about that, right?
The collapse of WTC7 is apparently one of the greatest engineering mysteries of all time, and, despite the potentially broad implications for structural engineering as it relates to building safety, there's no real investigation? The whole thing is outrageous! And you sit there and criticize people who are pointing out what's painfully obvious?
by
jpsmith123 (3 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 287 comments)
on Sunday, February 18, 2007 at 11:50:56 AM
you will find, as you grow and mature, that your opinions are simply that, yours alone. They are written, not in stone or gold leaf but as are all opinions everywhere. I can find, on this varied and wonderous Internet of ours, theories and opinions galore, so-called experts who will expound at great length their theories as to why the earth is flat, or any other belief under the sun.
Your conspiracy theory is just that, and there are experts galore who showed the specific engineering flaws that led to the pancaking of those buildings. Get used to scepticism if you wish to remain in political debates.
Frankly I dont care to get involved in such as it is fruitless and a waste of time. Many here are trying to effect changes, to change the minds of the electorate and achieve righteous goals. Steven Leser noted some concrete questions that one might enquire into without being perceived as a nutjob and I echoed those concepts. You will not convince people by acting like Dr. Crackbrain, nor will you win friends by displaying sophomoric rage at contradiction.
Grow the heck up or talk to the hand.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Sunday, February 18, 2007 at 6:11:24 PM
Does your Mommy know you're at the computer again?
"you will find, as you grow and mature"
Too bad you apparently can't speak from experience, chumpy.
"that your opinions are simply that, yours alone."
Actually, if you'll take the trouble look around, or at least, try to open your "mind", you'll find that many people share my opinions.
"They are written, not in stone or gold leaf but as are all opinions everywhere. I can find, on this varied and wonderous Internet of ours, theories and opinions galore, so-called experts who will expound at great length their theories as to why the earth is flat, or any other belief under the sun."
My, that's profound. Now, tell me, do you have an opinion too, or is it just me?
"Your conspiracy theory is just that"
Well of course it's a "conspiracy theory". How could it not be? And, for that matter, the government's "conspiracy theory" of the events of 9/11 is also a "conspiracy theory". Unfortunately however, although you may personally find them amusing, your simple-minded tautologies don't add anything of value to the discussion.
"and there are experts galore who showed the specific engineering flaws that led to the pancaking of those buildings. Get used to scepticism if you wish to remain in political debates."
ROTFL! Look who's talkin'! The anomalous collapse of WTC7, for example, is perhaps the biggest engineering mystery in a hundred years...and the government carts the debris away before it can be properly investigated, and you, self-proclaimed "skeptic", have nothing to say about it? I gotta tell ya, chump, what you lack critical thinking skills, you more than make up for in entertainment value.
"Frankly I dont care to get involved in such as it is fruitless and a waste of time. Many here are trying to effect changes, to change the minds of the electorate and achieve righteous goals. Steven Leser noted some concrete questions that one might enquire into without being perceived as a nutjob and I echoed those concepts. You will not convince people by acting like Dr. Crackbrain, nor will you win friends by displaying sophomoric rage at contradiction."
It's not my fault that your abject technical illiteracy prevents you from seeing the merits of the things I've posted. And please point out an example of my "sophomoric rage".
by
jpsmith123 (3 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 287 comments)
on Monday, February 19, 2007 at 5:26:29 PM
that by descending into sophomoric and utterly ridiculous insult you advance you case? I am , as it happens many years your senior, and many light years more advanced in political discourse and debate. Those who , as do you, get uppity and insulting because others do not fall into lock step zombie eyed agreement with your theories, probably have little to offer anyway.
My opinion is that , as I have noted before and will say again, as to a child in need of a time out or nap, Steve Lesers point is a valid one and most folks have great difficulty with such conspiracy theories in the first place. If one is intent upon winning the hearts and minds of the electorate, in achieving valid goals one simply must pick ones battles far better than do you, and one must wage those battles with a modicum at least of maturity.
Perhaps you should return here after puberty and try again.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Monday, February 19, 2007 at 6:00:47 PM
Apparently you're looking in the mirror as you type.
"Do you really believe that by descending into sophomoric and utterly ridiculous insult you advance you case?"
Well, apparently *you do*, otherwise you wouldn't have started with the ad hominem *first*, I presume. And if that's what you prefer, I'll accomodate you.
"I am , as it happens many years your senior,"
You're quite a presumptuous fellow, aren't you?
"and many light years more advanced in political discourse and debate."
ROTFL! Or so you would like to believe, but reality obviously isn't your strong suit.
"Those who , as do you, get uppity and insulting because others do not fall into lock step zombie eyed agreement with your theories, probably have little to offer anyway."
Maybe you should re-read the relevant posts or, perhaps better yet, find a sympathetic adult in your neighborhood to read them and explain to you that you insulted me first.
"My opinion is that , as I have noted before and will say again, as to a child in need of a time out or nap, Steve Lesers point is a valid one and most folks have great difficulty with such conspiracy theories in the first place. If one is intent upon winning the hearts and minds of the electorate, in achieving valid goals one simply must pick ones battles far better than do you, and one must wage those battles with a modicum at least of maturity."
Too bad you can't lead by example.
"Perhaps you should return here after puberty and try again."
Coming from a consummate moron like you, I'll take that as a compliment. Thanks.
