Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Shop the Truthdig Gift Guide 2014
December 19, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!

DIG DIRECTOR

Robert Scheer
Robert Scheer is editor in chief of Truthdig. He is a nationally syndicated columnist, author of seven books and a co-host of the political radio program "Left, Right and Center."...








 
 

Robert Scheer: Gaping Holes in the 9/11 Narrative

Five years out from the attacks, why do we still know so little about what really happened that day?



What we still dont know about 9/11 could kill us. By “we I mean the public that has been kept in the dark for five years by a president who may know the truth but has chosen to ignore it. Instead of grappling with the thorny origins of that disaster, George Bush willfully turned the nation’s attention and resources to a totally unrelated and disastrous imperial adventure in Iraq.
 
Just how unrelated was definitively established last Friday with the belated release of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s second report, which concluded that there not only was zero connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, but that Iraq was the one country in the region where Osama bin Laden could not operate.

The story was much different in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, the two countries that had recognized and otherwise supported the Taliban government that hosted bin Laden during the run-up to 9/11. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, and yet there has been no serious investigation of the extended royal familys role in the recruitment of bin Laden’s soldiers” and the ease with which they secured legal visas to enter the United States.

While funds for Al Qaeda emanated from the Saudi kingdom, the essential logistical support for Al Qaeda came from Pakistan. Now, five years later, bin Laden and the remnants of his organization are assumed by the United States to have found refuge in Pakistans unruly tribal region, where the Pakistan government recently has reduced its forces, conceding that it could not defeat local tribesmen sympathetic to the Taliban.

Nor has there been any credible accounting of the role of Pakistan’s intelligence community, then and now, in support of Islamic terrorists on both sides of the Pakistan-Afghan border. Or in the passage of Pakistans nuclear secrets to what Bush refers to as “rogue nations.”

Recall that the predominant excuse for invading Iraq was the claim that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and would be willing to pass them on to rogue regimes and terrorists. Not only were such weapons not found, but the evidence from the accounts of former administration insiders and the Senate Intelligence Committee makes clear that the administration was consciously cherry-picking the evidence to shore up its fraudulent case.

There were weapons of mass destruction being shipped to “rogue nations, but they were coming from Pakistan in an extensive program headed by Abdul Qadeer (A.Q.) Khan, the father of the “Islamic bomb.” The Pakistan government has admitted that Khan passed on to North Korea, Libya and Iran technical know-how and vital materials for the creation of nuclear weapons.  But Khan was pardoned of any crimes by Pakistan’s dictator general, President Gen. Pervez Musharraf. Khan is restricted only by a loose form of house arrest and has never been made available to U.S. investigators. Yet the Bush administration dropped the sanctions originally imposed on Pakistan in reprisal for its development of nuclear weapons in return for Pakistans support in the “war on terror.”

As for Afghanistan, the Taliban is on the rise. NATO commanders last week urgently requested more troops, and the country is now torn by the anarchy of a narco-state that is supplying 92% of the world’s heroin market and generating massive profits for gangsters and terrorists alike.  The country is now as dangerous for American soldiers as is Iraq.

Despite this sorry record of neglect in Southwest Asia and the creation of a quagmire and recruiting poster for terrorism in Iraq, Bush once again arrogantly asserts that his policies have made us safer, even as he has undermined our domestic freedoms and mocked the U.S. commitment to international law, particularly concerning the treatment of prisoners.

Last week, Bush conceded that there were indeed secret CIA prisons, when finally announcing that the group of “key witnesses” to the 9/11 disaster would be moved to Guantanamo and for once afforded visits from the Red Cross and minimal legal representation. Some of them have been interrogated in secret for up to five years, with the Bush administration left as the sole interpreter of what they revealed.

After five years of official deceit, it is not too difficult to believe that the isolation of those prisoners was done less for reasons of learning the truth about 9/11 and more in an effort to politically manage the narrative released to the public.

There is glaring evidence that the latter was the case.  The 9/11 Commission report contains a disclaimer box on page 146, in which it is stated that the report’s account of what happened on 9/11 was in considerable measure based on what those key witnesses allegedly told interrogators, and that the commissioners were not allowed to meet the witnesses or their interrogators.

We submitted questions for use in the interrogations, but had no control over whether, when or how questions of particular interest would be asked. Nor were we allowed to talk to the interrogators so that we could better judge the credibility of the detainees and clarify ambiguities in the reporting.”

In short, the most cited source that we have on what happened on 9/11, the much celebrated 9/11 Commission Report, was stage-managed by the Bush administration, just as it has controlled and distorted so much other information.

In light of that sorry record of the propagandistic exploitation of the 9/11 tragedy for partisan political purpose, is it any wonder that large numbers of Americans have doubts about all of it and that a considerable industry of documentaries and investigative reports has sprung up with alternative theories ranging from the plausible to the absurd? 

In the sidebar to the left, we offer some examples of the better of those efforts, not by way of endorsing them but rather because there is so much reason to doubt the “truth” as the Bush administration has packaged it.

Dig last updated on Sep. 10, 2006


Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.


More Below the Ad

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Skruff, November 23, 2006 at 6:50 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

When the WTC was constructed, it was one of a number of “light” skyscrapers. The support system was in the outer skin. This structure was not supported from the core girders as were older “Empire State” style buildings (I’m sure that everyone here is aware that the Empire State Building was struck by a plane also….although a much smaller one)

The building was constructed in a rapid, (some say shoddy) manner. the crew building the south tower had a race with the crew building the north tower and we watched it go up with incredible speed.  The floors were placed in “holders” and balanced while the next story was constructed.  If you saw the building rise, it would be no suprise to see the way it fell. 

There are stories (unconfirmed by me) of folks kicking through plasterboard to escape elevators trapped between floors.  This doesn’t sound like a strong structure.

As to the tempeture of the fire, the jet-fuel (Kerosene NOT Diesel) burns at 3000 degrees accelerated with oxygen.  additionally there was enough polymer in that building to get a good forge going. 

None of this says I believe what we’ve been told…. Good shot of the vanished plane by the way!

Report this

By redipen, November 23, 2006 at 1:12 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“...heats in the area of 1800 to 2000 degrees ...” — wrong —

November 9, 2002 
New York Times

Fire Department Tape Reveals No Awareness of Imminent Doom
By KEVIN FLYNN and JIM DWYER

The voices, captured on a tape of Fire Department radio transmissions, betray no fear. The words are matter-of-fact.

Two hose lines are needed, Chief Orio Palmer says from an upper floor of the badly damaged south tower at the World Trade Center. Just two hose lines to attack two isolated pockets of fire. “We should be able to knock it down with two lines,” he tells the firefighters of Ladder Company 15 who were following him up the stairs of the doomed tower.

Report this

By Gone fishing, November 22, 2006 at 10:05 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

When USA folks learn that 911 was a black flag operation—this video will show what is likely to happen to Jr. Bush and his creator
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9J18H03w_wg
$50 to anyone to superimpose Jr’s mug onto the monster and post on youtube.

Report this

By Tampa DAve, November 22, 2006 at 9:58 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Parsing Ken:

“Just look at the way the commercial jet liner smashed into the South Tower and badly damaged the inner steel beams on the east side of the tower !”

The plane that hit the South tower was too far off center to “badly damage” the inner steel core: most of the fuel load burned outside the building, as most of us saw.

“It is a miracle how the building remained standing after that impact !”

It is a miracle that a building designed to stand the impact of an airliner withstood the impact of an airliner?  I think you would be more accurate to say it was “good engineering” rather than a water-into-wine event.

“However, It was the intense fire that started to warp the support trusses that held up the concrete floors which then gave way that did the building in. The building eventually collapsed on that side”

The most intense fire was out in the open air, where there was sufficient oxygen.  The fires inside were not “intense,” as was obvious from the thick black smoke, indicating a fire that was not hot enough to completely burn the fuel.

“The North tower burned inside with heats in the area of 1800 to 2000 degrees”

Now THIS would have been a miracle indeed.  Even with sufficient oxygen, jet fuel can’t get up to this temperature, and a smothered fire with insufficient oxygen couldn’t get above 1200 degrees or so.  You are not making any sense with this kind of talk.

“As you see, from the collapse of the 330 foot antenna,the core of the building gave way and the antenna went straight down the center of the building !”

Another miracle!  This would be like a 1-car train running into the back of a 70-car train and smashing all the way through it.

“The conspiracy people will continue no matter what the facts !”

WHO will continue not matter what the facts?  People who have kerosene burning enclosed at 2000 degrees and who have antennas smashing their way through whole buildings.

Report this

By Ken Schreier, November 22, 2006 at 8:17 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Mani:

Just look at the way the commercial jet liner smashed into the South Tower and badly damaged the inner steel beams on the east side of the tower !
It is a miracle how the building remained standing after that impact !
However, It was the intense fire that started to warp the support trusses that held up the concrete floors which then gave way that did the building in. The building eventually collapsed on that side !
The same with the North tower, it was hit dead on
and was not as badly damaged, on its outer steel skins as was the South tower !
The commercial jet liner hit lower on the South tower, about 20 stories lower, and therefore much more weight was above the impact area then on the North tower. Thus due to the greater weight being supported and the east side damage to the outer steel beams it fell first !
The North tower burned inside with heats in the area of 1800 to 2000 degrees - this melted the steel trusses and the concrete floors collapsed and pancaked down one on top of the other !
The inner core of the North tower was more damaged , then the South tower, because the plane hit the building dead on.
As you see, from the collapse of the 330 foot antenna,the core of the building gave way and the antenna went straight down the center of the building ! 
That is it my friend !
The conspiracy people will continue no matter what the facts !

take care !

Report this

By Gone fishing, November 22, 2006 at 10:42 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

http://www.brasscheck.com/videos/911/911pentagon.html
How about Kenny Boy pointing out—where the plane disappeared in this Pic

Report this

By Maani, November 22, 2006 at 10:02 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Parsing Ken:

“Unbelievable! There are still people talking about my factual accounting of what happened on 9/11!”

By “factual accounting,” what you mean is your single, one-person, individual experience of what you personally believe you saw and heard.

“Just can’t get over how my actual physical presence & on hand observations @ the World Trade site on 9/11 has really upset many of the conspiracy theory people who were never there and have second hand information!”

Actually, many of us “conspiracy theorists” WERE there, and made observations of our own based on first-hand information.

“I have a suggestion, just watch the videos of the intense flames melting away the supports holding up the concrete floors in the South tower to see why it, and the North tower collapsed the way they did! You have to be blind not to see this!”

Actually, unless you have x-ray vision, you could not have seen what the fires were or were not doing to the interior supports.  And as for the EXTERIOR ribbing, it was clear that the flames were doing very little damage to it.  Besides which, the exterior ribbing did not hold up the concrete floors; the interior core columns and steel grid held up the floors.

“No explosions,”

You mean, none that YOU heard.

