 |
|
Group(s): Benicia ProgressivesAdd to My Group
|
November 3, 2007 at 06:58:31
by Richard Clark Page 1 of 3 page(s) 
|
|
 
|
A 2,000 word article, Seven CIA Veterans Challenge 9/11 Commission Report, appeared September 23, 2007 in OpEdNews. (Link provided below.) The article details severe criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report by seven CIA veterans and calls for a new investigation. Here follows a brief quote or two from several of the individuals whose testimony is included in the article: Ray McGovern, former Chairman of the National Intelligence Council and 27-year CIA veteran: "The 9/11 Report is a joke." “It has long been clear that the Bush-Cheney administration cynically exploited the attacks of 9/11 to promote its imperial designs. . . (And there is) evidence for an even more disturbing conclusion: that the 9/11 attacks were themselves orchestrated by this administration precisely so they could be thus exploited.” William Christison, former National Intelligence Officer (NIO) and former Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political, and 29-year CIA veteran: "We very seriously need an entirely new, very high level, and truly independent investigation of the events of 9/11. I think you almost have to look at the 9/11 Commission Report as a joke and not a serious piece of analysis at all." “The North and South Towers of the World Trade Center almost certainly did not collapse and fall to earth because hijacked aircraft hit them.” Robert Baer, 21-year CIA veteran and specialist in the Middle East, was awarded the Career Intelligence Medal upon his retirement in 1997. During an interview by Thom Hartmann, Baer, after commenting on the financial profits being made from 9/11, was asked: “What about political profit? There are those who suggest that someone in (the U.S.) chain of command had pretty good knowledge that 9/11 was going to happen -- and really didn't do much to stop it -- or even obstructed efforts to stop it because they thought it would lend legitimacy to Bush's failing presidency.” Baer replied: “Absolutely.” Hartmann then asked, “So you are personally of the opinion that there was an aspect of 'inside job' to 9/11 within the U.S. government?" To which Baer replied, "There is that possibility, the evidence points at it." When Hartmann continued, "And why is this not being investigated?” Baer replied, "Why isn't the WMD story being investigated? Why hasn't anybody been held accountable for 9/11? We held people accountable after Pearl Harbor. Why has there been no change in command? Why have there been no political repercussions? Why has there not been any sort of exposure on all this? It really makes you wonder."
Robert David Steele has 25 years of combined service in the CIA and the U.S. Marine Corps. Second ranking civilian in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence from 1988 - 1992. Member of the Adjunct Faculty of Marine Corps University. His comment: "I am forced to conclude that 9/11 was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war. "I'm absolutely certain that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition. There's no way that building could have come down without controlled demolition."
Additional statements questioning the official account of 9/11, and calls for a new investigation, by hundreds of high-level military officers (now retired) and other highly-credible individuals, can be found at http://PatriotsQuestion911.com
Here’s some of the evidence that prompts them to call for a new investigation:
- 20-ton sections of steel beams were propelled, laterally, for a distance of up to 400 feet where they lodged in the sides of nearby buildings. (See video footage of this at www.ae911truth.org.
- Molten metal was seen (and videotaped) gushing out the side of one of the twin towers. (Why is this significant? Jet fuel burns at 1800 degrees Fahrenheit while office furniture, rugs and computers burn at an even lower temperature. Iron and steel don’t vaporize until their temperature gets close to 4000 degrees F. So what does burn at a temperature capable of vaporizing steel? Incendiary compounds known as thermate and thermite, which burn at 4500 degrees F. See more about this later in this article.)
- Various explosions (some quite powerful) were seen, heard and felt by hundreds of people, including many firemen and policemen, prior to the collapse of the twin towers, but occurred well after the airliners collided with the buildings.
- Huge numbers of extremely tiny iron spherules (formed when steel or iron vaporizes at extremely high temperatures) can be found in most of the 9/11 dust samples. (more evidence for thermite)
- Many column sections seen in the wreckage of the twin towers were cut at 45-degree angles, and have, close to the cut lines, previously-melted 'drippings' produced when the steel was melted at a temperature much higher than can be produced by an acetylene torch. This kind of angle cut can be used to direct the falling beam inward.
Source for the above information is www.ae911truth.org, which is the web site of an investigative organization whose 200+ members are all either professional architects or professional engineers.
If there were no high-powered explosives detonated inside the twin towers, as the official explanation contends, then defenders of that official explanation must provide us with an alternate theory as to how those column and/or beam sections got embedded in the sides of buildings that were 400 feet away. (The compressed air created by floors collapsing one upon the other could provide nowhere near the energy required to propel a 20-ton beam or column section that far.) In addition, defenders of the official explanation must provide us with a plausible fuel source for the temperatures approaching 4000 degrees F. which would have been necessary to vaporize parts of many of the steel beam remnants found in the wreckage.
The evidence for incendiary cutting of steel consists of the video evidence, the forensic evidence in the dust and rubble, and the testimony of eyewitness early responders and survivors who saw glowing molten metal flowing out of window openings. These incendiary events and the forensic evidence strongly suggest that the official story is wrong. The chemistry of the iron-aluminum-rich microspheres that are found in the dust from the rubble, the chemical content of these microspheres suggest that the official story is wrong. http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JLobdillThermiteChemistryWTC
So when could the explosives and incendiary materials have been planted?
