 |
|
Add to My Group
|
September 11, 2007 at 01:37:28
9/11 Was there a conspiracy and if so what did the conspiracy entail? by Steven Leser Page 1 of 3 page(s) 
|
|
 
|
With the sixth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks upon us, while we remember the deaths of so many good Americans, it is time to take a look at an issue much of the media seems afraid to tackle. If you perform a search on Yahoo on the words 9/11 conspiracy you will get no less than approximately thirty million hits. A search on Google results in over four million hits. Pages that discuss 9/11 conspiracies outnumber JFK assassination discussion pages by over ten to one on Yahoo and by more than two to one on google. Polling reflects the idea that Americans are taking more than a casual glance at ideas that challenge the Bush administration's account of the attacks. A CNN Poll conducted in August-September 2006 showed that over 50% of Americans assign at least a moderate amount of blame for 9/11 to the Bush administration. An October 2006 NY Times/CBS poll shows that over 80% of Americans regard the official story regarding 9/11 coming from the Bush Administration as omitting information or outright lies. Chances are if you are reading this there is at least some part of the official 9/11 account about which you are not sure you believe. You may not even have known until now how widespread those thoughts are. I've discussed and argued about the various 9/11 conspiracy theories on various sites. I will get to what I believe later, but first I think it is helpful to categorize the different conspiracy theories into three distinct categories and provide some limited commentary. Some of the theories have components in all three categories, but I think this method makes the most sense. The three categories are "Advanced Knowledge", "Carrying out or Participation in the Carrying out of the attacks" and "Use of the Attacks to Pursue and Unrelated War and Inappropriately Restrict Civil Liberties" 
1. Advanced KnowledgeAdvanced knowledge is the idea that the Bush administration had at least an idea that something was going to happen. Some people believe that knowledge is much deeper.
A. One of the mildest conspiracy theories out there is that the administration had a mild inkling about the coming attacks but did nothing to stop them. This conspiracy theory stands on its own or in some people's beliefs is combined with those in the other categories. The main facts used to support this belief are that Condoleezza Rice, the then National Security Advisor, was warned by George Tenet and the CIA no less than three times before 9/11 that bin Laden and Al Qaeda were determined to strike in the US and nothing was done about it.
Think about that. The National Security Advisor's only job is to ensure the security of the United States against foreign and domestic threats. You have been warned three times by the intelligence service in your country about an organization and take no action against them. Who out there did Condi think was a greater threat? Moreover, were they such a threat that she could take no action to protect us against Al Qaeda at the same time? To anyone reading this, As National Security Advisor, wouldn't your first act upon hearing a terrorist group was determined to do something in the US be to immediately increase security in airports so that planes could not be hijacked? Isn't that something terrorists frequently do? Another fact is that by September of 2001, Bush's poll numbers had seen five straight months of decline and were approaching 50% and the theory goes that the attacks were good for the Bush administration, its popularity and its ability to carry out its agenda.
B. Some people not only believe the Bush administration had an inkling, but that they were specifically told by bin Laden and Al Qaeda about the attacks before they happened. People who believe this point to the ease with which the attacks were carried out as evidence the attackers had help from inside the US government. The theory and others also suggest that Bin Laden had contacts in the CIA dating back to his Mujahideen days when he was in Afghanistan fighting the Soviets.
2. Actual Carrying out of the Attacks
Some believe the Bush administration not only knew the attacks were going to occur, but that they took an active part in the attacks. There are many theories out there regarding this but I will discuss some of the more popular ones.
A. The administration coordinated the attacks with Al Qaeda and pre-positioned a material called "Thermite" in the towers to ensure the towers collapsed. People who believe this say that the forces present when the planes hit the tower and afterwards with the fires were not sufficient to weaken the towers' infrastructure so as to cause their collapse. The material Thermite, used in various commercial and military applications burns extraordinarily hot and would have achieved the necessary temperatures. Even if the plane collisions and resulting fires somehow did achieve the collapse of the towers, the theory goes; the collapse would not have resembled a controlled demolition as no building collapse as the result of an impact has ever done so. This theory also raises the issue of the blazing collapse of World Trade Center Building #7 (WTC #7) a building that was not hit by any planes. To this day, six years later, the collapse of WTC #7 is not well explained and very hard to understand.
The official account as written by the NIST scientists that is supposed to explain the towers' collapse does seem to contain some notable holes in regards to the temperatures/ability to cause collapse, the way the towers collapsed and WTC #7. I have tried my best to read the hundreds of pages in the NIST report and it does not seem like these issues were addressed directly enough. People who believe this part of the conspiracy theories have been calling for a reopening of the 9/11 investigation into what brought down the towers and they have requested an independent body conduct the new investigation. One problem with this theory is that both of the towers' collapses seem to have originated at the point of impact of the planes. To accept this theory, one has to believe that the Thermite was pre-positioned so well, and the pilots flying the planes had so much skill, that the planes impacted only a few feet over where the pre-positioned Thermite was to ignite and cause the collapse. This makes this theory difficult but perhaps not impossible. However, this problem leads nicely into the second theory in this category.
Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:
We demand independent investigations into the 9/11 Attacks
Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers
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 |
|
|
|
|
| 44 comments |
|
Gov Account vs Propaganda Inside Job Account vs REAL Account
Many know the OGCT (Official Government Conspiracy Theory) to be nothing but pure nonsense; a fairytale believed by those not acquainted with the true facts. However, many have been tricked by well placed "alternate theory" propaganda designed to distract us from the real evidence. One example of this propaganda, "molten metal at Ground Zero", has been shown to be pure fabrication, designed to distract us from other issues. Lenin, the first Communist dictator after the takeover of Russia in 1917, is widely credited with the following quotation, "The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." Obviously the perpetrators of 9/11 took lessons. The so-called "9/11 truth movement" is being controlled by the 9/11 perpetrators, or those affiliated with the 9/11 perpetrators. People have been planted to control the direction of the truth movement and to discourage them from looking at TV-FAKERY and DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS. Many of these plants have direct affiliations with DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPON technologies. (i.e. Steven Jones - former Los Alamos researcher; Bob Bowman - former director of the Star Wars program.) People must learn of the REAL evidence for 9/11. This evidence, obviously not publicized in any media outlet, is admissible in a Court of Law. Trial attorney Jerry Leaphart is representing two individuals: Dr Morgan Reynolds, former Chief Economist from the US Department of Labor, filed a complaint which was unsealed by the US District Court, Southern New York, alleging private contractors defrauded the government by supplying bogus analysis of aluminum airplanes gliding into steel/concrete buildings. Reynolds also filed a Request for Correction regarding the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) report on the World Trade Center destruction. Leaphart is now notifying the Defendants in the case. (See here for full info and Court PDF file.) Dr Judy Wood, former Professor of Mechanical Engineering from Clemson University, filed a Request For Correction with NIST demonstrating evidence for directed energy weapon usage at the World Trade Center on 9/11, and has been in contact with government officials. (See here for PDF docs.) Mr Leaphart said in an interview with Kevin Barrett (MP3 clip) (Full MP3 show): "What I can tell you and the listeners, Kevin, is this. There is more admissible evidence associated with the theory that the World Trade Center was destroyed by directed energy weapons than there is admissible evidence for any single other theory out there that has been promulgated." Jones: The current "pet theory" that I have challenged is one now supported by you and (not surprisingly) Wood and Reynolds - the idea that "space beams" or "energy beams" were directed at the Towers to bring them down. Jones: We won’t spend much time on ray-beams from space knocking down the Towers! by CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 465 comments [18 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 11, 2007 at 3:28:33 AM  (0+)
|
|
Re: 9/11 Was there a conspiracy
BBC: Debunked "Pancake Theory" Caused Towers To Collapse http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2007/110907_pancake_theory.htm by Munich (1 articles, 86 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 1125 comments [86 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 11, 2007 at 9:58:25 AM (0+)
|
|
Ron Paul would re-open 911 investigations
Ron Paul would get to the bottom of these descrepencies regarding 911, the war on Iraq and the criminal allegations involving our Goverments comlicity in the attacks and subsequent dismantling of our civil liberties. You have to atleast listen to what he has to say. by Logical Response (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 16 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 11, 2007 at 10:31:34 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Conspiratorial Purgatory
Yes, Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich say that they favor an impartial re-investigation, but when are they actually going to talk about it when vast numbers of TV viewers are tuned in? Someone HAS to start this long-overdue dialogue in the mainstream, and take the big risk - especially on live TV. Otherwise, it will continue to be a non-issue, and like other important Truths, continue to languish in conspiratorial purgatory. by Bill Cain (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 434 comments [67 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 11, 2007 at 11:12:06 AM (0+)
|
|
The rate of collapse reveals truth
One either has to believe in the laws of physics relative to conservation of momentum or trust that the official narrative of the 911 atrocity is true. They are mutually exclusive. Objects or buildings that fall at a free-fall rate fall with no resistance. Discounting air resistance, this is the case with WTC1, 2 and especially building 7. The widely trumpeted "pancake collapse theory" would introduce significant resistance as upper floors would have to crash through many tens of stories of undamaged structure. The actual rate of the collapse of these three structures as corroborated by unspinnable video evidence, exposes the fallacious nature of the official explanation. A free-fall rate of collapse is only possible if all structural integrity is eliminated just ahead of the collapse wave. This set of parameters can only be accounted for by the controlled demolition of these buildings. Every American has to decide whether to trust this government and corporate controlled news media or whether to apply some critical thinking skills in the evaluation of widely disseminated information concerning the 911 atrocity. Since my government has a long history of protecting me from the truth "for my own good", I'll stick with Newton and Galileo. A thorough treatment of this topic, including a peer reviewed academic treatise, can be considered at www.stj911.org/. by brisa (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 11, 2007 at 11:24:12 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: This article dismisses the thermite theory in one sentence.
You say, "One problem with this theory (the thermite theory) is that both of the towers' collapses seem to have originated at the point of impact of the planes. To accept this theory, one has to believe that the Thermite was pre-positioned so well, and the pilots flying the planes had so much skill, that the planes impacted only a few feet over where the pre-positioned Thermite was to ignite and cause the collapse." The above is a quotation from your comments to give context. I am picking up this part of the quotation for questioning: "both of the towers' collapses seem to have originated at the point of impact of the planes". I have read a great deal about 9/11 including Doctor Jones paper on the thermite theory. I have never seen mentioned that the towers' collapses originated at the point of compact of the airplanes. This is a key point because with this one sentence you dismiss the whole thermite theory-- a theory that is a very key component in debunking or at least questioning the official story. What documentation do you have to support your statement? by Christie (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 143 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 11, 2007 at 7:30:53 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I suggest that you look at:
www . scholarsfor911truth . org to figure it out. The scholarly articles are there by physicists, structural engineers, psychologists, et. al. by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [399 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 11, 2007 at 7:36:21 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Christie, please read a little further down where I say
"The problems listed do not necessarily rule out those theories" or some such thing. by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 11, 2007 at 9:28:43 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Also review the material at...