“no conspiracy by the Bush Administration,”

Really?  Have you spoken to Bush and Cheney and others, and they assured you personally that they were not involved in a conspiracy?  Indeed, have you interviewed a single member of the Bush Administration to determine the veracity of this statement - much less been a “fly on the wall” when they were discussing the conspiracy?

“just plain old steel melting heat and physics brought the buildings down!”

Actually, physics says otherwise, since, as we have explained to you ad nauseam, the melting point of steel is hundreds of degrees higher than the highest temperature at which diesel fuel burns.  As well, unless the buildings were completely hollow, physics says that they could not possibly collapse at free fall speed, since there would have been resistance from the COMPLETELY UNDAMAGED lower 2/3 of each building.

“Get a life people, Please!”

Believe it or not, I can happily live my life and still engage in thoughtful, even critical, discussion with others on the seminal event of our lifetimes, and whether what we have been told about that event is, in fact, the truth.

“PS: Please do not ask me to respond to anymore of your childish, paranoid conspiracy theories, I have already answered all your questions, I am out of here for good!”

We have never ASKED you to respond to anything. You offered your comments, some of us responded, and you chose to respond to those comments.  Nor have you “answered all our questions,” unless you happen to have degrees in physics, mechanical engineering, vulcanology, chemistry and aeronautics.  As for “being out of here for good,” as others have noted, you made that promise last time.

“Take care & God Bless!”

We WILL take care…and WHO’s God?

Peace.

Report this

By Thomas Ellis, November 22, 2006 at 9:58 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Really, Ken, you do protest too much. You’ve already said you’re “outta here” several times…yet there you still are, fussing and fuming at us, but offering no plausible explanations to account for what happened other than the fact that you were there. So what?

How could the heat of a smoking office fire melt steel, if it does not generate enough heat to do so? By the laws of physics, to which you keep referring, a very high temperature, about 3500 degrees, is required to melt steel, and nothing in these offices burns at anything approximating the temperature necessary to melt steel. Especially when there are recorded telecommunications of firemen right there, talking about “isolated fires” that could be easily contained, and when we all saw people hanging out the windows on the affected floors. Despite the raging office fires, it was obviously not too hot for them or the firemen to survive.

More basically, how, according to the law of physics, could the top fifth of a steel-frame building plummet right through the lower four fifths at steadily accelerating freefall rate, without encountering any resistance from the floors below it (or from the gradually thickening steel columns that supported those floors)? This is utterly impossible, without a collateral source of energy (i.e. timed explosions) sequentially taking out these floors and columns, to remove them from the downward path of the disintegrating upper part of the building.

Until you can explain such anomalies without abandoning the known laws of thermodynamics, you can rant all you wish, but you will not convince any thinking person. We weren’t there, but we saw many different video shots of those who were. And we saw the squibs of explosions punching through the windows well below the rapidly descending horizon of disintegration. We saw the debris exploding outward as the buildings disintegrated. We saw the freefall rate of collapse, and the pulverized concrete in pyroclastic flows. And all that we saw can only be explained scientifically by positing a collateral source of energy—demolition charges.
I don’t pretend to know anything else for certain—who did it, how they did it, or who was responsible or why. All this remains to be investigated. But I know what I saw. The eyes don’t lie.

Report this

By Craig R. Lane, November 22, 2006 at 7:11 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Please Ken, come back….
Oh my God what an ego this guy has. I thought he said he was out of here after his last inane post? I think it is a conspiracy.

Report this

By Skruff, November 22, 2006 at 7:02 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ken Schreier is amazed that folks don’t believe?

I agree with him. we should believe. The government and the media have never lied to us great unwashed masses. 

and

We have a habit of pushing anyone who “questions” official accounts into the “crazy - nutcase column.

As for me, I have a healthy skepticism about who engineered the disaster at World Trade Plaza.

I watched the towers go up when they were built, cheap shoddy workmanship with a graft story a week.  I have no doubt two planes brought the buildings down… in 100 years maybe the truth about coordination (whatever it is) will be told…. We’ll never hear it.

There is an ugly truth that cannot be ignored. There are people out there who hate our economic system (why the WTC financial center?) maybe instead of spending time on considering who? we should focus on Why? that’s where the biggist lie lurks.

Report this

By redipen, November 21, 2006 at 10:22 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

As for this: Comment #39155 by Ken Schreier  on  11/21  at  5:10 pm “Unbelievable ! There are still people talking about my factual accounting…”
+++++++++++
This guy’s “eye witness” account differs widely from many others. But none of these accounts much matter. The whole event was a coup by a rogue network from within, probably of Iran-Contra-Mujahidin vintage. Bush didn’t know what hit him till he got the call: “Angel is next!” It’s all documented and easy to piece together. The key to the entire day was Bush’s long conversation with Putin, when he laid out exactly the coup plotters demands. The US and UK are invading the Middle East and Russia is not to interfere.

Report this

By Ken Schreier, November 21, 2006 at 6:10 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Unbelievable !
There are still people talking about my factual accounting of what happened on 9/11 !
Just can’t get over how my actual physical presence & on hand observations @ the World Trade site on 9/11 has really upset many of the conspiracy theory people who were never there and have second hand information!
I have a suggestion, just watch the videos of the intense flames melting away the supports holding up the concrete floors in the South tower to see why it , and the North tower collapsed the way they did !
You have to be blind not to see this !
No explosions, no conspiracy by the Bush Administration, just plain old steel melting heat and physics brought the buildings down !
Get a life people, Please !
PS: Please do not ask me to respond to anymore of your childish, paranoid conspiracy theories, I have already answered all your questions , I am out of here for good ! 
Take care & God Bless !

Report this

By Gone fishing, November 19, 2006 at 9:36 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

For Ken to learn the facts;
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=786048453686176230&q=terrorstorm
Fox Must have some really crazy Hosts—get aload of crap from a nut case—Mancow. I would rather call him Madcow. Please do get to see the video—I bet Ken will love this creep from Fox.
“The host of the program, Chicago-based radio personality Erich “Mancow” Muller, tried to portray his guest Kevin Smith—producer for the Alex Jones radio show—as a backwoods conspiracy nut living in a shed; however, neither Mancow nor Harvey could refute any of Smith’s information—they could only restate their disbelief.”
Video and comment:
http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/181106_mancow.html

Report this

By Skruff, November 19, 2006 at 9:41 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ken says:

“What did happen was 2 commercial airliners, highjacked by 19 brainwashed Islamic lunatics, smashed into the 2 towers at over 490 miles per our and murdered 2,700+ people !
Nothing you say or come up with is going to change that !
That is the facts guys”

Ok suppose I accept “brainwashed Islamic lunatics.” I’m still left with…
WHY,
for what purpose,

and also the realization that no one outside the fraudulently placed Bush administration profited from this event.

If indeed we are attempting to FORCE our political and economic system on those who would rather pass… then this is just a war of idology….like any other.

Report this

By George in Toronto, November 16, 2006 at 9:21 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Just came across something new to the mix
http://divinelotus.freehostia.com/WordPress/2006/11/16/criminial-offense-removal-of-forensic-evidence-on-911/
Here is a clip—You have to wonder. Why didn’t NYC investigate the forensics of 9/11? Why didn’t Rudy Giuliani forbid the removal of materials from Ground Zero and do his own investigation? Why? Because he couldn’t. The WTC was under the jurisdiction of the Port Authority.

The Port Authority is a governmental body appointed by the Govenor of NY, Govenor Pataki, and Govenor of NJ, Govenor Whitman. This means that the Federal Government removed critical forensic evidence from WTC with the blessing of both Pataki and Whitman.

  And on ...check it out

  For Ken to see http://www.supportthetruth.com/jones.php

Report this

By Jackie T. Gabel, November 16, 2006 at 11:34 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

RE:  Comment #38256 by Ken Schreier  on  11/15  at  6:46 pm: “..paranoid theories !...19 brainwashed Islamic lunatics…Move on to a different subject ! “

>>>> response: “How can we move on when it follows us everywhere?”

Indeed a fantastically paranoid theory: 19 fanatics run by a nut with a laptop in a cave deep in the Hindu Kush defeat (with boxcutters) the $40-billion defense structure of the USA.

Ken clearly represents the mass hysteria created by this spectacular tragedy, resonated in the corporate media and perpetuated by a regime that has used it to launch a global War Of Terror and brings it up again and again, at every moment of political difficulty, reminding us how it will happen again if we don’t support them fully and how anyone who does not is an enemy of the state.

Of course not everyone is hypnotized by the 9/11 myth nor by the overarching myth of Islamo-Fascism, certainly not media elites and their task master oligarchs. Many among them are no longer convinced that the War of Civilizations is the way to go, at least not just yet. The struggle within the oligarchy is now showing through numerous “limited hangouts” such as Woodward’s “State of Denial,” wherein he refers to 9/11 as an “intelligence failure,” when in truth it was the most stunning “intelligence success,” regardless how tragic the results.

It’s hard to say if the Strange Love faction within the oligarchs’ cadre of operatives will be reined in or just stimulated to execute something even bigger. False flag terror is a documented weapon of tyrants since Rome under Nero, and as his counselor Seneca warned, “...artificial terrorism is like a drug; it always takes more to get the same effect…”

Report this

By Craig R. Lane, November 16, 2006 at 10:47 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

We will let you move along for us Ken. I could easily be convinced that you are one of those folks that disperses disinformation on threads such as these for those that may have less than altruistic designs. Be assured Ken that just because you insist that we should “all move along” we will insist on letting you do all of the moving along without us. In fact YOU Ken are IN CHARGE of moving along, that should assuage all of your ape-like alpha male tendencies.

Report this

By Ken Schreier, November 15, 2006 at 7:46 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Well guys, I am out of this silly conversation !
The buildings no longer exist ! Soon new buildings will be built !
Some 2700+ people died for nothing !
People come from all over the world to see the empty 16 acre hole in the ground ! They take pictures and then leave and say they visited ” GROUND ZERO”.
How silly the whole thing is !
No one cares about your paranoid theories !
What did happen was 2 commercial airliners, highjacked by 19 brainwashed Islamic lunatics, smashed into the 2 towers at over 490 miles per our and murdered 2,700+ people !
Nothing you say or come up with is going to change that !
That is the facts guys !
Move on to a different subject !

Report this

By Maani, November 15, 2006 at 2:39 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I want to add to one of Mac’s main points to Ken: you were not the ONLY person who was there and “saw and heard the whole thing.”  Thousands of others were there, too, and I have spoken with some of them, many of whom do not support your position, especially regarding explosions at various times during the event, both between the impacts and the collapses, just prior to the collapses, and during the collapses.

One of my friends worked on the 38th floor of the north tower, but initially stayed.  When the south tower was hit, he decided to leave.  As he was walking down the 38 floors, he heard a series of what he called “pops” on floors well below the impact floors.  He was one of the last people to exit Tower 2 before it collapsed.  And even though he continues to be a skeptic about certain aspects of the alternative theories of 9/11, in retrospect he believes that what he heard were squibs being blown just prior to the collapse.  Can he prove this?  Of course not.  But he is as certain as he can be.