The official record shows that various floors of each of the twin towers were completely closed off 'for repairs,' for days at a time. Monitoring TV cameras on these floors were disconnected. http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/11/how-could-they-plant-bombs-in-world.html. Owner Larry Silverstein was perhaps in on the deal. Why suspect this? Well, for one thing he received a fabulous insurance settlement, after purchasing the WTC complex just weeks earlier under unusual circumstances. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/silverstein.html. The terrorist attack on the twin towers saved him the immense expense of having the towers demolished in the conventional way. (The towers had many structural problems. Two applications to have the buildings demolished were submitted by the previous owners because of the advanced galvanic corrosion that was taking place at each of the thousands of joints where aluminum parts were mistakenly put in tight contact with steel structural members.) http://redlineav.com/tsg.deposition.contd.2.html
There is plenty of evidence to suggest that explosives and incendiary compounds might have been planted at strategic locations within the Twin Towers. For example:
- Bomb-sniffing dogs were inexplicably prevented from doing their job in the Twin Towers five days before 9-11
- Various floors in the Twin Towers had been evacuated a number of times in the weeks preceding 9/11
- There was a ‘power-down’ in parts of the Twin Towers on the weekend before 9/11, security cameras were shut down, and many workers ran around busily doing things unobserved.
- And, as an interesting coincidence, a Bush-linked company ran security at the trade center, thus giving it free reign within the buildings. http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/11/how-could-they-plant-bombs-in-world.html
In addition to these facts, demolition-and-building-collapse experts have raised the possibility of "explosive tenants" -- i.e. tenants in the Twin Towers who might have planted explosives in their own rented office spaces. http://911blogger.com/node/2487
Obviously none of this is PROOF of anything. All it does is show what the possibilities are, so that in combination with all the other circumstantial evidence that explosives may well have been planted, a completely independent investigation is warranted.
Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:
Demand an investigation into the real reasons the twin towers fell
Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers
http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=JCpLDBUAAAC
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 39 comments |
|
Torch Won't Cut Massive Columns
Plase note that an acetylene torch will not cut columns that thick, which if I can recall, were four or six inches thick at the base. There isn't a cutting tip big enough to generate that much heat and have a powerful enough oxygen stream for final oxidation. You would have to use a gouging tip and literally gouge out the steel, melting away sections a bit at a time, which would take a very long time, and it would be much messier than the neat 45 degree cuts seen in photos. by Mac McKinney (53 articles, 114 quicklinks, 241 diaries, 1414 comments [31 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 3, 2007 at 8:44:24 AM  (0+)
|
|
Reply: How were the beams in the wreckage cut up?
Thanks for that info, Mac. So how do you suppose the beams in the wreckage were cut up? Specifically, what kind of cutting device do you think was used? What name does it go by? And how to explain the neat 45-degree cuts on the column sections in the wreckage? by Richard Clark (30 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 101 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 3, 2007 at 1:16:49 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Are The Beams Really That Important?
These three pictures already prove that the Towers did not "collapse", but were pulverized. Does the mechanism of how those select beams were cut really matter? Fact is that the WTC was destroyed with Directed Energy Weapons. This is shown by the actual evidence. Dr Judy Wood, a former Professor of Mechanical Engineering from Clemson University, with the help of her Attorney, Jerry Leaphart, is suing the private contractors hired by NIST claiming they defrauded the government. See here for the lawsuit. The US District Court, Southern New York, unsealed the case and Jerry Leaphart is notifying the Defendants. In an interview with Kevin Barrett, trial attorney Jerry Leaphart has said: Dr Wood has discovered the NIST contracted with manufacturers of directed energy weapons for their report. See here for the details Turns out the molten metal hoax was a cover to distract people from molecular dissociation. Exactly why were they trucking dirt in to Ground Zero? by CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 465 comments [18 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Nov 6, 2007 at 3:21:19 AM (0+)
|
|
The mainstream media are also implicated because ...
... the videos of those planes hitting the buildings, broadcast around the world, were fake. Planes are made mainly of aluminium, and those WTC-building walls were made of heavy-gauge steel. Those planes couldn't have gone through the walls and embedded themselves into the buildings the way shown, or, even more absurdly, gone right through the building - through the massive steel core - and come out the other side. On hitting the walls, the planes would have smashed to smithereens, and the debris (aluminium, steel, glass, concrete, plastic, human parts) would have fallen down on the ground, on this side of the building, mid and tail section of the plane possibly intact and tumbling. Only the engines, made of titanium and steel, could perhaps have crashed through the walls. What do we see instead? The second plane embeds inself into the building making a neat hole the size and shape of itself, the building even closing up again ("healing up") over parts of the plane. Nose and wings go through the wall without smashing, and the wings, at an angle across several steel and concrete floors, slice through these floors as though through playdough, without snapping off, and without the plane slowing down or losing momentum. Also, a real plane would have exploded on impact, and not after first having gone into the building. The first video broadcast of the second plane showed the plane going right through the building, coming out on the other side, a mistake resulting in very quick and clumsy corrective action. The video of the first plane, shot by the Naudet brothers, was, I understand, confiscated and then released, and also looks tampered with. Nor does the argument hold that the planes travelled at high speed and that therefore these considerations do not apply. Firstly, that speed would have been impossible at so low an altitude. Secondly, plane and wall travel relative to each other; the crash would have been the same if the wall had been suspended on a giant crane and swung into a stationary plane. The media were in on the deception. Robert Hoogenboom by Robert Hoogenboom (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 234 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 3, 2007 at 11:04:54 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Did planes really hit the WTC? Of course they did.
