Ralph Lopez is the author of "Truth in the Age of Bushism."
The biggest problem with the 9/11 Truth Movement is where it leads: a place dark and evil beyond imagination. Even if deep down you believed it was an inside job, you would need to deny it.
So when hundreds of American military officers, pilots, engineers, and CIA veterans stepped forward to say they believed the official story to be a monstrous lie, I was shaken to the core. There had to be an explanation for everything. The combination of forces and heat that took down the towers was unique; no engineer could give a definitive answer. The hijackers got lucky, including a good dose of incompetence and shortsightedness on the part of the government, which is nearly criminal, but not complicit. It's always easier for governments to lie than admit how stupid they are. The conspiracies led to the deep dark hole that we are ruled by criminal psychopaths, who, in one theory, had knowledge of impending attacks by bin Laden, and made sure they would succeed.
But are we? Hundreds of military officers of the highest rank with everything to lose (since their paychecks are signed by the US government), and scientific and engineering professionals, their credentials an open target, as well as the legions of Americans who sacrificed jobs or emptied their 401Ks to perform the thousands of hours of research, retrieval of video clips seen once on television then strangely disappeared, and all the other thankless, payless tasks associated with putting together evidence that can no longer be ignored. This tells me our republic is alive and well, and we can only be ruled by a cabal if we let them.
And there are HUNDREDS of them.
Those buildings were full of people. How could anybody "pull" them down? How is it possible for a human being to do this?
Their words are unparsed and direct: "a joke," "a cover-up," "a monstrous series of lies," "a pretext for war," "not a serious piece of analysis," riddled with "serious shortcomings," "omissions," and "major flaws."
Here finally was the testimony I both sought and dreaded, confirming, in many cases, my first instincts on hearing the news on that terrible day. Amateur pilots flew these planes HOW FAR and threaded needles in a haystack? That pilot did a steep HOW MANY degree dive to hit the Pentagon? Everyone who has seen a demolition on TV is to believe that these were NOT demolitions, buildings falling at free-fall speed into their own footprint? But I'm no expert on much of anything. I leave it to the people who make this stuff their study 8 hours a day, year after year, and have the degrees to show for it.
Of the corkscrew dive which supposedly put a commercial airliner into the Pentagon, Pilots For 911 Truth say:
"Once this maneuver was completed, without going into a graveyard spiral, he started to pull out of the descent at 2200 feet and accelerated only 30 knots more at full power to 460 knots in a descent from 2200 feet to the pentagon in about a minute (Whats Vmo at sea level for a 757? Flap speed? Since it looks like he may have found the flap handle only accelerating 60 knots from 7000 feet, the from 2200 feet at full power). AA77 crossed the highways, knocking down light poles, entered ground effect, didnt touch the lawn and got a 44 foot high target (Tail height of 757) into a 77 foot target completely, without overshooting or bouncing off the lawn, or spreading any wreckage at 460 knots. With a 33 foot margin for error. Wow, impressive. Takes a real steady hand to pull that off. I know it would take me a few tries to get it so precise, especially entering ground effect at those speeds. Any slight movement will put you off 50 feet very quickly. Im sure we all would agree."
"So, who pulled off this stunt? Hani Hanjour. Reported to have 600TT and a Commercial Certificate (see quotes right margin). Hani tried to get checked out in a 172 a few weeks prior at Freeway Airport in MD. Two seperate CFI's took Hani up to check him out. Baxter and Conner found that Hani had trouble controlling and landing a 172 at 65 knots. Bernard, the Chief CFI, refused to rent him the 172. I have instructed many years. I have soloed students in 172's when i had 300 hours as a CFI. How anyone could not control a 172 at 600TT and a Commercial is beyond me. Flight Schools keep going till you "get it" if you are a bit rusty, and then rent you the plane. They are in business to make money after all. .right? The Chief CFI basically refused any further lessons and basically told him to get lost."
The question becomes: how do people deal with the monstrous implications of this? I think most people, even if they are convinced, could not deal with the enormity of an entire government this evil. But a limited cabal of criminal psychopaths I can wrap my mind around. That can be excised. Other countries have gone through their velvet revolutions, gone through truth commissions, like the silent protests of Mothers of the Disappeared in Argentina, and they have gone on. Pinochets and Fujimoris have been put on trial, or near it, and the countries have gone on. This can be done without civil strife and social upset. Some of the most important people in this kind of truth movement, the nation's military officers, are speaking out.
For every sign of being surrounded by evil, I see three other signs of being surrounded by brave, fearless patriots. The relatively small cabal that the 9/11 Truth Movement leads us to involves, according to Lt. Col. Guy S. Razer, MS, U.S. Air Force (ret), "treasonous perpetrators that have infiltrated the highest levels of our government."
The 9/11 Truth Movement should be about reconciliation and finding out the truth. Full amnesty should be offered to military officers who step forward who are privy to details of the stand-down, the Pentagon operation, or other military-technical details. Immunity should also be granted to members of Congress who believe they received briefings which may make them complicit. We have questions. Lots of questions. Mr. Wolfowitz, please elaborate on the phrase "absent a catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor" in reference to the Project for a New American Century's clear advocacy of a military invasion of Iraq, page Section V of the essay "Rebuilding America's Defenses." Am I to take it that a new Pearl Harbor would have been welcomed? As a major policy-maker do you understand how close this is to treason, sir?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).