I have also spoken with William Rodriguez, the janitor who was the last man out of the towers before they collapsed (he saved numerous lives, and was awarded a medal by Bush).  Rodriguez is the person who heard and saw the result of a huge explosion in the basement of one of the towers.  Indeed, he was the one who aided the guy who was on fire as a result of that explosion.  Rodriguez also heard the “pops” that indicate demolition squibs.  And note that he has undergone two separate polygraph tests, and passed both with flying colors.

Finally, Ken might want to consider that it is not just a bunch of conspiracy “nuts” who believe that the “official story” is a bunch of hooey.  The 9/11 truth movement includes many families of victims of 9/11; many very respected engineers, physicists, vulcanologists, and other scientists and academicians; and thousands of people who are otherwise average, upstanding, patriotic citizens, who nevertheless have “done some homework” and found that the official story simply does not add up, and that many (though perhaps not all) aspects of the alternative theories answer far more of their questions in a logical and scientific manner.

Ken, like so many others, what is almost certainly at the root of your manic and unquestioned belief in the “official story” is that you simply cannot wrap your mind around even the possibility that your government was complicit in the murders of 3,000 of its own citizens, simply for political and financial gain.  And your reticence in this regard is fully understandable.

However, if you do some historical research on “false flag operations,” U.S. complicity in numerous “covert op” actions that caused the “acceptable” collateral deaths of many U.S. citizens abroad, and explosions and fires in steel and concrete buildings around the globe, you will find that (i) 9/11 had all the hallmarks of a “false flag” operation, (ii) the U.S. has “murdered” its own citizens before, albeit abroad, and (iii) high-rise buildings that had FAR worse explosions and/or fires did not collapse at all, much less in almost picture-perfect “controlled demolitions” in which the buildings fell into their own footprints at free fall speed.

Peace.

Report this

By Mac McKinney, November 14, 2006 at 11:20 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ken, old boy, are you a shape shifter? On 9/11, were you able to transform yourself into steel, concrete and glass over all three collapsing WTC buildings and their several hundred stories, and then experience and record what happened to their every molecule? I doubt it. So your “there” was rather finite and limited to whereever you were standing.

While you might have been there that fateful day, so were thousands of others, many, many of whom say the exact opposite of what you are claiming. There were scores of firemen and workers in both towers who heard explosions, including in the basements, some even being injured by the explosions in the basements.

And where were these massive, fiery infernos you refer to, unless you consider billowing black smoke an inferno? After the initial fireballs, the fires in the towers quickly transmuted into cascades of black smoke, indicating poorly burning fires with incomplete oxidation of fuel. Firefighting 101: throw a wet log on a fire and you will get lots of smoke and steam, little heat and flame. Throw a dry, cracked log on a fire and you will get little smoke, but lots of heat and flame. The smoke-generating fires in the towers were non-controlled, poorly oxidating and incapable of producing anywhere near enough heat to melt steel, and only barely enough to reduce the carbon content of steel marginally. Moreover, recently released audiotapes of firefighters in the towers has the fire captain in one tower reporting that there were only two isolated fires on the plane-impacted floors, and that he thought he could put them out with two firehose lines! By the way, he didn’t make it out. Some SOB blew the building up.

Your engineering experts, if they’re the same ones I’m thinking of, first stated that there was no way fire could have collapsed those buildings. A week or so later they changed their tunes. Why? An Underwriters Lab expert, after learning that steel samples from the towers had passed the lab’s fire-destructive tests with flying colors, was subsequently fired for speaking out about this. Failure to tow the officially approved line? Fortunately, there are now scores of engineers brave enough to criticize the 9/11 Commission Report as badly flawed.

And are you trying to tell me that WTC 7 was made of paper mache? The towers collapsed straight down! Remember? Only flying debris hit WTC 7, which had less damage than the other surrounding buildings. Yes, a deck of plastic cards or bowling pins would fall over, but not massive steel, not in a thousand years.

See Ken, you have no respect for steel, which is a hell of a lot tougher than you give it credit for. That is why demolition crews have to carefully plan the collapse of a steel building utilizing exotic shaped charges that can cut steel at specific angles, while generating intense heat and massive force. This isn’t rocker science here, figuring out why the buildings all collpased. You can even see the damned demolition squibs shooting out of the sides of the towers, severing the supports for floor after floor.

So rant all you want. That just proves you’re close-minded.

Report this

By Jackie T. Gabel, November 14, 2006 at 9:49 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ken Schreier says,“I WAS DOWN THERE, I SAW AND HEARD IT ALL !” 

>>> RESPONSE - sounds convincing but has nothing to do with this:

1. The documented patsies (protected within the Able Danger program) could not possibly execute 9/11; i.e could not manually fly sophisticated jumbo jets like fighter pilots.

NOTE: In his book Countdown to Terror [9] then Rep. Curt Weldon asserted that an Able Danger chart produced in 1999 identifying 9/11 hijackers Mohamed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi, Khalid al-Mihdar and Nawaf al-Hazmi had been presented to then-Deputy National Security Advisor Jim Steinberg. Weldon went on to claim that he had personally presented the chart to then-Deputy National Security Advisor Steve Hadley in 2001 days after the 9/11 attacks.  Weldon asserted that he had identified an employee who had been ordered to destroy the 2.5 terabytes (TB) of data collected by Able Danger two years before the 9/11 attack.—http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t40582.html

2. Pentagon defense failure was a blatant stand down.

NOTE: From The 911 Commission Testiomy: MR. MINETA: There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, “The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out.” And when it got down to, “The plane is 10 miles out,” the young man also said to the vice president, “Do the orders still stand?” And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, “Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?”—http://newsmine.org/archive/9-11/norad-faa-response/cheney-stand-down-order.txt

3. The morning of 9/11, with the nation “under attack,” the POTUS was not protected as per SS SOP.

NOTE: Cheney was physically dragged to the bunker. But, incredibly, Air Force One took off without any military fighter protection. This defies all explanation. Recall that at 9:03 a.m., one of Bush’s security people said, “We’re out of here. Can you get everyone ready?” [Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 9/10/02] Certainly, long before Bush left the elementary school at 9:35 a.m., arrangements would have been made to get fighters to Sarasota as soon as possible. Not only would it have been advisable to protect Air Force One, but it would have been only sensible as another way to protect Bush on the ground from terrorist attack even before he left the school. In Florida, there were two bases said to have fighters on 24-hour alert, capable of getting airborne in approximately five minutes. Homestead Air Station, 185 miles from Sarasota, and Tyndall Air Station, 235 miles from Sarasota; both had the highest readiness status on 9/11. Presumably, as happened at other bases across the country, just after 9:03, base commanders throughout Florida would have immediately begun preparations to get their fighters ready. [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/02] Fighters left bases on the same alert status and traveled similar distances to reach Washington, DC, well before 10:00, so why were the fighters delayed in Florida? [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 9/9/02] Military planes should have been over Sarasota by the time Bush left Booker at 9:35 a.m. Yet, more than one hour after Air Force One took off, there were still no fighters protecting it!—http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/essay.jsp?article=essayaninterestingday

Insightful analysis clearly points to a coup by a rogue network from within. The US government leadership survived this putsch by capitulating to the coup plotters’ demand: The War of Civilizations starts now! e.g. “The Clash of Civilizations and the
Remaking of the World Order” by Samuel P. Huntington.—http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/panelon.htm

Again, Ken Schreier may very well believe everything he recalls hearing and seeing, but again it has nothing to do with any of these facts.

Report this

By Ken Schreier, November 14, 2006 at 7:33 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I cannot believe the ignorant people on this site !
This is all old news and explained by the very engineers who built the 2 Towers !
I lived through 9/11 you fools !
I SAW THE WHOLE THING HAPPEN BEFORE MY VERY EYES !
Not on the TV, I was there !
There were no explosions other than the 2 COMMERCIAL JETS LOADED WITH EXPLOSIVE JET FUEL THAT HIT THE BUILDINGS AT OVER 450 MILE PER HR !
I saw with my very eyes the huge fires burning in the buildings from the time they were hit to the time they fell !
You are a bunch of fools !
I am sick of people always trying to turn the truth into lies to accomodate their own political views and paranoid personalities !
GET IT, I WAS DOWN THERE, I SAW AND HEARD IT ALL !
THE ENGINEERING EXPERTS WHO BUILT THE BUILDINGS ALREADY CONFIRMED WHAT I TOLD YOU !
It was the intense fire that melted the support columns that brought the buildings down !
The heavy concrete floors pancaked down on one another and caused a domino effect which collapsed the 2 buildings !
YES PEOPLE, HEAVY CONCRETE FLOORS PANCAKING DOWN ON ONE ANOTHER WILL COLLAPSE A BUILDING IN THE WAY IT WAS SEEN ON 9/11 !
OH YES, ABOUT WTC 7 - IT WAS HIT BY THE BURNING NORTH TOWER WHEN IT FELL . I SAW IT ! THERE WERE ALSO HUGE FIRES IN THAT BUILDING TOO ! AGAIN THE SAME THING HAPPENED AND THE BUILDING FELL LIKE A HOUSE OF CARDS !
THAT IS THE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH !
GET A LIFE PEOPLE !

Report this

By Maani, November 14, 2006 at 3:43 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Apparently, Mr. Schreier has either not been following the conversation for the past few weeks, or else he is really Borat in disguise…LOL.

Peace.

Report this

By Thomas Ellis, November 14, 2006 at 11:51 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ummm…here we go once again.

Neither impact nor fire has ever, repeat ever, caused a steel-frame building to collapse before.

Jet fuel burns very rapidly in open air, and does not generate enough heat to melt steel. Neither does smoke.

By what law of physics can the top fifth of a steel frame building fall straight through the lower four fifths at near freefall speed, speeding up rather than slowing down, without encountering any resistance?

If you can account for all these bizarre anomalies occurring in one day, without the need for a collateral source of energy, please do so. For all your name-calling, you haven’t proffered a plausible explanation yet.

Report this

By geo, November 14, 2006 at 11:46 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ken Schrier—please,your stupity shows.
Jet fuel is NOT highly explosive—you shmuck !
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=56836&mesg_id=56836
Please do refer to this site—at least there is some-one that knows something about fuels—check the pics-fool ?

Report this

By Mac McKinney, November 14, 2006 at 11:03 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This is in reply to Comment #37968 by Ken Schreier on 11/14.

Gee Ken,

I am awestruck with your imperative attitude that we should shut down all our brain cells and follow the fiats of the Alpha males like you. You are, I assume, omniscient, in which case I should thank you for relieving us of the need to take reponsibility for anything at all. We just need to email you for directives.

However, just in case you are actually simply egotistical, then let me ask you how you deal with the migraine headaches you must inevitably get from keeping your mind in such a painful state of denial.