Tens of thousands of people saw these airliners flying overhead, very low to the ground, heading for the WTC. Hundreds and perhaps thousands saw the first one hit one of the towers, and many thousands saw the second plane come in and hit the second tower. To question this, with this many witnesses, is nothing short of lunacy, and gives all conspiracy theorists a bad name. by Richard Clark (30 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 101 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 3, 2007 at 1:22:52 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I have no idea whether planes hit the buildings ,,,
... All I know is that those videos are fake. Planes crashing into buildings don't behave that way. It's like a "bad special effects movie", as someone said. Did "hundreds of thousands of people see those planes"? Look into it and you will find that the whole thing could have been contrived quite simply. As for the bad name, yes, the truth can give people a very bad name. I personally want the truth. And I trust my common sense. Robert Hoogenboom by Robert Hoogenboom (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 234 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 3, 2007 at 4:45:23 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Airplanes Did NOT Hit The Buildings
Show the witness list of the hundreds/thousands of people who saw planes. You cannot simply make assumptions. Please provide the evidence. After all, only a wacky conspiracy theorist would make assumptions without evidence, right? Show the evidence. Turns out most of the First Responders did not see/hear airplanes, as proven by this study of the WTC Task Force Interviews. The videos of the "plane impact" violate Newton's Laws of Motion. Funny how no scientists have proven otherwise! Aluminum airplanes with plastic nosecones don't glide into steel and concrete building, they crash against them. This is proven by high-school level physics. And since every video shows the same thing, that means they are all fake. Even Peter Jennings knew it was fake! Note his nervousness and word fumbling when ABC plays the cartoon plane in slow motion in this video clip. Mr Clark, have you heard of Dr Morgan Reynolds and Attorney Jerry Leaphart? Dr Reynolds is the former Chief Economist of the US Dept of Labor and is represented by Mr Leaphart. Reynolds has filed an actual lawsuit against the private contractors hired by NIST claiming they provided bogus analysis of an aluminum airplane gliding into a steel/concrete building. The US District Court, Southern New York, unsealed the case and Jerry Leaphart is notifying the Defendants. Mr Clark, why are you claiming that planes hit the towers when the videos violate laws of physics? Please become familiar with the lawsuit as well as the Laws of Physics instead of making assumptions not based on evidence. by CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 465 comments [18 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Nov 6, 2007 at 2:47:22 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: COINTELPRO/Provocateur alert
People alleging "video fakery" and such nonsense are govt. shills sent to destroy the 9/11 truth movement, or dupes of such persons. Please disregard them, as 99% of 911 truth people do. by Jeff Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 13 comments) on Saturday, Nov 3, 2007 at 1:34:34 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Not so.
I am neither a government shill nor duped. Nor original, I might add - other people are saying it too, that those videos don't make any sense at all. One analyst, Ace Baker, matched the fly path in one of the videos with the shaking of the helicopter that shot that video and, supposedly, the plane. He made the background still, by adjusting each frame to perfectly coincide (buildings, clouds and sky, etc.) He found that made the plane's fly path irregular, which means that the plane's straight and regular trajectory had been superimposed on a shaky helicopter recording. I trust my common sense. In the same way that five Arab academics could not possibly have kept a normal busy morning's plane load of passengers, and say four cabin crew, at bay with box cutters for 45 minutes while they leisurely precision-fly a jumbo jet into a WTC building. Robert Hoogneboom by Robert Hoogenboom (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 234 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 3, 2007 at 5:16:51 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: memory hole is being taken for
I hope he's the only one. by CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 465 comments [18 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Nov 6, 2007 at 3:45:50 AM (0+)
|
|
Fire does weird stuff
In the 1967 McCormick Place fire in Chicago, a lakefront convention center that could not burn because it was constructed entirely of steel and glass, was entirely destroyed. The building couldn't burn, but the contents sure could. No jet fuel involved, yet the 486,000 sf building became an inferno within 15 minutes of a small exhibit fire breaking out and was a complete loss--nothing left but twisted wreckage. The WTC was 'pancake' construction--an exterior steel frame and poured concrete floors. Doesn't take much heat to twist (and therefore destroy the supporting capability) of a steel beam. One floor breaking loose and falling on the next doubled the load and, because of the exterior framing, the whole thing built momentum as floor after floor added its mass to the collapsing deck of cards. Absolutely as an engineer would expect. Oh and by the way--what happened to those passengers on the 'planes that were not planes?' All spirited away by conspirators? No one in this government planned demolition leaked a word? C'mon, guys--get off the conspiracy web sites. by Jim Freeman (108 articles, 53 quicklinks, 227 diaries, 386 comments) on Saturday, Nov 3, 2007 at 12:49:17 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: How often are steel frame buildings taken down by fire?