by Co6aka (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 68 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 11, 2007 at 9:33:04 PM (0+)
|
|
New Zogby International poll
51% of folks in the US want a new 9/11 investigation focused on Bush and Cheney role in it, and over two thirds say the 9/11 Commission should have investigated the collapse of Building 7. Here is the full paragraph from Zogby on the critical issue of building no.7: by Joel S. Hirschhorn (141 articles, 50 quicklinks, 65 diaries, 546 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 11, 2007 at 11:38:45 AM (0+)
|
|
Also to be noted
One of the most compelling reasons for dissent is six of the nineteen hijackers listed by the 9/11 Commision have been confirmed to be still alive by various media organizations. The Saudi embassy in D.C. even reported three of them, Mohand al-Sherhri, Salem al-Hazmi, and Abdulaziz al-Omari, still living in Saudi Arabia. Regardless of how, or if, the Bush Administration played a role, the results have been the same. The wars continue and the money is flowing towards the NPAC, a Neo-Con pet project, goal of a larger, better funded military. David Ray Griffen has written two very well organized and supported books on this issue. He steers away from theories like DEW and mini-nukes, which are, quite frankly, ridiculus and without a larger academic supporting community. The books are worth the effort, and at least a basis for new, independent investigations. Lastly, there is strong evidence for thermite, or thermate. Find Jerry Lobdill's paper at journalof911studies.com. The element of placement and timing, as mentioned above, seem irrelevant as charges could have been placed throughout all three buildings. by David Lohnes (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 11, 2007 at 12:44:17 PM (0+)
|
|
Conspiracy in his face
Yes; I believe there was a conspiracy. My first inkling of this came like a slap or a koan -- observing the behaviour of Bush when he was made aware of the calamity. My "evidence" is not from my poor understanding of physics (though I am thoroughly gratified to have read all the evidence put forth by you who do have backgrounds in physics and engineering). My conviction is from my intuitive and feeling capacities. Even after disregarding the blatant stupidity of Bush -- factoring in that he is atrociously dull-headed -- I find his reaction to the news that arrived during his visit to a kindergarten (I can't resist commenting that he must have felt quite at home) to be incomprehensible. I don't think he sat there so dumbly because he was paralyzed by the enormity of the event. I believe he sat there waiting.....for the events to play out to their conclusion; perhaps the news arrived inappropriately soon for whatever had been planned for him to do, to proceed as planned. I am convinced, just by watching his pudding face, that this news was not a surprise to him. He could not feign surprise and shock, so he just sat there and continued to sit there for far too long with an expression that did not match the situation. And then after having read of hard-science evidence such as has been posted here and other places, I feel my instinctive take has been borne out. The physics of these collapsing buildings is fascinating, in a horrifying and macabre way. There are far, far too many anomalies here. I add mine -- they cannot be proven -- to postulations that I hope can be. by Jami (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 25 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 11, 2007 at 1:13:58 PM (0+)
|
|
Without a doubt
With the mountain of evidence now available to debunk the so-called "official" story of 9/11 I find it uninmaginable that any reasonable person can not doubt that elements within our own government were involved with the attack. What I find the hardest thing to do is getting many of my friends to even consider this fact. I have a shelf of DVD's and articles that cast doubt on the events of 9/11 and the responce I get most of the time when I ask them to view this evidence is "I don't want to know", or "If that's true, we're really screwed" and they simply don't want to face the truth because I assume it will destroy their core belief that our nation would never do something like this, or if they were made aware they'd HAVE to act and most simply don't want to be bothered with disrupting their comfort zone. I don't know if the truth will ever be fully exposed or if anyone will be held accountable. But I do know this, either way, truth known or not, 9/11 will destroy whatever the Founding Fathers meant this country to be. 9/11 DID change everything and none of it for the good. by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 11, 2007 at 2:20:18 PM (0+)
|
|
Not a Mossad agent in your story...
Of course restricting 9/11 to US operatives, and to the "Bush adminsitration", when we know that nearly 200 Israelis were arrested (how many escaped?), is a bit of dishonest presentation. Your "theories" lack a comprehensive knowledge of known facts about the attacks. Adding garbage theories like "no planes" and "DEW" completely reduces the value of this article. I've been trying to educate people about solid verifiable facts for 5 years now. See: The Limits of Christopher Ketcham's / Counterpunch's Israeli Hangout 9/11 - CIA IG REPORT: A Little More Light Through the Cracks No George Monbiot, These Are the Facts of September 11th 2001 ISI and The Wire Transfers of 9/11 9/11 Truth Has Already Won the Debate Concerning the WHO when it comes to explosives and/or thermate in the World Trade Center, we need to look to the person with control of the site, one Mr. Larry Silverstein, good friends with Benjamin Netanyahu and Ariel Sharon at the time. We should also note that "demolition/ordnance specialist" was the expertise of at least one of the arrested Israelis, and that explosives and the materials for manufacturing them were reportedly found at the Urban Moving Systems warehouse in NJ. A van full of explosives was even stopped on the George Washington Bridge, to be mentioned once by CBS news, and then disappeared down the memory hole. Well, Jeezus Christmas on a cracker. If the owner of Urban Moving Systems was Egyptian or Lebanese, I think we would have heard about it to no end in the controlled press. But, no. The owner, a Mr.Dominik Otto Suter, "fled to Israel shortly before he was to be re-questioned by the FBI." "The Israelis were later linked to an Israeli-owned office moving company called Urban Moving Systems headquartered in Weehawken, New Jersey at 3 West 18th Street. Another Urban Moving office was located on West 50th Street in Manhattan. Urban Moving’s owner, Dominik Otto Suter, fled to Israel shortly before he was to be re-questioned by the FBI. " -Wayne Madsen, The Israeli Art Students and Movers Story Source for the info on Suter is: Footnote 4. "Neil Mackay, “Five Israelis were seen filming from the van on the right as jet liners ploughed into the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001. Were they part of a massive spy ring which shadowed the 911 hijackers and knew that al-Qaeda planned a devastating terrorist attack on the USA?” Sunday Herald, November 2, 2003" My main point is that this is bigger than the Bush administration. The prepration took years. "Al Qaeda" operatives -- or patsies? -- were protected under the Clinton regime, protected by the CIA units that were supposed to be stopping terrorism against the US. September 11th may have been bad news to the immediate victims, but it wasn't bad for a lot of very powerful interests. One among them are the Israelis. Former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu had the unbridled joy on 9/11, when asked about the effects of the attacks on US/Israeli relations: "It's very good." Realizing his faux pas, he restated the sentiment in diplomatic language: "Well, not very good, but it will generate immediate sympathy." (Wikipedia) by johndoraemi (17 articles, 12 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 166 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 11, 2007 at 3:39:29 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: These have all been debunked
See here by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 11, 2007 at 4:11:28 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Also, be aware that the origins of many of these theories
where Jews/The Mossad/Zionists are claimed to have been behind the attacks have been directly traced to members of the American Nazi Party, the Aryan Nations and other Anti-Semitic groups like the Identity movement. by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 11, 2007 at 4:19:12 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: actually,
a large part of it can be traced to a FOX news report. by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [399 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 11, 2007 at 7:57:09 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I did provide my source.