Report this

By Craig R. Lane, November 14, 2006 at 9:46 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Wow Ken Thanks!
I was hoping that someone would let us all off of the hook. Most sarcasm aside, let the adults continue with this discussion Ken. You run along and play now, and don’t let the cats bury you anymore, that is YOUR SANDBOX!!!!

Report this

By Ken Schreier, November 14, 2006 at 7:50 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hear we go again with conspiracy theories !
Get a life, could these be the same people who accused the government of the United States for the killing of President Kennedy on Nov. 22, 1963 !
The only conspiracy was Muslim arab extremists , led & funded by Bin Ladin ,& other arab governments, such as Saudi Arabia, Iran & Syria , who decided that they were going to teach America a lesson by killing innocent people !
What was the crime of the nearly 3000 people murdered that day, it was going to work to support their families !
Stop all this nonsense talk !
It was 2 huge commercial airliners , highjacked by 19 brainwashed Islamic terrorists traveling at over 450 miles per hour that slammed into these 2 buildings, with a full tank of highly explosive jet fuel, that brought the twin towers town !
The steel beam construction of the building, without proper fire retardent covering, was compromised by the jet fuel explosion which melted the steel girders and caused the floors pancake down like a house of cards !
End of debate ! You may all go back to your normal every day lives !
G-d Bless YOU ALL !

Report this

By Thomas Ellis, November 5, 2006 at 7:26 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Thank you, Jackie et al, for your additional thoughts and suggestions.

The reason I prefer to focus on the demolition of the three buildings, rather than the wide array of incriminating circumstantial evidence and accompanying theories, is that the latter is almost all speculation and hearsay, based on “inside sources” of varying credibility. While such speculation may very well be accurate, it is still speculation, and thus enables our adversaries in the mainstream media to marginalize us as “conspiracy theorists” and therefore dismiss us altogether.

But the demolition of the towers is something that is amply documented from multiple angles, and when the pieces of this puzzle are put together skillfully and comprehensively, as in the 9/11 Mysteries film, it adds up to a compelling forensic argument for anyone who sees the film.

Before we can answer the far bigger, and perhaps inaccessible question, “who dunnit?” we first need to establish, beyond any reasonable doubt, what actually happened to those buildings. This film made its case compellingly for me, and I think would do so for anyone else who had not put his brain in a lockbox of denial.

Once the general public sees this film or others like it, and a consensus builds around the no-longer-hidden fact that something terrible was done, that had to be planned months in advance, then we will come closer to the day when an aroused and outraged public will demand of their elected officials a real investigation—and if the elected officials fail to oblige them, the fraudulent nature of our “democracy” will be exposed for all to see.

Report this

By Jackie T. Gabel, November 5, 2006 at 12:51 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

RE:    •    Comment #36370 by Thomas Ellis  on  11/02  at  10:40 pm—“Amid a lot of other rather silly things in his most recent response, Jarod says,...By what law of physics? Can you cite any other examples?”  &  •    Comment #36268 by jarod  on  11/02  at  2:50 pm—“...The WTC towers were designed to bend (elastically) a little in heavy winds. An angle as can be seen in the movie is far greater…”

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RESPONSE

Thomas: arguing propeller-head physics with propeller heads like Jarod only goes ‘round and ‘round. Such discussion is pointless, as the entire narrative is so obviously fabricated; e.g.

1. The documented patsies (protected within the Able Danger program) could not possibly execute 9/11; i.e could not manually fly sophisticated jumbo jets like fighter pilots.

2. Pentagon defense failure was a blatant stand down. No aircraft lacking a military transponder gets past the Pentagon missile shield.

3. The morning of 9/11, with the nation “under attack,” the POTUS was not protected as per SS SOP. Cheney was physically dragged to the bunker. Bush was left exposed for half an hour in a publicized location. Air Force One went into the air and got no fighter support for 45 min.

Insightful analysis clearly points to a coup by a rogue network from within. The US government leadership survived this putsch by capitulating to the coup plotters demand: The War of Civilizations starts now! This is understood by the cowed media elite whose reports echo the “official” story. The rogue network though does not exercise complete control. A disgruntled faction of oligarchs are agitating to pull back from the brink, understanding the Strange Love insanity behind the folly and the generals are now with them.

We’re seeing this in numerous limited hangouts; e.g. Woodward’s “State of Denial” and Thomas E. Ricks’ “FIASCO: The American Military Adventure in Iraq,” to name but two. And just announced, on Monday the Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times and Marine Corps Times will run a joint editorial calling for the resignation or removal of the defense secretary Rumsfeld. Again, this is all “limited hangout,” indeed, pressure relief as well against the burgeoning 911Truth movement.

In conclusion, forget, for the time being at least, the physics of civil engineering. Since nearly all the evidence at Ground Zero was hastily destroyed in the most blatantly illegal violation of CSI protocol in the history of criminology, such propeller-head arguments are little more than noisy distractions—crude disinfo if you will. The truth of the 9/11 coup is what must come out if there’s any hope of stopping the madmen before they start WWIII.

Report this

By edward, November 5, 2006 at 8:04 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The 9/11 Truth Movement needs to be more careful about putting so many of it’s eggs in the controlled demolition basket.  The proof for this theory is not as solid as many would have you believe.

In the case of Building 7, the debate now centers on the amount of damage the building recieved when WTC 1 collapsed, and the interpretation of how the building would behave with the varying amounts of damage it could have recieved.

There are many more concrete issues to focus on rather the one of controlled demolition in the 9/11 issue.

Here is a link which compares links which agree with the controlled demolition theory alongside ones which disagree with that theory:

http://www.oilempire.us/demolition.html


Also, please check out the following recently expanded page which contains many audio and video clips about the questions of government involvement in the 9/11 attacks, as well as a list of 50 millitary, intellligence, and goverment officials questioning the 9/11 attacks..

http://www.newsofinterest.tv/911.html

Report this

By Maani, November 3, 2006 at 8:56 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Since Tom ends with a quote from Shakespeare, I thought it would be appropriate to add another, re Jarod’s inability to believe in the “staged event” “false flag operation” theory of 9/11:

“There is more in Heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

Peace.

Report this

By Thomas Ellis, November 2, 2006 at 10:40 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Amid a lot of other rather silly things in his most recent response, Jarod says,

*An angle as can be seen in the movie is far greater than the elastic bending permits and can only be achieved when the outer and the inner structural integrity of several floors have been demolished. Once this happens, the top section will not just topple over but also start falling down.*

Huh? That once a building starts tipping in one direction, it will right itself and fall straight down? By what law of physics? Can you cite any other examples?

As I recall quite clearly, when the second plane hit, it passed right through one corner of the building, blowing up in a huge fireball—mostly outside the building. In other words, it did not pass through the central core at all.

Jarod continues,

*Again built-up kinetic energy will cause the destruction of the floors below and above the level of the initial impact.*

Really? I can see where a few floors below might be pancaked by the weight of the top fifth of the building, assuming the steel columns had collapsed. But how the floors above this would collapse eludes me altogether. And wouldn’t that disintegration actually reduce the net weight of the upper part of the building? But then for the whole building to crumble symmetrically from that weight, without any apparent resistance from the 70-odd stories of steel and concrete below the impact zone? 

There is another little matter here—of sound. As we all know, light travels much faster than sound. So if the explosion we heard at the moment of collapse was caused by the alleged gravitational collapse itself, wouldn’t we have heard the explosion AFTER we saw the building start to disintegrate? In actuality, we heard the explosion, then we saw the buildings start to collapse—in that order. By the simple logic of temporal sequence, one would therefore have to conclude that the explosion initiated the collapse, and not vice versa.

When you add to that the squibs shooting out of the windows several stories below the rapidly descending line of disintegration, the impossibility of a freefall collapse of the top fifth of a building right through the lower four-fifths without resistance, and the pulverization of the concrete—not to mention the material evidence of thermate residues and neat, 45 degree cuts on the remaining steel columns (before they were whisked away for scrap metal prior to any investigation), I find it hard to imagine that anyone with a brain would still deny the abundant prima facie evidence of controlled demolition—even without the added evidence of the demolition of Building 7, to which Larry Silverstein, owner of the site, admitted on television, in his famous slip of the tongue (“I told my men to pull it.”)

Your insistent denial and name-calling are of no avail to those of us who can still weigh the abundant visual evidence and draw the obvious conclusions. As Hamlet once said,

“Foul deeds will rise/Though all the Earth o’erwhelm them, to men’s eyes.”

Report this

By jarod, November 2, 2006 at 2:50 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

In his comment #34568 Thomas Ellis tries again to counter my views on the WTC towers collapse. Again he fails, this time in a way that puts him, in my opinion, still in the category of ‘believers’.
First he concludes, correctly, that WTC South should have sagged to the corner that was hit by the plane, the SE corner. This really happened as can be seen in this movie:
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/south_tower_collapse.mpeg
The WTC towers were designed to bend (elastically) a little in heavy winds. An angle as can be seen in the movie is far greater than the elastic bending permits and can only be achieved when the outer and the inner structural integrity of several floors have been demolished. Once this happens, the top section will not just topple over but also start falling down. Again built-up kinetic energy will cause the destruction of the floors below and above the level of the initial impact. All this can be seen in the movie, even that the tilt of the top section keeps increasing (angular momentum), but the top section is destroyed in the fall, so it never ‘topples’ beyond the perimeter of the tower.
No ‘controlled demolition’ necessary, just gravity.

In my comment #33822 I mentioned ‘no planes’, ‘satan-faces’ and the like. This was to draw attention to the fact that ‘conspiracy theories’ easily attract ‘outlandish’ evidence.
Now consider Thomas Ellis’ comparison with the collapse of the WTC towers:
*This is rather like a five-car freight train ramming into a 20-car freight train and passing right through it, pulverizing it as it goes, without ever leaving the track or slowing down.*
This puts him right in the middle of the ‘no planes’/‘satan faces’ crowd: outlandish evidence. (Thomas, I suggest that you try to figure out for yourself why I say this, and return to this discussion when you have found the answer).
In his comment Thomas Ellis mentions other ‘rebuttals’, for example that of Maani. This is a ‘good’ rebuttal. The only flaw might be his ‘sneer’ *Really?  Where was it going to land – 42nd Street?* with respect to the B25 crash into the Empire State Building. The B25 was heading to Newark airport, 15 Km or 3 flying minutes away, flying between buildings and climbing to get out of the danger zone. So I think my ‘estimated guesses’ for the speeds involved are acceptable and the more than 100-fold difference in kinetic energy that the WTC towers had to absorb compared to the impact on the Empire Sate Building cannot be ‘sneered’ away.
Maani ends his comment (#33995) with *Finally, even if you were 100% correct – and even if all of us agreed with you – you have completely failed to explain why WTC 7 collapsed*. I think I am right and I hope that everyone will agree with me, but I have no explanation for the WTC 7 collapse. I have only seen one movie, showing the ‘disappearance’ of the (undamaged) top of the building, so I have too little evidence to draw any conclusions.
But, with what kind of conspiracy does this leave us ? Conspirators rigging WTC 7 with explosives, eagerly awaiting an attack by Islamic terrorists on WTC 1 and WTC 2 and then, after the collapse of the main towers, blowing up WTC 7 ? For what purpose ?