There are many many steel frame buildings that have burned for many hours without coming down. The one you refer to was a fluke. Perhaps its design was very unusual. However, that's not the main issue here. The main issue is that the WTC buildings came down primarily due to the explosives and beam-cutting compounds that were evidently employed. If your claim is that no explosives were used, then please explain how sections of beams could be transported laterally by a distance of 400 ft. Also explain the many hundreds of witnesses (many of them firemen and the like) who heard, saw and felt secondary explosions. Some of these witnesses also saw the tremendous damage done by these explosions, especially in the basement of the twin towers. Also, please explain the molten metal that was seen and filmed gushing out of the side of one of the twin towers. Burning office furniture etc. cannot turn steel into a liquid. Also please explain the presence of the extremely tiny iron spherules that can be found in most of the dust from the twin towers, keeping in mind that it takes a temperature of at least 4000 degrees F. to form such spherules, as iron or steel vaporizes. As I pointed out in the article, jet fuel, office furniture and electronic equipment burn at far lower temperatures. What does burn at a temperature well in excess of 4000 degrees? Answer: The steel cutting compounds thermate and thermite. And before you reply, please watch the evidentiary videos at www.ae911truth.org. by Richard Clark (30 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 101 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 3, 2007 at 1:49:33 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Former high-level officials challenge the conventional expl
Jim, While referring to the WTC towers, you state, "The WTC was 'pancake' construction--an exterior steel frame and poured concrete floors." In stating this you failed to mention the Core of the towers. You over simplified by not mentioning the dense grid of 47 four-inch-thick (at the base) and two-inch thick steel (at mid level) box columns in the center of those high-rise buildings. Additionally, the Pre-fabricated floor assemblies (16 GA steel deck over 29" deep steel web joists) were topped with 4" steel reinforced concrete...all of which was completely pulverized on 9/11...not stacked up like the pancake collapse that you described. I recommend that you go to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (www.ae911truth.org) and do your homework before you post your comments out there for all to see. The towers were designed to #1 withstand being hit by a large airplane and #2 to withstand hurricane force winds. It is my understanding that the towers were overbuilt by at least a factor of 7. And let us not forget that there has been countless eye-witness testimony (which unfortunately was excluded in the official 9/11 report) that describe how everything was completely pulverized. This comment from a NY fire fighter, Joe Casaliggi (Engine 7, NYFD) who states that during the clean up, in the aftermath of the collapse, "...you don't find a desk, you don't find a chair, you don't find a telephone, you don't find a computer...the biggest piece of telephone I found was one half of a keypad..." (watch video interview): click here You have to ask yourself how everything that wasn't a large steel beam just turned to into dust. You also should ask yourself how (let's use Building 7 as an example) a 47 story steel structure can completely collapse at near freefall speed (6.5 seconds approx) into its own footprint (path of greatest resistance) into a relatively short compact pile of rubble. And please... research and inform the public about the building you mentioned, the McCormick Place fire...I couldn't find much info such as how long it burned, how long it took to collapse, what kind of steel construction it had etc. Try to not be vague when offering information such as this about steel buildings that "twisted" etc. If you are comparing apples and oranges, that isn't helpful. Good luck in your quest for the truth. by stayreal (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Saturday, Nov 3, 2007 at 6:24:25 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: ANYONE GONNA TELL ME WHAT HAPPENED
TO THOSE'DISAPPEARED' PASSENGERS AND CREW OF PLANES THAT WERE NOT PLANES? ANYONE GONNA ANSWER TO THE ARCHITECT OF THE BUILDING, MINORU YAMASAKI, WHO AGREES THEY NO LONGER DESIGN HIGH BUILDINGS THAT WAY, BECAUSE THEY CAN 'PANCAKE' WHEN STRUCTURALLY IMPAIRED? ANYONE GONNA READ THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS REPORTS INSTEAD OF WILD-EYED INDIVIDUALS? by Jim Freeman (108 articles, 53 quicklinks, 227 diaries, 386 comments) on Sunday, Nov 4, 2007 at 6:36:35 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Why are you harping on this?
There are lots of opinions out there. Go do your own research and discover for yourself what you believe to be true. What any person "believes" doesn't make it true or credible, which is why all these "crazy?" questions are flying around. Only the perpetrators of 9/11 know what "really" happened. Bundling all the people who are asking legitimate questions into a "no planes" conspiracy theory group isn't productive. When YOU can contribute some irrefutable evidence...then come to the table and present it. You are transparent in your attempt to Mock the 9/11 Truth Movement. We don't claim to have the answers...but THERE IS an abundance of absolute proof that our Government is covering up the truth about the events that surround 9/11 and the Citizens of this Country need to get to the bottom of it and reclaim our Constitutional Civil Liberties. Government and Corporate lies are in our face every day and we won't stop asking questions until legitimate answers are forthcoming and those who had prior knowledge that we would be attacked and either "let it" (or "made it") happen on purpose are held accountable for their actions. America is waking up. More people are asking questions each day. The "Global Community" is exchanging information via the information highway...This is something that was not accounted for by whomever planned this assault on our country. The Truth will eventually come out and with much more certainty than JFK's assination. by stayreal (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Sunday, Nov 4, 2007 at 10:58:51 AM (0+)
|
|
Far far far fetched
Lets see, the CIA or someone in the evil Bush administration, say Karl Rove with George's help and leadership, contacted and trained a bunch of willing intelligent but misguided Saudis to commit suicide on a particular day in two different localities in the US after explosive had been planted undetected in a major office building while it was being suspiciously worked on. The evil CIA or Rove would have had to have literally an army of trustworthy people involved in this operation. None of them survived or have stepped forward yet to tell a story? Hmmmm, these guys are good. And this super effective and efficient group is led by the same dude that some call a stupid chimp? Boy, does someone owe him an apology! There will be an army of people getting rich off of this far fetched conspiracy story for years and years. The same thing happened in the Kennedy assassination. Look at all the people who got rich off the conspiracy industry created by that event. Sorry, I am a just tad skeptical. by Mad Jayhawk (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 652 comments [56 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 3, 2007 at 1:33:36 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Not quite so far fetched as you make out
<<< the CIA or someone in the evil Bush administration, say Karl Rove with George's help and leadership, contacted and trained a bunch of willing intelligent but misguided Saudis to commit suicide on a particular day in two different localities in the US >>> No such claim is being made in my article. You are creating a straw man, which is pointless. <<< The evil CIA or Rove would have had to have literally an army of trustworthy people involved in this operation. >>> Fifty to one hundred people who knew what they were doing could have planted what needed to be planted in the time alotted to them. <<< None of them survived or have stepped forward yet to tell a story? >>> They know they would certainly be killed if they did. <<< this super effective and efficient group is led by the same dude that some call a stupid chimp? Boy, does someone owe him an apology! >>> He didn't lead sh*t. He merely approved the plan since he knew it would give him and his administration the power to intimidate and cow a terrified herd of Americans to the point that they would be willing to sanction the invasion of Iraq and the shredding of their Constitution. by Richard Clark (30 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 101 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 3, 2007 at 2:21:53 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Who is getting rich???? of of this conspiracy???