Click on the link in the comment where I said that these were debunked. by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 11, 2007 at 9:34:32 PM (0+)
|
|
IT HARDLY TAKES A BRAIN ...
to realize it was a conspiracy. Just watch, with the volume turned off, the news footage of the fall of the 3 buildings, all quite close to each other, and all within hours of each other ... _INTO_THEIR_OWN_FOOTPRINTS_. Then consider the probability of such SYMMETRY manifesting in 3 collapses via fire and even via plane crashes. Then, consider what pre-planting of explosives (or equipment) is necessary to get that to happen, and, voila, it is clear that multiple evildoers had to be involved. Ergo, Conspiracy. by lenngray (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 77 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 11, 2007 at 3:42:08 PM (0+)
|
|
Conspirators easier seen as your eyes get used to the light
Here, via YouTube, is a heap o' context, Sept.11, 1947, (CIA instituted) -to- Sept. 11, 2001, ... and beyond. This is your America on FEAR. For the rest of us, there is no free speech to shout 'Fear' in a crowded theatre. The Shock Doctrine Short Film -- A Film by Alfonso Cuarón and Naomi Klein, directed by Jonás Cuarón. by meremark (1 articles, 3 quicklinks, 30 diaries, 572 comments [22 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 11, 2007 at 4:34:29 PM (0+)
|
|
Compelling video on why the towers came down
Here's a presentation by an architect who makes a pretty convincing case that the towers did not come down because they were hit by airplanes. by Mark A. Goldman (81 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 243 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 11, 2007 at 4:38:41 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: you can also check out:
Architects and Engineers for 911 truth at by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [399 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 11, 2007 at 8:00:18 PM (0+)
|
|
The smallest disbelief in the Legend of 9/11 is BIG in LIFE
Steven, in admitting even the slightest amount of questioning The Official Account, you then face the direct implication, since it was not solved and settled the first time, as to how or who dunnit, therefore the perpetrators are still on the loose and they can do it again. And those perpetrators are the minions, and the son's administration, of mastermind twins George Hitler Worker Bush and Henry Killing-er. Only that interest group has Motive, Opportunity, Method. Only IMPEACHMENT removes their Opportunity. Interminable review and indecision and fret and uncertain questioning MUST DECIDE -- What are we going to do TODAY, take ACTION, to be alive tomorrow. Rearview mirror watching is well and good. Real life is what eyes forward see happening out in front of the windshield. by meremark (1 articles, 3 quicklinks, 30 diaries, 572 comments [22 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 11, 2007 at 4:57:39 PM (0+)
|
|
Not only was 9/11 an inside job, Al Queda/OBL are
entirely a faked, made-up, pretend boogey man created by the CIA et al to frighten us into accepting endless war and torture of innocent people, giving up basic rights of having a lawyer, having charges brought before we are imprisoned forever, being able to see/hear evidence against us, basically everything that used to seperate us from totalitarian dictatorships. Everything at Gitmo/Abu Gahraib is now possible HERE against lifelong, born-n-bred American citizens. The papers have been signed to create a full fledged police state. Read the Executive Order signed May 9. Read the Presidential Directive 51 signed july 17. Contracts have been signed and many large "Detention Centers" are now being built. For who? For me and you. For war dissenters, anyone who does not submissively accept the coming draft, war on Iran, cancelled elections, Bush as emperor forever. Call me crazy, if it makes you feel better, safer. Or investigate for yourself. What can be done? Demand your Representative sign on to House Resolution 333 to impeach Cheney. When those investigations get started, we will get the truth of 9/11 and stop their evil plans for our country and our planet. Do not wait for Katie Curic to tell you about the 18 brave reps already signed on. A few more and Conyers will start the ball rolling and the corporate whores in the "mainstream media" will no longer be able to completely ignore it. As all the criminality and pure evil is exposed and shown nightly on OUR airwaves, believe me, we will "have the votes". The worm will turn. we the people will awake from our slumber and the very walls of capitalism will be stormed, and they will crumble. America will salvage peace and love and humanity will be free to evolve on this magnificent rock hurtling through space for many centuries. Or not. It is up to YOU. Be change. Be the media. Find the courage that your great grand children are begging and pleading with you to find, NOW. Do not fear torture, false imprisonment or death. Your life will only have meaning if you get up from your keyboard/couch today and ACT. The number of good people VASTLY outnumbers the few twisted evil reptillians now ruling our planet. Together we can crush(NON-VIOLENTLY) most of them and put the rest in a zoo. Get up, Stand up! POWER TO THE PEOPLE by CamusRebel (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 100 comments [29 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 11, 2007 at 5:29:15 PM (0+)
|
|
Promoting "WTC Explosives" Damages the Truth Movement
As pointed out in my previous comment, the "truth movement" is being controlled by the 9/11 perpetrators. They do everything to discourage the movement from promoting evidence of directed energy weapons, while at the same time, encourage promoting evidence of explosives. Promoting WTC explosives helps the 9/11 perpetrators because they plan to blame Al Qaeda for it! by CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 465 comments [18 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 11, 2007 at 5:53:48 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Oh hell.