Report this

By What fools abound in USA, October 31, 2006 at 9:08 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060915-2.html
  48 Search Results from WhatReallyHappened.com
Official Transcript: President Bush admits bombs were in World Trade Towers.
Posted Oct 31, 2006
“For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high—a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping.
  P.S.—maybe it’s too FKN late in the nite,how (coum),no media has picked this up ?

Just another passing pointer on WTC—-assume you built a tall sand castle and it had a delicate top of something and the sand give away. The object on top will be cushioned on the downfall. Now how is it the top floors of WTCs exploded ???
Just the other day, at the local hardware store—an old fart still thinks the Arabs are terrorists and the ensueing fire did it .  IDIOTS AT LARGE

Report this

By Tampa DAve, October 31, 2006 at 8:45 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Here is some excellent reading.  It is entitled:
SUPPRESSED DETAILS OF CRIMINAL INSIDER TRADING
LEAD DIRECTLY INTO THE CIA’S HIGHEST RANKS.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/illegaltrades.html

Here are the hands behind the curtain, the secret dealers.  Here is where you look if you want to “follow the money” of the 9/11 events.

Report this

By Edward, October 31, 2006 at 7:47 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Please take a look at the following page discussing the questions of government involvement in the 9/11 attacks.  It has been recently expanded and includes many audio and video clips as well as a list of 50 high ranking millitary, intelligence and government officals critical of the offical story of the 9/11 attacks.

http://www.newsofinterest.tv/911.html

This page is an effective introduction and summary of the topic.  Please help spread the word.

Report this

By Jackie T. Gabel, October 30, 2006 at 5:02 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Maani, take it easy. Beck out West is having his fun with you, or maybe pulling a Ward Churchill: “...mountain monkeys…” “...making a killing…”—this is BS…just not happening. Remember all the Fox air time Churchill got with his goofy “little Eichmans” schtick and racist accusations toward the patsy line on the alleged perps. FOX is all disinfo and Ward’s been cointelpro since he screwed the Weather Underground as an agitprop bomb thrower in the 60s. Beck’s more likely making this stuff up for fun, though you never know.

As for 9/11, there’s loads of disinfo and noisy distraction, too much to sort in fact. For anyone genuinely interested in getting as informed as possible about 9/11 and false flag terror, read Webster Tarpley’s “9/11 Synthetic Terror - Made in USA” or check his lecture http://www.911busters.com/New_911_Evidence/WMV/Webster_Tarpley_NYC.wmv

Report this

By Maani, October 30, 2006 at 2:19 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Beck Out West:

Let me get this straight.  You met with ONE SINGLE “conspiracy theorist” who made a racist comment, and you are ready to broad-brush and generalize with a statement like, “Many of them are simply venal. Many are simply self-serving. Many are simply racist.”

How do you get from “one” to “many?”  Have any of those with “credibility” on this board come across to you as “racist” or “venal”  Or even “self-serving?”

I’m sorry you were put through that, and had to endure this particular person’s “venality, racism” and arrogance.  However, in the words of Shakespeare, “Methinks thou dost protest too much.”  One bad apple does is NOT representative of the whole bunch.

Peace.

Report this

By Beck Out West, October 30, 2006 at 12:31 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This is a follow-up to my own comment #24798.

Well it turns out I was wrong. After reading my previous comments on this subject, a mischievous friend set me up. He invited me to a dinner in Los Angeles with someone who has spent the last three years producing a pro-conspiracy film.

Let me say that I do not defend the “official” 9/11 story. I do not even know what it is. I only know what the theorists say it is, and I know scientific bunk when I hear it.

The theorist hit hard with the “facts”—an intimidating avalanche of math and physics that sounded convincing enough, and, more to the heart of it’s intent, point-by-point refutation of which would require a level of dedication to the subject that most of us would consider obsessive.

But a logical rebuttal of his argument required no facts or math at all. One’s inability (or lack of interest) to challenge a theorist’s every contention does not constitute an argument for conspiracy. Similarly, holes in any given 9/11 narrative do not constitute an argument for a conspiracy, but merely expose a deficiency of current knowledge.

In the dark ages, nearly all gaps of knowledge were filled with Christian theories. When Darwin expanded our knowledge of the natural world, those heavily invested in God-theory simply dug in, and refused to be moved. Many had ulterior reasons for doing so, including preservation of their own advantaged lifestyle.

But this is actually not where I’m going with this comment, just the (rather too long, I fear) set up. Because when I suggested, as is recognized in all scientific and academic endeavors, that the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim, my dinner companion, poised to make a killing selling his carefully crafted, impeccably logical conspiracy flic, smiled cooly, and asked, ‘“do you mean that say that you really think those mountain monkeys could have actually pulled this off?”

I realized that my previous comment was wrong. I had ascribed entirely too much good intent to the conspiracy theorists. America’s better minds? Hardly. Many of them are simply venal. Many are simply self-serving. Many are simply racist.

Report this

By Thomas Ellis, October 28, 2006 at 2:31 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

In response to Jarod’s comment (33822) I have little to add to the superb rebuttals that have already been posted by Mac and Maani, other than this:

Spare me your ad-hominem straw man attacks on the few fanatics who deny the existence of the planes, or who babble on about Satan’s image in the billowing smoke clouds. I have nothing in common with such crazies, nor does anyone else who has responded to your arguments here.

If you read my original post, I included the force of gravity among my energy inputs (along with the impact of the jets and the fuel fires and office equipment fires that were ignited by these). You are quite right about the effects of gravitational energy on a brick in freefall from a skyscraper. But the top fifth of the building was manifestly NOT in freefall! It has 4/5ths of a steel frame skyscraper underneath it, mostly unharmed, which had been precisely designed to support the full weight of the upper fifth! If in fact the steel support columns were weakened enough by (rapidly cooling) fires to sag, they would have sagged most on the side where the impact occured, and angular momentum would have caused the top of the building to tip over sideways, leaving most of the lower part of the building intact. Instead, what we all saw was a succession of perfectly symmetrical explosions as the entire building disintegrated at close to freefall rate into its own footprint. This has never happened, ever, with any other large steel frame building, due to impact or fire or both.

This is rather like a five-car freight train ramming into a 20-car freight train and passing right through it, pulverizing it as it goes, without ever leaving the track or slowing down.

In my universe, such things don’t happen without a collateral source of energy. Which universe do you inhabit?

Report this

By Jackie T. Gabel, October 27, 2006 at 12:34 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

As for “conspiracy theories,” inquiring minds should scrutinize this one: A lunatic in a cave, high in the Hindu Kush, coordinates with a laptop 19 followers, who with box cutters defeat the $40-billion air defenses of the USA. 

Holograms aside, 2 points alone establish a viable alternative:

1. The pathetically inept (documented) patsies could not possibly have done it; i.e. manually fly complex commercial aircraft like stunt pilots.

2. On 9/11/01 Pentagon and POTUS (world’ s most protected place and person) were security stripped and hung out as easy targets for coup plotters - all documented.

Recommended reading: “9/11 Synthetic Terror - Made in USA” by Webster G. Tarpley

streaming lecture here
http://www.911busters.com/New_911_Evidence/WMV/Webster_Tarpley_NYC.wmv

As for holograms, some little head banger in an FBI cointel cell obviously convinced his officer of the brilliance his precious imagination lends the effort - awesome dude, promotions for both!

Report this

By Margaret Currey, October 27, 2006 at 10:44 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Comment to Mad as Hell, I watched the NOVA series, in fact PBS tells a lot about what is going on, maybe that is why a while back the powers that be made Bill Moyers think about semi retirement. 

Also I think that maybe Mad King George and his followers (Condi) did not know about 9/11 but the advice given by Clinton was not taken notice of, the Chaney and gang were more about consolidating their power than the protection of this country.  Now the neocons are sayling they will will win congress, or else if the other sides wins we will surely be attacked.

Marge, Vancouver Washington.

Report this

By Maani, October 26, 2006 at 11:20 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Jarod:

If you are writing a book purporting to be scientific in nature, I feel sorry for your readers, because they will be flim-flammed.  And because I am getting sick and tired of your pseudo-scientific responses, permit me to parse your most recent response point by point.

“Where do you have to place the holographic projectors so that everyone in lower Manhattan, South Brooklyn and even Weehawken, Hoboken and Jersey City will see non-existent planes fly into the WTC.”

Only one, very remote theory suggests that there were no planes.  However, if you have been following the line of discussion here, you will note that most of us admit that planes crashed into the WTC – we just do not agree with your pseudo-scientific assessment of what actual damage they caused.

“How many hired actors are needed, optimally positioned in the area, with instructions to tell the news crews that they saw planes without actually seeing any.”

Again, most of us admit there were planes.  You have chosen to obsess on one truly remote theory rather than the much broader theories in which the planes are a factor – simply not to the degree that you claim they were.

“What information comes from the Satan faces, seen in the WTC smoke, and what about the Angel faces also seen?”

Again, you choose to obsess on only the remotest theories, rather than the broader ones.  Have you heard any of us mention “Satan faces” or “Angel faces?”  No.  Because even if we think they were there, we know they play zero role in the events of 9/11.

“Could a person who vetoes the use of clumps of frozen cells, which can be used for life-saving medical research, sacrifice potentially tens of thousands of his fellow citizens for some stock market gains by his buddies?”

First, the “stock market gains” – and I assume you are referring to the “put” options on American and United – do not appear to have had anything to do with Bush, or anyone he knows.  And you have not heard any of us suggest this.  If Bush & Co. sacrificed 3,000 Americans on 9/11 (and almost that many in Iraq now), it was not for insignificant “stock market gains,” but for VERY significant amounts of oil and natural gas.  The Iraqi oil reserves are the second largest in the world, and the Caspian Sea pipeline (which was only able to be completed after we installed former Unocal exec Hamid Karzai as President of Pakistan during our “war” with the Taliban) is worth over $3 TRILLION.

“First, the comparison was made with the B-25 crash into the Empire State building.  A B-25 weighs 10 tons.”  Actually, it weighs 15 tons.

“A 767 weighs 150 tons (of which say 50 tons (5 times the total weight of the B25) is fuel), 15 times as much.”  Actually, a Boeing 767 weighs about 197 tons fully loaded, of which about 72 tons is fuel.

“The B25 was in the process of landing, so the speed could have been 280 Km/h (cruising speed is 370 km/h).”  Really?  Where was it going to land – 42nd Street?  If it was going to land at any of the NYC area airports, it would still have been cruising at near top speed, since it would not have made the turn to start the landing cycle yet.  By the way, the top speed of a B-25 is 275 mph.