I know of no one on this side of the fence (in the 9/11 Truth Movement) who is profiting from seeking the truth and taking their time to Educate others. This is a cause, not a business and everyone I know (who is involved) is paying for their own time to investigate, spending their free time to write to their Congressional Representatives (who by the way are doing close to nothing to make change) and spending their own cash to create signs to March and Rally for the Truth. You said, "There will be an army of people getting rich off of this far fetched conspiracy story for years and years. The same thing happened in the Kennedy assassination. Look at all the people who got rich off the conspiracy industry created by that event." Who exactly are you speaking of? People who wrote books questioning the event? No "Army" is getting Rich off the Bush Administration other than Blackwater and other Mercenary Corporate Soldiers who have insulted our enlisted men with all their high Salaries and Corporate Perks. The American people were initially lied to regarding those 4 soldiers hanging from the bridge in Falluja ...until someone leaked the truth to the public...and still the Main Stream Media didn't pounce on that news, they squelched it good. You said, "Sorry, I am a just tad skeptical." Sorry but, a good skeptic will be open minded enough to do their homework. This is not rocket science. When there are more questions than answers and it takes our Government 414 days to open an investigation into the largest attack our country has known...one has to be skeptical of that. The Jersey Girls (4 women who lost loved ones on 9/11) are responsible for getting an investigation opened while our Administration wanted to focus on a war in the Mid-East. Iraq, by the way, wasn't associated with Al Qaeda...nor was this country harboring WMDs at the time we staged our invasion. These women, The Jersey Girls (who were on the 9/11 Commission's steering Committee), had some 300 questions that they asked the Commission to investigate. Of those 300 questions, only 23 were answered. You tell me why that might be? NIST (Nat'l Institute for Standards Technology), the Scientific Agency that the Commission hired to study and write up a report as to how the buildings could have possibly collapsed at near free-fall speed never had a conclusive explanation or answer as to Building 7's collapse, which is why everyone in the Truth Movement is asking, "What about building 7?" How can concerned citizens be faulted for asking a logical question? You are correct in asking, "Who is getting rich?" If you want to know the answer, follow the money and INVESTIGATE the culprets who are all cowering behind Executive Privilege, and able to stonewall any inquiry because they are backed by our State Department and Department of Justice. The war machine is alive and well and it looks as though 9/11 was a false flag operation. Go look up Project for the New American Century wherin lies the following statement in Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force" ...and includes the following sentence: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor" An original copy of this PNAC document can be obtained from: www.newamericancentury.org It consists of 90 pages I can guarantee that nobody on this side of the fence is getting rich off working so hard to get our Constitution back to where it stood pre-9/11. The only people who are getting rich are those tied to the Military Industrial Complex. Might you be one of them? by stayreal (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Saturday, Nov 3, 2007 at 9:24:35 PM (0+)
|
|
good article, but a couple of important factual errors
I was going to send out and post this article, but then realized it could contain a couple of poison pills that are inaccurate. I'm not saying the au thor is a disinfo agent, but one has to read things on 911 VERY carefully these days, because the 911 Truth Movement has been infiltrated, just as the govt. infiltrated the civil rights, native american, and anti-war movements in the 60s and 70s. They infiltrate to sow lies and divisions and bring disrepute upon the movement. This is the first I’ve heard of “advanced galvanic corrosion” in the WTC towers, at “thousands of joints.” If this is misinformation, I believe. The WTC towers WERE white elephants that needed to have large quantities of asbestos removed, and so indeed would have had to be demolished or the owner spend millions of dollars on them. But the buildings were structurally sound. There is no reason fires would have destroyed them, with or without jet impacts, and when you add in the fact that the collapses occurred at free-fall speed, the official story becomes preposterous. The article also claims that “Various explosions (some quite powerful) were seen, heard and felt by hundreds of people, including many firemen and policemen, prior to the collapse of the twin towers, but occurred well after the airliners collided with the buildings.” But it is a fact that William Rodriguez heard and felt explosions at the sub-basement level BEFORE before any plane impacted the buildings. He witnessed enormous death and destruction in the lobby of the South Tower BEFORE any plane hit the building. Thus the damage down there could not have been as a result of jet fuel falling down the elevators, as the official story holds. by Jeff Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 13 comments) on Saturday, Nov 3, 2007 at 2:11:52 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Good points Jeff
<<< one has to read things on 911 VERY carefully these days, because the 911 Truth Movement has been infiltrated, just as the govt. infiltrated the civil rights, native american, and anti-war movements in the 60s and 70s. They infiltrate to sow lies and divisions and bring disrepute upon the movement. >>> Makes sense to me. <<< This is the first I’ve heard of “advanced galvanic corrosion” in the WTC towers, at “thousands of joints.” If this is misinformation, I believe. >>> I've read about it several times, from sources I trust. Can I be certain that it is true? No. Does it require investigation by an independent prosecutor, a grand jury, or, say, the Senate of the US? Yes. <<< The WTC towers WERE white elephants that needed to have large quantities of asbestos removed, and so indeed would have had to be demolished or the owner spend millions of dollars on them. >>> Yeah, I read that too. <<< But the buildings were structurally sound. >>> How can you be sure of that? <<< There is no reason fires would have destroyed them, with or without jet impacts, and when you add in the fact that the collapses occurred at free-fall speed, the official story becomes preposterous. >>> <<< William Rodriguez heard and felt explosions at the sub-basement level BEFORE before any plane impacted the buildings. He witnessed enormous death and destruction in the lobby of the South Tower BEFORE any plane hit the building. Thus the damage down there could not have been as a result of jet fuel falling down the elevators, as the official story holds. >>> Good point! by Richard Clark (30 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 101 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 3, 2007 at 2:48:41 PM (0+)
|
|
MEANS, MOTIVE and OPPORTUNITY.