Here is CB, once again promoting space beams etc. He used to include multiple, false, ad hominems against Steven Jones, et. al. I guess that didn't work so now we get the amended argument. When anybody examines 911 you should only rely upon scientifically verifiable evidence and the studies based upon that at: by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [399 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 11, 2007 at 8:10:33 PM (0+)
|
|
The Mainstream Media Must Be Overthrown
The following ten minute video demonstrates the infiltration of the corporate media down to the newscaster level. Watch it! You will learn that newscasters on different NYC channels were reading from a script -the same script- on a developing story on live TV. Distribute it! Help expose the evilness of the corporate media. by CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 465 comments [18 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 11, 2007 at 6:04:39 PM (0+)
|
|
WTC 7
I am sure that what the 911 commission reported is not an accurate account of what really happened. All one need do is watch a film of the collapse of WTC 7 and it will surely raise questions. A demolition expert from a Nordic country was asked his opinion of the collapse of the three buildings at ground zero. His opinion was that the two towers did not appear to be a result of a planned demolition, because they did not fall from the bottom, but from the top. However, when he saw a film of WTC 7, he was absolutelyl positive that this building fell from a planned demolition. View these news films at http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html and decide for yourself by michal54 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 22 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 11, 2007 at 7:41:49 PM (0+)
|
|
Inaccurate characterization of 911 truth movement
by Jan Hoyer (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments [1 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 11, 2007 at 7:46:09 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Absolutely,
Correct. If you are going to do the 'rabbit hole', you must do it scientifically. Stick with the credible and scientific information. Eschew space beams, pods, and the folks like Tarpley, Fetzer, Woods. Read that stuff. Read the real science at www . journalfor911studies . com and Make up your own minds. You either do science or you do a kind of religious belief. A disinfo theism. Scientific analysis of 911 proves the case. You don't need anything else. by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [399 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 11, 2007 at 8:18:18 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: And yet, some people do believe that, hence...
my inclusion in the article. I note issues with many of the theories but rule out nothing. My intuition tells me something is wrong here. But, exactly what, that I am not sure, other than the administration acted afterwards as if they did something wrong, and misused the occasion horribly. by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 11, 2007 at 9:33:11 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: 9/11 Was there a conspiracy ?
Mr. Leser: I don't know if you've ever had the chance to be in the inside of a high rise building as it's being built? As a former Union Iron Worker I can tell you that the steel beams and columns are massive! Something other than jet fuel brought the Trade Towers down. Beams of that enormity just don't crumble they way they did. Some of the structure should have stayed intact and or the beams should have merely toppled, and not pancaked they way they did. The Police and Fireman also heard bombs going off. What does that tell you? It tells me that bombs were going off and that the official 911 story is bunk. We were lied to, just as we're being lied to about Iraq. It's a shell game. Let me re-phrase that. "It's a huge shell game." Without 9/11 there's no invasion of Iraq. 9/11 helped instill the fear necessary to facilitate this illegal horrific Iraq war and the permanent military bases which will remain in both Iraq and Afghanistan for many, many, years. And if you look at these bases especially in Afghanistan, they're strategically placed along the Caspian Sea oil pipeline. What does this tell you? MAP OF OIL CORRRIDOR - IRAQ/IRAN http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=32187 We're in Iraq Mr. Leser because the powers that be want total domination of the Middle East and it's oil, so that down the road we can dictate policy to China, who could become a major threat. That's if in the mean time we don't see WWIII. Any foolish attack on Iran and anything is liable to happen. It is though all about oil. These people mean business and sadly, we're only in the early stages of this so called New World Order. If this sounds too tin-foil hat perhaps we should call it hegemonic imperialism? U.S. Imperialism, Europe, and the Middle East by Munich (1 articles, 86 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 1125 comments [86 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Sep 12, 2007 at 12:55:50 AM (0+)
|
|
Link to WTC 7 - Bad?
The link to this page does not work from here. I found it by going to Google and searching for 'wtc7 collapse' The link is the fifth one down from the top. There are three films all done by News cameras. If you try to link from here you get a '404 NOT FOUND' http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html Try it both ways. by michal54 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 22 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 11, 2007 at 7:52:51 PM (0+)
|
|
sources
It is obvious that Steven Leser has come recemtly to the debate obout 9/11 and has cast his net wide for information, finding some sources which are good and some which are stupid or bogus. He is keen so should soon sort the good from the bad. It is interesting how different people come to the truth about 9/11. Steven Leser's main contribution results from his perspective as a historian. He noted the similarity between the US Patriot Act and the Enabling Act of Na_zi Germany and found this comprehensible only by noting what happened after each was passed: both nations went to war. Steven Jones, a physicist, came to the truth after seeing evidence that thermite or thermate residues were present, proving the NIST report was bogus. Gordon Ross, an engineer, thought the towers could not have collapsed to the ground from fires at the top. He did calculations which proved this, showing that explosives must have been used. Several people with mathematical minds, like Ken Kuttler, mathematician, thought the buildings should not have come down as fast as they did. Their calculations showed that the acceleration of the tops of the buildings was close to free fall, proving that the supports were being rapidly removed. Then there are people like CB Brooklyn who sit at their computers and fire off attacks at those who promote the truth. They attack the people not the evidence. Brooklyn attacks Steven Jones on the grounds that he once worked on cold fusion. He does not attack the evidence about the thermite residues because it cannot logically be done. Such people also promote rubbish theories like the use of energy beams. They do this to pollute the evidence and thus cause people to throw out the good evidence with the bad. There is evidence for explosives. There is nothing in what was observed which cannot be explained by the use of explosives. There is no need for an energy beam. We all know about the debate which has raged about what hit the Pentagon. Some say it was the official Boeing 757, some say it was something else. Yesterday, while handing out brochures about 9/11, I met a person who said he had seen a TV report on that day showing the 757 skimming down to the ground and hitting the Pentagon. He was in Melbourne at the time. Apparently this was shown once but never again. Of course this is eye witness and hearsay and proves nothing. There is however one thing which is absolutely proved by the Pentagon incident: the complicity of the US admin. They could easily show evidence of what hit the Pentagon but they do not. It is clearly in their interest to keep the truth seekers disputing with one another. If there was nothing illegal why hide information? For those who find it hard to persuade their friends to view the evidence for explosives I suggest referring them to the paper that has recently appeared on the Journal of 9/11 Studies on myths and democracy. It doesn't look like a paper on 9/11 and might get some people moving. by gravity32 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 201 comments [38 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 11, 2007 at 11:25:52 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Is gravity32 a Genuine Disinfo Agent, or Just Plane Stupid?