“The 767 was not trying to land, so its speed could have been 840 Km/h, 3 times as much.”  Although the top speed of the Boeing 767 is about 600 mph, the NIST report claims that the first plane was traveling at 470 mph, and the second at 590 mph.  In either case, this is only twice the top speed of the B-25, not three times.

“What counts is the kinetic energy of the planes: Ek = 1/2*(m*v*v). This means: proportional to the mass and the SQUARE of the speed. The kinetic energy of the 767 therefore was 15*3*3 = 135 times a large as the kinetic energy of the B25, surely a tremendous difference. One engine of the B25 went all the way through the Empire state building and fell to the ground. Imagine what an impact 135 times greater can do, it can certainly severely damage supporting structures.”

Farbeit for me to question the equation.  However, given that your original numbers are faulty (as shown by the numbers I provided, which came directly from the Boeing website), you might want to plug in the new numbers to get a more accurate ratio.  In any case, you cannot apply KE by itself; you would have to factor in the materials that it hit, and the total structure of the buildings, and how they absorbed (or did not) that KE.

“How did the towers collapse? In comment #29624 we read something like: Energy in = Energy out. If you think that ‘Energy in’ is the impact of the plane combined with the heat of the fire you are completely wrong.  To understand what happened consider this: You are standing on the flat roof of a 1200 feet high skyscraper. On the edge of the roof there is a 1 foot high rim. On this rim lies a brick. You are standing near the rim and you push the brick, very slowly, towards the INside. The brick topples over, falls ALMOST a foot because it falls on the tips of your shoes, where it comes to rest. You might feel that this happens, but the leather might not even be scratched. Now you pick up the brick and place it again in its original place. Then you push it, very slowly, OUTwards until the brick starts falling to the ground 1201 feet below, where it will causes lethal damage. Now, where does this damaging energy come from. Not from you, you just pushed it gently over the edge and there was no fire and no airplane. The energy that did the damage at ground level was inside the brick: It is called Potential energy Ep = m*g*h, which every mass inside a gravity field has. Potential energy in itself does no harm, but when an object is let loose in gravity the potential energy is converted into kinetic energy and when the falling object encounters the ground or the roof of a car the damage is done. When the brick fell from 1 foot on your shoes, you could hardly feel it, but try dropping it from 3 feet, 10 feet.”

Nice try.  However, you seem to forget both terminal velocity (and how air resistance would affect the gravitational pull of the collapse) and, again, the structure of the buildings, which would also affect that gravitational pull.

“So the science of the WTC collapse is: a 100.000 ton section of a building (95% air) located at 1000 feet above the ground will, when it is allowed to fall for say 20 feet (2 stories) because the supporting structure is damaged, and finally gives way, by the impact of an airplane and a fire, convert so much potential energy into kinetic energy that it will then crush and dislocate the floors below. This mass will again start falling and the whole building will collapse with increasing ease when the speeds increase.”

Again, nice try.  However, this time you ignore not only two basic laws of physics (most specifically that an object cannot descend at “free fall” speed unless there is near-zero resistance), but also that only a few floors of the supporting structure were actually damaged – and even those floors were not completely decimated, despite the fireballs and the resultant fires.

More importantly, you fail yet again to take into account the actual structure of the buildings.  Let us set aside fancy-shmancy scientific and quasi-scientific equations for a moment, and look at the cold hard facts.

We have two 110-story buildings that have core structures consisting of 47 vertical steel columns. The exterior structures were built to withstand the impact of a 707, which is only 29 tons lighter than a fully loaded 767.  The planes crashed into the top third of each building, causing damage on between 6 and 8 floors in each building.  The damage to the external structure was confined to actual impact sites.  And according to the NIST report on WTC 1, only 3 or 4 core columns were severed, and only 8 others were heavily damaged by the impact.  In other words, the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of the core structure – i.e., 36 columns – remained undamaged by the impact.

Thus, even had the structure “failed” on those floors that were actually impacted, both the internal and external structures of the lower 2/3 of each building were COMPLETELY UNTOUCHED.  So even if the structure failed in the top third, causing it to collapse, there is no reason – indeed, no “physic”-al way - that the fully-structured lower 2/3 of each building should have collapsed at free fall speed, even given gravity and kinetic energy.  AT VERY LEAST, the UNDAMAGED core structure of the lower 2/3 of each building should have caused a “stutter” effect in the collapse, causing the collapses to take longer.  Yet both buildings fell within 1.5 to 2 seconds of free fall time.  These facts speak volumes more than all the questionably applicable equations you cite.

Finally, even if you were 100% correct – and even if all of us agreed with you – you have completely failed to explain why WTC 7 collapsed, since (i) it was not hit by a plane, (ii) the “collateral damage” from the collapse of the twin towers was minimal or non-existent (WTC 6 was in between WTC 1 and WTC 7, and would have borne the brunt of most of the collateral damage from the collapse of WTC 1), (iii) there were only three small fires in the building, and (iv) it collapsed at EXACTLY free fall speed PERFECTLY into its own footprint.

Peace.

Report this

By Mac McKinney, October 26, 2006 at 7:33 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This is a reply to Jarod’s latest comments #33822.

I am glad to see you putting your thinking cap on here, Jarod, although you are still throwing up a lot of straw men to shoot down, with allusions to holographs, actors and Satanic images. Very few serious students of 9/11 are going in that direction at all regarding the Twin Towers.

Although you are certainly right that the Boeing jetliners hit with much greater impact than the B-25 in 1945, I want to point out right away that many, if not most, physicists and engineeers are not buying the theory that these collisions’ impacts fatally weakened either tower’s structure. For example, Bazant & Zhou, in their paper “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?” point out that “The 110-story towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the forces caused by a horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft.”

Furthermore, WTC 7 wasn’t even hit by an airplane, and it also collapsed at free fall speed onto its footprint. Was this a divine intervention?

As I have stated elsewhere, the towers’ architects, because they knew of the 1945 B-25 Bomber/Empire State Building incident, created a unique tubular design that could withstand a massive collision, wherein the outer “tube” would absorb most, if not all, of any such impact. The towers each had 47 massive steel core columns and 240 perimeter steel columns, 287 columns total, with interlocking beams, trusses and floor pans. We are talking massive, massive structure here.

Furthermore, the NIST Report states that “Both WTC 1 and WTC 2 were stable after the aircraft impact, standing for 102 minutes and 56 minutes, respectively. The global analyses with structural impact damage showed that both towers had considerable reserve capacity….”

So what caused the fatal instability? At this point, the above-quoted sources have two basic directions to go in to explain what the decisive factor was in weakening this massive steel structure: 1) fire or 2) explosives (We do have a few people theorizing vibrations). They both chose the first, not (I would hazard to guess) wanting to touch the second with a ten-foot pole for various reasons.

The problem is, once you look at all the facts, the fire theory is just not tenable. For a very thorough critique of the fire theory, please see Professor Steven Jones’ paper, “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse” at http://wtc7.net/articles/WhyIndeed09.pdf. The audiotapes of the firefighters, finally released, are a further blow to the fire theory, because they were not reporting blazing infernos, but weakened, isolated fires. However, quite a few firefighters heard explosions. This is highlighted in the documentary, 911 Mysteries, Part 1: Demolitions.

Since we have scores and scores of examples of tall buildings collaping into their footprints at free fall speed due to controlled demolitions, the ideat hat explosives brought down the towers is a highly tenable theory in terms of cause and affect and is not lunatic by any stretch of the imagination scientifically. The obvious in-the-field arguments against this theory are that rigging the WTC buildings could not be pulled off logistically without being discovered. But we are now finding more and more evidence to the contrary that does make this logistically feasible, such as the entire electronic security system of the towers being turned off for most of the weekend prior to 911, to cite one example.

So Jorad, please keep an open mind here. We all want to uncover the truth.

Report this

By Craig R. Lane, October 26, 2006 at 3:31 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Jarod, thanks for the science, (or is it just plain old physics?), lesson. I guess that I must love the idea, (the sheer poetry), of our government being complicit in the events occurring on 9/11 sooo much that I refuse to ‘let it go’. I mean, nothing makes me want to yell out “Go Team” like “Genocide, American Style!” So, here I go….One science that you don’t mention is Political Science. Of course I am going against the supposed rule about assuming who I am writing this to, (nice equations by the way-seriously!), and I will also assume that you are probably more reasonable than I, (I assume regularly that most people are), so I will also assume that you are aware of the collapse of Bldg. #7, and I am interested in your formulaic retort. Some components of poly-sci that I, (assuming once again), would think to be of primary/basic importance would be an understanding/knowledge of history, current events, stuff of that nature. So assuming you are aware of what is going on around you I ask the ages old, (and age-defying), question: Cui Bono, jarod, Cui Bono? By the way, I have been following this since it was written, with the exception of a few messages, this has been a very impressive exchange of ideas, I am grateful to have the oppurtunity to participate.

Report this

By jarod, October 26, 2006 at 12:11 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Thomas Ellis (#32151) thinks it is all about science, about which, he presumes, I am a complete ignoramus. Let me first quote from my upcoming book (“The Scientific foundation of Conspiracy Theories”, chapter 3: ‘Discussing the theory on the Internet”):*Never, ever assume that you know something about the the people you are in discussion with*.
Ok, science.
It could be Optical science: Where do you have to place the Holographic projectors, so that everyone in lower Manhattan, South Brooklyn and even in Weehawken, Hoboken an Jersey City will see non-existent planes fly into the WTC.
It could be Statistical science: How many hired actors are needed, optimally positioned in the area, with instructions to tell the News-crews that they saw the planes without actually seeing any.
It could be Theological science: What information comes from the Satan-faces, seen in the WTC smoke, and what about the Angel faces also seen?
Psychology: could a person, who vetoes the use of clumps of frozen cells, which can be used for life-saving medical research, sacrifice potentially tens of thousands of his fellow citizens, for some stockmarket gains by his buddies?
A lot of science already.
But some additional Mechanical science can tell a lot.
First, the comparison was made with the B-25 crash into the Empire State building. A B-25 weighs 10 ton. A 767 weighs 150 ton (of which say 50 tons (5 times the total weight of the B25) is fuel), 15 times as much. The B25 was in the proces of landing so the speed could have been 280 Km/h (cruising speed is 370 km/h). The 767 was not trying to land so its speed could have been 840 Km/h, 3 times as much. What counts is the kinetic energy of the planes: Ek = 1/2*(m*v*v). This means: proportional to the mass and the SQUARE of the speed. The kinetic energy of the 767 therefore was 15*3*3 = 135 times a large as the kinetic energy of the B25, surely a tremendous difference. One engine of the B25 went all the way through the Empire state building and fell to the ground. Imagine what an impact 135 times greater can do, it can certainly severely damage supporting structures.
How did the towers collapse?
In comment #29624 we read something like: Energy in = Energy out. If you think that ‘Energy in’ is the impact of the plane combined with the heat of the fire you are completely wrong.
To understand what happened consider this: You are standing on the flat roof of a 1200 feet high skyscraper. On the edge of the roof there is a 1 foot high rim. On this rim lies a brick. You are standing near the rim and you push the brick, very slowly, towards the INside. The brick topples over, falls ALMOST a foot because it falls on the tips of your shoes, where it comes to rest. You might feel that this happens, but the leather might not even be scratched. Now you pick up the brick and place it again in its original place. Then you push it, very slowly, OUTwards until the brick starts falling to the ground 1201 feet below, where it will causes lethal damage. Now, where does this damaging energy come from. Not from you, you just pushed it gently over the edge and there was no fire and no airplane. The energy that did the damage at ground level was inside the brick: It is called Potential energy Ep = m*g*h, which every mass inside a gravity field has. Potential energy in itself does no harm, but when an object is let loose in gravity the potential energy is converted into kinetic energy and when the falling object encounters the ground or the roof of a car the damage is done. When the brick fell from 1 foot on your shoes, you could hardly feel it, but try dropping it from 3 feet, 10 feet.
So the science of the WTC collapse is: a 100.000 ton section of a building (95% air) located at 1000 feet above the ground will, when it is allowed to fall for say 20 feet (2 stories) because the supporting structure is damaged, and finally gives way, by the impact of an airplane and a fire, convert so much potential energy into kinetic energy that it will then crush and dislocate the floors below. This mass will again start falling and the whole building will collapse with increasing ease when the speeds increase.
This is what you see in the videos.