The Bushitler Cabal had the MEANS, MOTIVE and OPPORTUNITY to perpetrate these treasonous acts and there is a mountain of evidence that they did exactly that. MEANS, MOTIVE and OPPORTUNITY aplenty. Any farm boy can tell you: steel does not melt from any open burning kerosene flame... otherwise your average kitchen utinsils would have melted long ago. To melt steel you need rare gas combination called oxy-acetylene UNDER PRESSURE. None are so blind as those who WILL NOT see! by mrk * (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 312 comments [12 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 3, 2007 at 2:27:07 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: The difficulty of installing and testing remote control
<<< System Planning Corporation... is a corporation that made "Command Transmitter System," a remote control system for planes which allow large aircraft to be controlled and flown REMOTELY. Zakheim, who was Bush's senior foreign policy advisor during the 2000 campaign, while comptroller , ordered several large military plane fitted with this technology >>> I'm sceptical of the claim that an airliner can be easily and quickly outfitted with remote-control technology, and would like to see some documentation. I read that the installation of such technology must be tested and adjusted, and find it hard to believe that this could occur surreptitiously, under the noses of airline personnel. by Richard Clark (30 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 101 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 3, 2007 at 3:15:45 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: there wil be an accounting if this suit makes it to court
Here is a website started by a NW airline pilot who sued the airline after discovering the 'box' that allows for remote control in his airplane (basically being able to hijack a plane remotely, from a ground source, using Iridium sateliites to relay the signals). it is at www.hawkscafe.com. He is also involved with a HUGE RICO lawsuit about 9-11, where a team of forensic economists follwed the money trail of 9-11 and say that they can prove that this group of people is responsible for 9-11. The text of the preamble to the lawsuit is shown on his site as well. Defendants include Both Clintons, GHW Bush, James Baker of Carlyle group, two former PM's of Canada (Chretien and Mulroney) John and Theresa Kerry, Fred Thompson, Albert Gore, Various Cosa Nostra members, and moneymen for Citigroup and Goldman Sachs, even the DC Madame Jeanne Palfrey among its many defendants. Check it out. by Brad Griffeth (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 138 comments [12 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 4, 2007 at 4:44:41 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: MEANS, MOTIVE and OPPORTUNITY
by Munich (1 articles, 86 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 1125 comments [86 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 3, 2007 at 5:39:50 PM (0+)
|
|
Alternative to the Alternative
Has anyone stopped to consider that the planes hitting the building might have been just a coincindence? Just think explosives could have been planted inside the buildings long in advance of 9/11. After all it doesn't take a plane hitting a building for a good cover story. Think about the bombing of the FBI building in Oklahoma using a common rental van loaded with explosives. This story would have required no proof at all to spin it as what happened. With this story you wouldn't even be expected to find the supect vehicle becuase it would have been assumed demolished with the buildings. In fact it could easily be assumed that there was "bomber's van" near each of the three buuildings This way no one would ask about building 7 collapsing as well. Ofcourse if you want to get real cloak and dagger about this you could assume someone - Dick Cheney who was part of PNAC - had set this up with out Bush's knowledge. The more you learn about Cheney that's not a hard sell. Cheney was going to create his own new "Pearl Harbor" event and all Bush would have to do is look incompetent and outraged. In the meantime AL-Queda is actully planning to hijack the planes and fly them into the WTC buildings. Once this information is out Cheney has a new and improved cover story for the collapsed builings - all he has to do is time it close enough as the planes hit. The small flaw was that no plane hit building 7. But with the great loss of life and the media circus going on who would notice building 7? Just a thought. by RLAnchors (7 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 39 comments) on Saturday, Nov 3, 2007 at 4:48:19 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: A 'fortunate' coincidence, as Cheney would call it?
Quite plausible in my opinion. by Richard Clark (30 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 101 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 4, 2007 at 4:02:51 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Let me modify what was said on this particular issue
Has anyone stopped to consider that the planes hitting the towers might have been just a 'fortunate' coincidence? i.e. explosives could have been planted inside the towers over a very extended period, beginning long before 9/11 . . in anticipation of the day that the towers would have to come down. There were massive technical problems with the towers, which is why the owners knew that the towers would, in the not too far distant future, have to be demolished. However, since the owners were having a lot of trouble finding and keeping tenants, they did not want to spook those who might want to rent office space in the towers, and therefore wanted to keep secret the coming demolition of the building. Therefore all the explosives and incendiary materials had to be planted very discretely, and the plan had to include radio-controlled detonation. It could well have taken 50 workers a year or two to set all this up. And when Cheney et. al. got wind of the 911 plan by alQaeda, to take out these buildings, they contacted Larry Silverstein and a deal of a lifetime was made. by Richard Clark (30 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 101 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 4, 2007 at 4:37:29 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: A challenge to us from someone in another discussion:
<<< Isn't it ironic though that just a few months prior to 911, http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/11/cx_da_0911silverstein.html << It was also reported that many of the floors were not being < It's been reported (and not by the lamestream corporate by Richard Clark (30 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 101 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Nov 5, 2007 at 10:57:12 AM (0+)
|
|
Yes, good article.