Steven Jones promotes molten metal at Ground Zero, which has been shown to be a complete hoax. Jones "says" he found evidence of thermite by analyzing samples in his laboratory, hardly something any one of us can verify for ourselves. What kind of person would trust that Jones actually found this? Especially when Jones promotes such hoaxes as molten metal? Everyone reading this should ask themselves that question. Regarding Ken Kuttler's calculations showing the towers should not have "collapsed" as fast as they did... Who cares? The towers did not "collapse", they were pulverized. "Collapse" is a misleading term. Look at the pictures here and decide for yourself! Be sure to check out the video links of steel turning to dust. They attack the people not the evidence. Wrong! I attack Jones' obviously deceptive "evidence". Anyone looking at the information provided can see through Jones' smokescreen. Brooklyn attacks Steven Jones on the grounds that he once worked on cold fusion. Misleading! There's a lot more than Jones' criminal Cold Fusion background that I expose. If fact, I haven't even mentioned Cold Fusion in this thread; gravity32 has! But thanks to him for letting the cat out of the bag. Everyone should head over here and look at Jones' Cold Fusion info themselves. Note that I encourage people to look at the information while gravity32 wants you to blindly trust Jones and his "laboratory evidence". He does not attack the evidence about the thermite residues because it cannot logically be done. Another example of gravity32 displaying his total ignorance. I have said numerous times that only an idiot would blindly believe that Jones has evidence of thermite. But even if Jones does, it does not matter. Thermite can be purchased on Ebay; hardly traceable to prove an inside job. Former Los Alamos researcher Steven Jones' job is to distract people from the evidence of directed energy weapons. Such people also promote rubbish theories like the use of energy beams. Rubbish? Hardly! There are scientific papers here and here showing the clear and convincing evidence of directed energy weapons at the WTC. They do this to pollute the evidence and thus cause people to throw out the good evidence with the bad. Is Steven Jones' non-existing molten metal good evidence??? There is evidence for explosives. Yep, there certainly is. But as I said before, it's being used as a distraction. The perps plan to blame Al Qaeda for the explosives, which is what Bush does in this video. Why does gravity32 ignore this? There is nothing in what was observed which cannot be explained by the use of explosives. This is where gravity32 displays his true and utter ignorance in this matter. Explosives cannot explain the following, but directed energy weapons can. (And this has been pointed out to him numerous times in OpEdNews threads. I wonder what his true objective is??) Explosives cannot explain (click links for pictures): Round Cylindrical Holes in WTC 5 / WTC 6 Vertical Cut on WTC 4. Cut is in direct path of north wall of South Tower. All material on other side of cut, including WTC 4 and the South Tower, is missing. There is no need for an energy beam. Wrong! People must learn that these weapons exist and are being used against us. See the 25 minute documentary Star Wars in Iraq for disturbing information. Why does gravity32 ignore all the above information? 99% of it was posted numerous times on OpEdNews. by CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 465 comments [18 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Sep 12, 2007 at 2:07:21 AM (0+)
|
|
Two general suggestions... and a question...
1. Avoid dismissal and condemnation of theories and information. This is a huge jigsaw puzzle with many missing pieces, many damaged and broken pieces, many extraneous pieces, and worst of all we don't have the boxtop with the pretty picture to use as a reference. Just spread everything out on the table and let the picture develop. Eventually, if enough of the puzzle can be obtained and assembled, the correct theories will stand by themselves and the incorrect ones will fall. Remember that even if a theory sounds ridiculous and eventually falls, new information and ideas usually result from its research and development, and at least what is not true (or could not be proven) will be learned. Trial and error. Consider the history of human knowledge and how it has developed into what we know today, and how it continues to develop. For example, once upon a time everyone knew the world was flat, but one screwball believed the shortest route to the Far East was westerly. They were all proven wrong, but look at how much we learned in the process. 2. Keep things in context: 9/11 didn't just happen out of the blue. It's a slice of history that, just like planes and buildings, is like a few trees in a forest, in a region of a continent, on a planet in a sloar system, in galaxy in a universe. Taken out of context they lose much of their significance. In context, 9/11 stands out as the "great enabler" of many unpopular things that would have been impossible without it. So some very important questions and pieces of the puzzle are: Has post-9/11 history been the natural and logical result of the events of 9/11 plus pre-9/11 history, or has it been something else? Has anyone benefited or suffered, who, and in what way? How might history have been different without 9/11? Of course there are volumes of pre-9/11 history to study, and many more questions to ask and try to answer, but trying to answer just these results in many disturbing possibilities that include theories about planes and buildings. 9/11 indeed has a bad smell. Some people uphold the official conspiracy theory as if it were written by the hand of their favorite diety. (Curiously, some of these same people also consider politicians and government to be proven liars.) So here's a question for them to answer: The official theory insists the source and trail of 9/11 funding is not of great importance, so it wasn't seriously investigated. (Besides, everyone already "knows" it was Osama.) Imagine that a hit-man was paid to whack you, wouldn't you want to know who paid the hit-man, or is that just not of great importance? Perhaps any criminal investigators in the audience would care to comment on this too. by Co6aka (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 68 comments) on Wednesday, Sep 12, 2007 at 12:28:34 AM (0+)
|
|
Myth and "Debunking the Debunked"