Report this

By Don Plummer, October 25, 2006 at 11:54 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The Scholars for 9/11 Truth will be speaking on Sat Oct 28 & 29th in Colorado.  For more info, please contact http://www.colorado911visibility.org.  Skeptics of the 911 Truth Movement and Academics are particularly incouraged to attend.

Report this

By Edward, October 24, 2006 at 8:13 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Please take a look at this recently updated introduction and summary page discussing the questions of government involvement in the 911 attacks.. 

http://www.newsofinterest.tv/911.html


The page is broken into the following sections:

Debunking Popular Mechanics - Listen to the syndicated radio host Alex Jones uniformly discredit the most widely circulated rebuttal to those who question what happened on 9/11.

Video Clips - Important selected video clips including television brodcasts and works of such filmmakers as Alex Jones.

A reprint of the information the website 911Truth.org is offering on 4 x 6 cards for distribution, entitled “11 Remarkable Facts About 9/11.”

Audio Interviews - Audio interviews with former head of the Star Wars Missle Defense Program Dr. Bob Bowman, Alan Colmes of FOX News, David Schippers the Cheif Investigative Consul in the impeachment of Bill Clinton, as well as other interviews.

Fifty patriots questioning 9/11 - A list of over fifty high ranking Military, Intelligence, and Government officials critical of the official story of the 9/11 attacks, including links and summaries of their comments. This report is reprinted from it’s original source at PatriotsQuestion911.com, a website which is the result of the tireless work of Alan Miller.


Please look at this information and help to spread the word.

Report this

By Mac McKinney, October 24, 2006 at 2:16 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hey Bill (Comment 32938),

Methinks you protest too much. You should do yourself a favor and watch 911 Mysteries, Part 1: Demolitions (http://www.911mysteries.com ). It answers most, if not all of your questions. Did you know that New York City was demanding that all the asbestos in the Twin Towers finally be removed after years of procrastination, and that the bids were running around a billion dollars? That’s a lot of asbestos! Now you might say that the impact of the plane knocked all the asbestos off, but that would be a real stretch, wouldn’t it? I used to work in a shipyard, so I know how they mount insulation. Even the spray-on type has to meet specific standards to ensure good cohesion.

Even if there was no asbestos at all, steel doesn’t begin to melt until you are nearing 2700-3000 degrees Fahrenheit, much higher then the temperature of the fires that day. So the 9/11 Commission had to state that the steel was weakened significantly, but tests by the Underwriters Lab (UL) passed all the samples given to them: No significant weakness found! The film, by the way, shows some of the remaining monster steel column “stubs” at ground level, with neat, diagonal cut marks on them with slag that could only have been made by a shaped charge or an oxy-acetylene torch.

The film interviews people who did hear strange construction-like sounds and noises, feel strange vibrations, and see unusual amounts of concrete-like dust all over the building, apparently coming out through the vent system, for some six weeks or so prior to 9/11. On the weekend prior to 9/11, after an unprecedented weekend-long power-down had commenced, which eliminated all electronic security in the towers, essential personnel reported seeing strange workmen hauling in spools of, you guessed it, cable for “replacing existing network cable”.

In other words, those very things you said would have to happen to rig a controlled demolition appear to have been happening!

Report this

By George in Toronto, October 24, 2006 at 10:18 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

To Billy the goat
Do your math !
(Jr. Bush + Jeb Bush + Marvin Bush + Big Dick + Israel Sharron +Slverstink+ Jewalynannie)X( AIPAC + FBI + CIA + Fema+Mossad+ NORAD+ U.N. )+( Marvin’s scurity contracts @ WTC ,Boston airports) + ( Tons of Thermite + Mega Tons of TNT) + Zionist Media + most zionist Politicks + Moranic idiot USA citizens = KABOOOOOM !
No Arabs were envolved,get it now idiot Bill.

Report this

By Bill, October 24, 2006 at 7:48 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Holy crap what a complete ass!  What’s your degree in? Basket weaving?  Did you know that the structural steel of the TT were not coated in asbestos which would have prevented the collapse (thank the tree huggers for that).  Have you ever seen the preparation required for a building implosion?  All load-bearing sructural members must be partially cut, walls removed, and in a building this size, thousdand of charges connected by miles of cable would have to be put in place.  THEN the thousands of people who work there would have to ignore the fact that there were explosive charges everywhere and no interior walls.  How long would this take to set up?  A major implosion takes a trained team weeks to set up…somehting like this would have taken months.  Anyone who believes that these buildings were imploded and simply did not collapse under their own weight as the support for the top third melted away is a complete moron.

BTW, the cameras around the Pentagon are not video cameras, they are time lapse cameras.

Report this

By Maani, October 23, 2006 at 10:07 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I want to add a comment to the query about why, five years later, “No one involved in the incineration of thousands of people would have regrets, second thoughts—or even towering self-interest.”

We still don’t know the full truth about the JFK assassination 50 years later.  And there had to be almost as many people involved in that as there were in 9/11.

As well, “coming forward” is fraught with complications.  First, who will believe you?  After all, all of US are seen as “crackpots,” so why do you think a person with real knowledge coming forward will not be labelled similarly?  Indeed, they are likely to be even more severely “discredited” than we are - if not killed.  [N.B.  57 of 73 witnessess to the JFK shooting were dead within 2 years - all, of course, of natural causes and “normal” accidents.]

There is also another, perhaps unnerving, but important factor: many of those involved in the attacks believe(d) that they did the right thing.  That is, they are convinced that the loss of 3,000 lives was “acceptable” in order to achieve their goals - no matter how cynical or incorrect those goals might seem to us.

Consider.  If someone told you that the untimely death of ten people - or even a single person - would save millions of people in the future, would you support it?  Suppose you knew that the untimely death of your own child would prevent the deaths of millions of others: how would you respond?

I am not suggesting that the murder of 3,000 people in the cause of oil is comparable to the sacrifice of a child in the cause of finding a cure for cancer or AIDS.  But to many of the people involved in 9/11, they fully and completely BELIEVE in the “rightness” of what they did.  And although it would be easy to label these people “evil,” they are really just horribly misguided.  (I am not attempting to downplay the seriousness of murdering 3,000 people; I am only making a point.)

There ARE those with “inside” knowledge who have come forward, or are coming forward, albeit cautiously.  And there are more and more highly respected scientists, academicians and others coming out strongly in support of alternative theories and a new investigation.  We need to focus on “getting the word out” as much as possible - without judgment or rancor toward those who continue to believe the “official story” - and keep hounndig the media with polls, evidence, etc.

We need to keep “fighting the good fight” and working toward “forcing” a new, non-political, fully and truly thorough investigation into the events of 9/11.

Peace.

Report this

By Thomas Ellis, October 22, 2006 at 10:54 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Let me explain a bit further, Jarod, since you obviously know little to nothing about science.

A law of physics is not a “belief.” It is rather a fundamental general claim about the nature and behavior of matter/energy that has been validated by every observation, every measurement, and every experiment ever made, and to which there are absolutely no exceptions.

Hence it serves as the warrant—the underlying assumption—behind any claim of causality that physicists (or any other serious scientists) make about any phenomenon they observe. That is, if the proposed explanation violates the known laws of physics, only two possibilities remain: either the explanation is wrong or incomplete, or the physical law is wrong. And if one claims the latter, the burden of proof is on him to demonstrate that this law is incorrect. So far, this has NOT happened at all for the First or Second Laws of Thermodynamics. They still constitute the unchallenged major premise for any scientific hypothesis.

It is clear to any unbiased observer that the impact of the jets on the Twin Towers, despite the damage they caused, did not directly trigger the collapse of the buildings, which happened an hour later. The buildings withstood the impact with no difficulty, their steel-frame infrastructures intact. And the jet fuel, which ignited the fires, was quickly consumed in a massive fireball, mostly outside the building, as one would expect for highly volatile fuel, upon impact. That left only open fires, fed by nothing but office equipment—paper, computers, furniture, and carpets—none of which is particularly flammable. (In fact, fire marshall regulations require that office furnishings be fire-retardant). So the fires, as one would expect, were quickly reduced to thick smoke—evidence of an oxygen-starved fire that is getting cooler, not hotter. None of this could possibly generate temperatures hot enough to melt thick steel girders, which were weakened by impact only on one side, and on a few floors at most. Yet suddenly, out of nowhere, the buildings collapsed, explosively and symmetrically, from the top down—with squibs of smoke and dust—direct evidence of explosive charges—blowing out the windows, several floors below the rapidly descending line of disintegration. And virtually all the concrete in the building was pulverized in pyroclastic flows, all at near freefall speed. How, pray tell, could the top fifth of a building fall directly through, and pulverize, the lower four fifths, without encountering resistance?

The burden of proof is on you, my friend. Show me the equations by which the immense energy output resulting in that collapse could possibly not exceed the observed energy input of a jet impact, office fires, and gravity. The eyes, coupled with what any school child knows of the basic laws of physics, don’t lie.

Report this

By truth4all, October 21, 2006 at 9:56 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Comment #25131 by Broiler on 9/23 at 10:22 am

“It’s inconceivable that five years after September 11 no one involved in the incineration of thousands of people would have regrets, second thoughts—or even towering self-interest. Imagine the book deal, the movie deal waiting for that whistle blower.” - JoANN WYPIJEWSKI from counterpunch.org”

==================

Recently men who fought in the Korean War finally admitted after 50 years that they were involved in the killing of innocent women and children shortly after the War started. 

They were ordered to shoot at civilian Koreans who were escaping from Northern Korea as they walked on the roads.  The surviving civilians found shelter under a bridge, but the U.S. soldiers were ordered to machinegun them while they were huddled under the bridge.  Most of them died. 