A good synopsis to refer one's incredulous friends to. (Our scoffing and abusive enemies are beyond redemption.) Robert Hoogenboom by Robert Hoogenboom (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 234 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 3, 2007 at 5:21:57 PM (0+)
|
|
9/11 and the aftermath
Since I am not an architect nor an engineer (retired local elected official and high school English teacher) I recognize the need to do the research on just how the Twin Towers came down. My concern is not so much the 'how' as it is the subsequent events. We need to spend time as well on what has happened to this country since then. There have been so many excellent articles written on the loss of civil rights, etc., etc., that it would be a waste of time and space here to repeat them. Common sense and a close evaluation of the results of the PNAC and 9/11 tell me that this Administration had a great deal, if not everything, to do with seeing to it that 9/11 occured. Being a visual person, I can't forget that picture of our appointed President sitting in that second grade classroom in Florida, reading My Pet Goat, and staring off into space. Many of the commentators scoffed that he didn't know what to do. Phooey on that! It is just as easy to assume he was waiting for the fourth plane to hit something, and was wondering what was taking so long. Kudos to Richard Clark and the others. Bush, Cheney, et al, wanted 'another Pearl Harbor', so they created their very own 'New York.' Thank you to all who will not give up. You are needed. by Shirley Bianchi (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 97 comments) on Saturday, Nov 3, 2007 at 6:28:57 PM (0+)
|
|
911
we are to believe that two to four fellows took over a aircraft and flying this aircraft for the first time other than simulated flight ,were able to, on the first try x 2 airplanes ,hit a target 200' wide while taxing the planes to their design limits, to close to loss of control? I'd rather believe that the crew and passengers were given a false signal of an emergency told to put on their oxygen masks only to be gassed asleep,then with the coordinates typed into the auto-pilot you would be guaranteed a direct hit the first time X 2.Other than ground control of air speed and a false alert the planes would self destruct.Of course people would still be able to use their cell phones without the equipment the airlines were recently testing to allow passengers to do just that. by tjb (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 255 comments [9 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 3, 2007 at 8:31:36 PM (0+)
|
|
The bliss of willful disbelief...
Thermite detonation cord would make very tidy cuts in steel I beams; with liberal use of "drop and sheer" shape charges accounting for the 'self righting' of the World Trade Center as it collapsed on its own foundation. The supposed 'pancake' collapse of modern skyscrapers from jet fuel that flash burned at just half the temperature needed to even begin to melt the steel in those buildings is to believe in a miraculous suspension of the first law of Thermal Dynamics - as well as physics and plain common sense. by Chas (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 31 comments) on Sunday, Nov 4, 2007 at 11:18:22 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Some questions and some applause
<<< Thermite detonation cord would make very tidy cuts in steel I beams; >>> How do you know? Please say more about this. Also, to what do you attribute the solidified 'drippings' right next to the 45-degree angle cuts on column segments shown on the www.ae911truth.org web site? <<< with liberal use of "drop and sheer" shape charges accounting for the 'self righting' of the World Trade Center as it collapsed on its own foundation. >>> Kindly explain what "drop and sheer" shaped charges are, and also tell us, please, how they account for the 'self righting' of each tower as it collapsed. Tell us also, if you would, what explosive or incendiary you think the 'shaped charges' were made out of. <<< The supposed 'pancake' collapse of modern skyscrapers from jet fuel that flash burned at just half the temperature needed to even begin to melt the steel in those buildings is to believe in a miraculous suspension of the first law of thermodynamics - as well as physics and plain common sense. >>> Spot on! It seems to me that socialism is antithetical to the free-trade zones of neoliberalist corporate control of (and/or marriage to) government. Spot on again! by Richard Clark (30 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 101 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 4, 2007 at 3:37:39 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Remember, I am trying hard to willfully disbelieve...
Pray tell, would you have me awake from the Democrat/Republican false paradigm to deal with the fact of our governments duplicity in a new world order? Dealing with truth and facts is a dangerous business, one might have to take uncomfortable stands. Far better to wave the party flag, buy the party line, and run the rat maze while hoping for the best. Sheep getting sheered have little discomfort until its their time to be cooked... by Chas (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 31 comments) on Monday, Nov 5, 2007 at 4:36:01 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Darn! Its getting harder to willfully disbelieve!
I forgot to add that the North American free trade zone/union (aka: Region 10) is NOT about free trade, it is about the dissolution of the borders between Mexico, America and Canada; the end of national sovereignty (and you wondered WHY no one Washington was stopping the flood of illegals into the US from Mexico?). Thus making it easier to economically rape the whole region for the international corporations that own the best governments money can buy. Besides, we owe Red China way too much money to anger them in their demands for a easing of trade restrictions across the borders with our neighbors from their new navy base in California. (You mean you did not read all about that in our free press?) by Chas (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 31 comments) on Monday, Nov 5, 2007 at 5:17:44 AM (0+)
|
|
FURTHER QUESTIONS
I originally intended to direct this question only to the author of this article, Richard Clark. But while I was preparing this question, come of the other posters made comments about some of the topics I have questions about. So I decided to post my questions here for everybody to chew on: I wrote the OpEdNews article, "Too Many Suspicious Anomalies About 9/11," so we basically agree about 9/11. But other people have asked questions that I have not researched the answers to. One person said there could not be molten steel in the WCT ruins because the fire hoses putting water on the metal would have produced steam explosions that would have thrown molten metal on the fire fighters I replied that the wreckage was seven stories tall and that the molten metal in the subbasements would not have caused steam explosions that could reach the firefighters. I remember the press at the time reported molten metal in the ruins so all the people denying molten metal was present remind me of the characters in George Orwell's 1984 who would forget the old government line as soon as the government announced a new one. http://halfhillviews.greatnow.com (SITE NOW BANNED ON AOL) by rhalfhill (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 325 comments) on Sunday, Nov 4, 2007 at 6:04:49 PM (0+)
|
|
i swallowed the offiical story for almost 4 years
It sounds plausible- but steel-framed concrete buildings disintegrating into huge dust clouds due to plane crashes is not plausible at all. Explosives could easily produce such an effect, and there are well over a hundred first responders who heard, saw and felt explosions and their effects. by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1111 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 4, 2007 at 7:59:59 PM (0+)
|
|
Richard Clark?