I don't claim to know what 'really happened' or what the 'official story' doesn't prove but i do know that most of the myths or supposed truths are just ridiculous. In fact I shouldn't even be wasting my time on this website because conspiracy theorists have a hard time ever being proven wrong of anything they believe. Not to say that I am an expert, I just thought I would give my opinion. First of all on the collapse. 1. Steel has a melting temperature of about 2870 F and jet fuel burns at a maximum of around 1750 F. It is not necessary for steel to melt before its load bearing efficiency is reduced. Actually at near 1000 F it's structural efficiency is about 10% of its normal capacity. As a jet vertically impacts 30 to 40 ft, while gutting a 147 ft horizontal gash into a significant section of load bearing columns located in the middle of the building, it dumbs its nearly fully loaded tanks not only throughout that gash, but down elevator shafts and onto other floors. This possibly creates the "bomb" sounds heard by some off-hand TV commentator and others who said it sounded like bombs went off. Several demolition experts explain that concrete would have had to been stripped and gutted throughout each building to create such a demolition. That it would have taken an expert team weeks or even months to do so. Wouldn't a few people have noticed these things? Maybe people should look at U.S involvement in the middle east for the last fifty years and realize that we have done terrible things and killed millions both directly and indirectly during this time. Is it not more logical to believe that crappy air security, combined with idealistic fools, 19 men that supported an organization we directly funded 30 years ago, made a statement that changed the world? Is it more logical to believe that the American Government has pulled off the greatest coverup in world history, that seemingly our government exists for its own right and that not one person has the ability to defect and reveal the truth? The money alone would be reason enough. Does it not seem obvious that had they wanted to get in the heart of the middle east they could have done this instead of the 92' bombing when support FOR attacking not only Afghanistan AND Iraq would have been extremely high after the war in the gulf? There are not two simple sides, conspiracy theorists and ignorance. Asking questions is good but I for one do not believe I was misled about what took place. Knowledge before hand by the administration is a different story. But I think this whole thing was too big for even the American Government to pull off. Sorry but no one in there is THAT intelligent. by around (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Wednesday, Sep 12, 2007 at 12:52:10 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Bunk
NIST noted that the planes were about half full of fuel and FEMA noted that most of the fuel was burned off in the fireballs at time of impact. by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [399 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Wednesday, Sep 12, 2007 at 6:01:00 AM (0+)
|
|
which side
If you carefully define the area of conflict C B Brooklyn and I are both on the same side. We both believe the US is lying about the events of 9/11. We both believe they are complicit in the attack and are covering up the facts. We both want to see the perpetrators exposed. We should be friends but we are not it seems as he calls me a lot of rude names. He does not trust Steven Jones and his work on thermite residues. Apparently this is because he himself was not there to see the residues collected. Perhaps he should look at the evidence found by the USGS team which showed the same thing as Jones found: there were small spheres of mainly iron in the dust. The impurities in the iron were in accord with material used in thermite. The fact that the iron was in small spheres proves that molten iron had been produced and that it had been shattered, and had cooled down and solidified while carried along in the dust. What produces molten iron? Thermite or thermate. What could shatter it? An explosive. My own conviction about the destruction of the WTC buildings does not come from Steven Jones's work however. It comes from study of something which all members of the public have access to, namely the videos. Anyone can obtain software which enables running the videos one frame at a time. Anyone can plot the rate of collapse. Anyone can find that the acceleration downwards is uniform and close to free fall. If the collapse was caused by fire the steel would have weakened gradually and the collapse would initially have been slow. This was not observed. The acceleration did not increase - it was constant right from the start just as occurs if you drop something. It is therefore proved beyond doubt that the structural strength of the buildings was destroyed very rapidly, virtually instantly for building 7 and a little slower for the towers. So what destroyed the structural strength? Was it explosives or energy beams? If they had these energy beams why would they have needed thermite? HOw could an energy beam throw steel beams out sideways? How could energy beams cause intense high velocity puffs of debris out sideways? And it is not surprising that there should be deep holes in the buildings alongside - they were in the path of huge amount of steel falling from a great height. So Brooklyn, why do you have to follow this controversial stuff when there is such good solid evidence for explosives which would surely satisfy your desire to get the perpetrators nailed? by gravity32 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 201 comments [38 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Sep 12, 2007 at 3:22:00 AM (0+)
|
|
ADL = Always Defending Likud
No offense, but, offering a link to the Anti-Semitic Definition League (ADL) as an end-all source for debunking theories asserting Israeli or Mossad involvement in 9∙11 is like providing a link to Halliburton to debunk theories asserting that Dick Cheney is guilty of war crimes. The ADL's idea of debunking is to put the words "anti-Semitic" or "Jew-hating" every five words or so, and making sure to mention that each theory has appeared in "far-right," "Muslim," or "anti-Semitic" publications. With precious exception, they offer no sources to evidence which convincingly shoots down the theories themselves or the facts they are based on. For all intent and purpose, the ADL paper is a conspiracy theory in and of itself - only weaker than the ones it attempts to "debunk". Furthermore, it was the ADL, along with CAMERA and other pro-Israel organizations, which badgered the networks including Fox News and specifically, Carl Cameron, implying that he was an anti-Semite and pressuring Fox executives not to air the story about the Mossad and 9∙11. by Dan Alba (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 52 comments) on Wednesday, Sep 12, 2007 at 5:04:30 AM (0+)
|
|
Believe me...