My jaw dropped as I read the author's name and the thesis of his article. Oops! Not "The" Richard Clark. If the former "terrorism czar" and author of "Against All Enemies" had written this, it may have become difficult to keep it out of the MSM! by Maxwell (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 409 comments [85 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Nov 5, 2007 at 10:31:21 AM (0+)
|
|
Advance knowledge of the 911 attack
1. The FBI believed that Osama bin Laden was linked to the 1993 bombing of the Twin Towers, and did nothing to avert that attack either. 2. Osama bin Laden was linked to several incidents where planes were to be used to attack buildings, including one foiled attack in Paris against the Eiffel Tower, and one that succeeded in Moscow during the Chechnya war. 3. Anticipating a possible attack from the air during his visit to the Economic Summit in Genoa last year, Bush's security people took special precautions, moving him to another location and keeping all aircraft away from that vicinity. 4. There were numerous warnings from foreign intelligence agencies about the coming 9/11 attack. 5. Colin Powell was busy telling leaders in Pakistan, Uzbekistan, India and other surrounding countries that the US planned to militarily intervene against the Taliban in mid-October, so while the 9-11 attack was perhaps a pre-emptive strike by alQaeda, it certainly was not the "cause" of the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan. 6. In 1998 the head of security at the offices of the Joint Chiefs told researcher Jon Judge that he could not go near the front steps of the building because the building was on Delta Alert, their highest security alert. He further stated that the Join Chiefs received frequent bomb threats from Muslims and that they had radar working and missiles ready, on the roof, to prevent planes from crashing into the building. =================== At 8:21 a.m. Betty Ong, a flight attendant on American Airlines Flight 11, calls Vanessa Minter at American Airlines reservations from the seatback phone. "She said two flight attendants had been stabbed, one was on oxygen," said the manager on duty. "A passenger had his throat slashed and looked dead and the hijackers had gotten into the cockpit." She identifies the seats of the hijackers and confirms that the plane is descending. At 8:22 a.m. Amy Sweeney (another flight attendant on American Airlines Flight 11) calls American Airlines ground manager Michael Woodward and speaks calmly to him about the hijack that is underway. At 8:24 a.m. one of the hijackers accidently activates the talk-back button, enabling Boston air traffic controllers to hear someone with a strong Middle Eastern accent say to the passengers: "We have some planes. Just stay quiet and you will be OK. We are returning to the airport. Nobody move. Everything will be OK. If you try to make any moves, you'll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet." Presumably NORAD (and then the White House and Bush) were immediately notified. And if not, why not? By 8:55 Flight 77 did a U-turn and was known to be headed for Washington, DC. Local TV news announced its course and destination, and Dick Cheney was taken immediately into the Situation Room to commence with plans for “continuity of government.” At 9:00 a.m. the FAA starts contacting all airliners to warn them of the hijacking. A minute later, at 9:01 a.m., Bush was “sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in,” and later made this fantastic statement about what he then saw: “I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I used to fly myself, and I said, 'There's one terrible pilot.' And I said, 'It must have been a horrible accident.' But I was whisked off from there -- I didn't have much time to think about it." Didn’t have much time to think about it? There had been ample warnings that binLaden was going to attack, and a hijacked airliner with a heavily-accented Arab in the cockpit had just plowed into the World Trade center on a clear-as-a-bell, sky-blue morning. And the president of the United States then decides to go into a grade-school class room to listen to children reading a goat story?! At 9:05 a.m. Andrew Card walks up to Bush while he is listening to a Goat Story with 16 second graders. Card whispers in his ear "A second plane has hit the World Trade Center. America is under attack." But Bush (commander in chief?) decides to keep listening to the goat story?! Certainly by 9:05 am, everyone in the White House also knew that incoming planes were going to be used as weapons. Bush and Cheney allegedly conferred and agreed on a shoot-down order. And if they didn’t, they should have. The White House, Capitol, Congressional offices and the Pentagon began to be evacuated. They all knew what was coming: a weaponized airliner, and possibly more than one. Yet not a single _local_ fighter went up to intercept, and not a single surface-to-air missile on the roof of either the White House or Pentagon was ever prepared to be launched. The Pentagon “stood down” as the incoming Flight 77 looped all the way around, in a giant descending turn, to plow through the side of the building. Why the stand-down? And on whose orders? Timeline source: http://www.911timeline.net/ How to explain all these anomalies? If it was all just a series of blunders by US officials, why has no one been blamed for any of the blunders? Why has no attempt even been made to identify what specific blunders or mistakes were made? by Richard Clark (30 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 101 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 15, 2007 at 2:54:25 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