"I believe #3 because as far as I am concerned it is obvious that the Bush administration misused the 9/11 attacks to pursue their domestic and foreign agenda. Once you accept that, you have accepted the idea that Bush and his administration are criminal and evil." With or without reason 3, I've believed that Bush is a liar, a criminal and evil since before he stole the first election. Why did I believe that? Because Molly Ivan told me. She outlined all of the Bush cons from before, during and after his governorship in Texas. I believed anything Molly said over anything W. said. Since then I've become convinced that not only is he evil, but criminal as well. If he were a regular person who talked to god, he'd be locked away. That makes not only a criminal, but criminally insane. by Sandy Sand (198 articles, 0 quicklinks, 227 diaries, 1548 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Sep 12, 2007 at 10:22:56 AM (0+)
|
|
Thermite/Thermate Ignition
Steven, I appreciate the fact that you have come to question the official story about the events surrounding 9/11. However, I would suggest that you look into the findings of Steven Jones a little closer. I am not an expert by any means, but I have studied controlled demolition in this context. Therefore, the destruction of the WTC buildings could have been completed without any plane impacts at all. By the way, several demolition professionals have commented that the demolition of the WTC buildings was obviously accomplished by experts. by Michael Lewis (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Wednesday, Sep 12, 2007 at 1:39:45 PM (0+)
|
|
this is amazing, but I'll try
gravity32, I will give you the benefit of the doubt of being slow at understanding the "bigger picture". I will answer your questions, but please note that many of the answers will be typed out for the third, or even forth time. Many of them in response to your comments. He does not trust Steven Jones and his work on thermite residues. Apparently this is because he himself was not there to see the residues collected. Try undersanding the big picture. The reason I don't trust Jones is NOT because I didn't verify his thermite myself. The reason I don't trust Jones is because: I (or a scientist I trust) didn't verify the thermite AND Jones pushes molten metal, which is a proven hoax AND He defrauded the world of free/clean/cheap Cold Fusion energy AND Here's a former Los Alamos researcher who distracts people from the DEW evidnence. AND He uses doctored photos for scientific analysis, and hides the fact that they are doctored. AND He promotes Peak Oil, another hoax AND He promotes real planes at the WTC, which violates basic high school level physics, such as Newton's Third Law of Motion and Conservation of Energy AND He called WTC demolition "a hypothesis to be tested" instead of conclusive fact. AND A million other things. What produces molten iron? Thermite or thermate. What could shatter it? An explosive. Whether there was thermite/thermate/explosives at Ground Zero is unimportant. I have already pointed out numerous times that thermite can be purchased on Ebay and is therefore not traceable, and that the perps are going to blame the explosives on Al Qaeda as Bush did in that video I linked to. If the collapse was caused by fire the steel would have weakened gradually and the collapse would initially have been slow. This was not observed. The acceleration did not increase - it was constant right from the start just as occurs if you drop something. The towers did not collapse, they were pulverized. Most of the steel turned to dust. It is therefore proved beyond doubt that the structural strength of the buildings was destroyed very rapidly, virtually instantly for building 7 and a little slower for the towers. The destruction of the "structural strength" of the towers doesn't mean much when taking into consideration most of it was turned to dust. It's a red herring. So what destroyed the structural strength? Was it explosives or energy beams? If they had these energy beams why would they have needed thermite? We must look at all the evidence before reaching a conclusion, including the evidence specific to directed energy weapons. (See my other comments in this thread. Sorry, but I'm not going to type it out again!) If thermite was used, it was designed as a decoy for directed energy weapons. STEVEN JONES WORKED AT LOS ALAMOS WHERE DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPON RESEARCH IS CONDUCTED HOw could an energy beam throw steel beams out sideways? How could energy beams cause intense high velocity puffs of debris out sideways? Dr Judy Wood's hypothesis is that energy beams did not destroy the towers themselves, but instead activated chemical clouds that were released from inside the towers. (See her "dust to dirt" paper for photos of this.) And it is not surprising that there should be deep holes in the buildings alongside - they were in the path of huge amount of steel falling from a great height. You can't just make a statement like that. You have to look at the evidence. The holes were roundish and cylindrical. And there wasn't debris in the holes that could have made them anyway. And that doesn't even explain the other items I mentioned, such as the vertical cut on WTC 4, and the toasted cars. So Brooklyn, why do you have to follow this controversial stuff when there is such good solid evidence for explosives which would surely satisfy your desire to get the perpetrators nailed? Solid evidence for explosives? Keep promoting that and Bush will blame Al Qaeda for it again, just like he did in that video I linked. This time it will be on the evening news. by CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 465 comments [18 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Sep 12, 2007 at 7:49:17 PM (0+)
|
|
verification
CB Brooklyn You say The reason I don't trust Jones is because: I (or a scientist I trust) didn't verify the thermite Jones did go with other scientists to collect the dust. Did you expect him to ring you to confirm that they would be trustworthy? AND Jones pushes molten metal, which is a proven hoax Jones quotes numerous reports of molten metal, including two reports in Structural Engineer. What is your proof that it is a hoax? AND He defrauded the world of free/clean/cheap Cold Fusion energy I think you are ascribing superhuman powers to him if you think that he could do that. And what if he did? How does it affect the scientific proof? AND Here's a former Los Alamos researcher who distracts people from the DEW evidnence. He can't find evidence for it and neither can a host of other scientists. AND He uses doctored photos for scientific analysis, and hides the fact that they are doctored. What he uses for evidence of thermite is electron microprobe methods. Are you suggesting he doctors the graphs? AND He promotes Peak Oil, another hoax Peak oil has a lot of definitions. There is peak cheap oil, peak dear oil, peak oil so dear we can't use it for transport. Which peak is the hoax? Please explain how a discussion of peak oil affect the thermite proof? AND He promotes real planes at the WTC, which violates basic high school level physics, such as Newton's Third Law of Motion and Conservation of Energy WOW! There is a host of people who would disagree with you there. AND He called WTC demolition "a hypothesis to be tested" instead of conclusive fact. Just standard procedure for a real scientist. He puts it up as a hypothesis to test and you have the opportunity to refute it. If you can refute the exploive hypothesis I suggest you write it up and submit it to a good journal. AND A million other things. No, your kidding! by gravity32 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 201 comments [38 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Sep 13, 2007 at 6:14:42 AM (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 |