A few survived and tried desperately to get the South Korean and U.S. governments to admit what happened, but both governments refused.

Finally a reporter decided to investigate and found out which U.S. military groups were stationed in that location and found the surviving military men and questioned them.  That’s when FINALLY some of them admitted what had happened.

BUT they had kept it a secret for 50 years!

Why couldn’t the present perpetrators keep something like 9/11 secret for many years?

How long did it take for Watergate’s ‘deep throat’ to finally admit who he was - and then only because he was senile and his family was trying to make some money - considering how many MILLIONS of dollars Woodward and Bernstein had made over the years thanks to ‘deep throat’ and how much of it did they ever give to ‘deep throat’ - NONE of it.

How many other My Lai’s occurred in Vietnam, but the soldiers who participated have been keeping it a secret?

How many ‘put’ orders were done shortly before 9/11?  All of those culprits knew about 9/11 - and they weren’t cave-dwelling perpetrators.

Report this

By truth4all, October 21, 2006 at 9:04 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Comment #26830 by Mad as Hell on 10/03 at 7:23 am

“Here’s another thing the conspiracy buffs ignore:

“From the moment in Dec 2000 when the SCOTUS made Mad King George the President, until 8:45am on 9/11/2001, EVERY effort to continue the fight on terrorism was rebuffed.  Right now we are seeing Condi Rice caught in a web of lies trying to counter Woodward’s book proving she discounted ALL warnings on terrorism.  On 9/10, Ashcroft essentially ended FBI anti-terrorism programs.

“The LAST thing that they would have wanted, if they were behind 9/11, was to look utterly incompent.”

==================

They wanted ‘plausible deniability.’  That’s why they had Bush go to a children’s classroom in Florida and read a ‘pet goat’ book.  It made him look extremely innocent - even if it also made him look incompetent.  They were willing to risk the accusation of being ‘incompetent’ as long as they were able to look at the big picture and get away with a new ‘Pearl Harbor.’ 

Just as they have been willing to look totally incompetent re: Iraq.  Iraq is really going along exactly the way they want.  They have created a civil war so that the Iraqis are fighting among each other while the oil companies and the Bush cabal get away with siphoning the oil out of the country, stealing the money and the museum artifacts, building the most expensive U.S. embassy and numerous expensive military bases, siphoning billions of U.S. taxpayer money to Halliburton, etc. without any oversight, potentially dividing Kurdish Northern Iraq and allowing the Israelis to have greater control among the Kurds, etc. 

They are willing to look stupid in public while they secretly laugh at the stupidity of the gullible U.S. residents.  They are ‘laughing all the way to the bank’ as the old saying goes. 

Remember, when Tenet, the head of the CIA, sent his CIA agent to Crawford, Texas to tell Bush personally about the threats, Bush told the CIA agent:  ‘Okay, you covered your butt.  Now get the hell out of here.’ 

Bush didn’t want to know the information from the CIA because Bush already knew the REAL information about the threats, and Bush wanted to deny that he had been warned - plausible deniablity.

Report this

By truth4all, October 21, 2006 at 8:03 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Comment #30723 by Mac McKinney on 10/20 at 10:41 pm

“This is a reply to Jarod’s comments. Where, brother, does Tom Ellis ask you or anyone to indulge in mere belief regarding 9/11? He says go look at the documentary 911 Mysteries, and then asks a serious scientific question which needs equally serious answering before offering his own conclusions.”

==================

Great post, Mac McKinney.  I agree with you 100%.

Report this

By Mac McKinney, October 20, 2006 at 10:41 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This is a reply to Jarod’s comments. Where, brother, does Tom Ellis ask you or anyone to indulge in mere belief regarding 9/11? He says go look at the documentary 911 Mysteries, and then asks a serious scientific question which needs equally serious answering before offering his own conclusions.

A pyroclastic flow, by the way, can be defined as a heavier than air, gas/particle emulsion flowing over the ground at a fast rate. It doesn’t have to originate from a volcano, but from any powerful explosion that can generate intense heat and pulverize solid substances.

You yourself try to answer Ellis’s question with your speed times weight postulate, but let me point out that in 1945, a 10-ton B-25 bomber flew into the 79th floor of the Empire State Building in the fog, its fuel tanks erupting, thus engulfing that entire floor in flames. The fire was put out in about an hour and the structural integrity of that building was not compromised.

The airliners that struck the twin towers were undoubtedly going faster, but the towers themselves also had stronger designs than the Empire State Building. The fires in the towers were similar in duration to the fire in the Empire State Building, but undoubtedly not as intense due to the preponderence of black smoke, which indicates a poorly oxidating fire. A finally-released recording of the fire-commander who reached one of the tower fires reveals him stating that there were only two isolated pockets of fire that he thought he could put out with two lines of hose, hardly the description of the Hollywood inferno we have been led to believe was transpiring!

The structural design of the twin towers, unlike the Empire State Building, was specifically built to withstand a jet-liner crash through a unique tubular design. The perimeter of each tower was enveloped in a steel “mesh” that would absorb most if not all of the initial impact of any aircraft. The core design of 47 massive steel colums would then present a truly formidable obstacle to whatever force was left in the catapulting wreckage of the plane. I am telling you point-blank that there is no way those airliners’ impacts and the resultant fires could eviscerate thousands of tons of massive steel in ten seconds. Only intensely powerful and well-directed explosives could accomplish such a miraculous feat! And where and only where do we see such feats performed? At controlled-demolition sites and on controlled-demolition documentaries.

What happens, by the way, when a speeding car crashes into a light pole or telephone pole? Usually the later is left standing while the car is a crumpled wreck. Massive stationary objects don’t budge very easily, especially ones over 100 stories high with interlocking girders, trusses and beams from top to bottom. If only aircraft had hit the towers, they, like the Empire State Building, would still be standing, would undoubtedly have been fully repaired by now, and only several hundred people would have died as opposed to thousands. But then we would not have had such a traumatic new “Pearl Harbor” to catapult America into endless war, fear, hatred and vengeance.

Finally, you ask, when has the current administration ever done anything perfectly? The demolitions of the three WTC buildings were hardly perfect, because the perpetrators have left a trail of incongruities, evidence and discrepancies that are way too obvious to overlook, from a weekend, ordered power-down of the towers just prior to 9/11, to pulling all the bomb-sniffing dogs out of them five days before 9/11, to horizontal squibs, indicating shaped-charges going off, shooting out of the collapsing buildings always below the crumbling, pyroclastic mass, to massive explosions heard in the basements of each tower, to name just a few irregularities.

We just have to put all the pieces of the puzzle together now. Watch 911 Mysteries as a strong step in that direction.

Report this

By jarod, October 20, 2006 at 2:49 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The comment by Thomas Ellis #29624 exemplifies, in my opinion, that what is going wrong with America. It is an growing addiction ‘to believe’. Believe in ‘the gunman on the grassy knoll’, in the wickedness of New Orleans, to be punished by a hurricane, in the ‘demolition of the WTC towers’, in the ‘intelligent design’ of life on earth, in a supreme being that looks after us. All wrong ! The flimsiest pieces of pseudo scientific objections are eagerly taken as facts. A dustcloud coming from a collapsing building is not a pyroclastic flow (it may resemble something seen on television, rolling down the slope of an active volcano, but that is a completely other process). Gravity is a powerful force and the kinetic energy of a 400.000 lb aircraft traveling at 500 mph is enormous. Do the math and not just make sentences with questionmarks.
And then again, when was something ever done with such perfection by the suspected administration / political party ?

Report this

By Margaret Currey, October 19, 2006 at 11:59 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I remember how Bush/Rove stole the election, first there was Ms. Harris, then there was Jeb, then there was ole Tricky Dick Chaney, these people were so into getting back at Iraq, I think few people remember Bush making the comment I must finish my Daddy’s war.  These neocons were plannning the war from the beginning, the thing on 9/11 just made the job of going to war easier, I remember Condi saying “Who would have thought that a plane would fly into a building?” If security was being watched like it should have been, they would have the answer in Fla. I wonder if Bush just let it happen, after all Clinton had gave him some ideas about what could happen, it makes one wonder if they just let it happen.

Margaret from Vancouver, Washington

Report this

By Thomas Ellis, October 18, 2006 at 8:33 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I have just one suggestion for those who persist in denial about 9/11, or in ridiculing those who question the official story.

Go to Google Video, look up “9/11 Mysteries” and watch the whole thing—all 90 minutes.

Then ask yourself: By what law of physics could an airliner impact, a one-hour office equipment fire on a few floors that had turned mostly to smoke, and the force of gravity from the top fifth of a steel-frame building, collectively generate enough energy to cause the catastrophic and symmetrical vertical collapse, at near freefall rate, of the entire steel-frame building, and the pulverization of its materials in a pyroclastic flow?

This is a clear and obvious violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy input = Energy Output. That is, this event simply would not have happened as it did (3 times) without a collateral energy source, in the form of thermate demolition charges, planted and wired strategically to go off in sequence from the top down. The evidence, as shown clearly and compellingly in this film, is overwhelming. We are no longer talking “theory” here, but scientific fact. These buildings were brought down by controlled demolition.

The only remaining question is—who planned and executed this crime against humanity, and why? I don’t pretend to know for sure, but you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out who stood most to gain from it, and who had the power to pull it off!

Report this

By George in Toronto, October 18, 2006 at 11:39 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

And I thought I knew all of the tidbits of the 911 lies.
Please do go to the following site and read some of the left han references——and still 31% of Americans can’t see the bullshit.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/collapses.html#south
Even Jones would be pleased to refer to some of the glaring obvious points.
The one area that caught my attention,was the chinese stewardess, who commly called and said—we are highjacked and not any pilot called a distress signal. I don’t think chinese women are that stupid and not yell help.
19 arabs and box cutters—BS

Report this

By Myron Hoitomt, October 18, 2006 at 8:51 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I live near a small farming community that is about as removed from the catastrophic and psychological effects of 9-11 as it is possible to get. I was amazed to hear an old (80+) owner of a local small-business discuss his concerns about the apparent lack of validity of the “official” 9-11 Commission Report. I was impressed to find someone that had looked at and listened to the conspiracy theory and believed it had validity. I told him that he was right in questioning the Governments explanation, as I too had been questioning it from the time the towers fell. The apparent complete disintegration/melting of steel beams made no sense to me. I have been involved with the steel industry for 50-years. I have been a welder, fabricator, metallurgist, inspector, participant in destructive-testing steel, and last but not least, responsible for evaluating the structural integrity of steel structures that had been damaged by impact or fire.

The explanation provided by the 9-11 Report regarding the failure due to the effect of fire does not make any sense. I have carefully examined and tested steel that had been enveloped in a creosoted-wood fire that lasted for more than 24-hours. The fire was hot enough to turn the structure to a bright-red, which is approximately 1600 degrees F. The structure is located on a mountain side which provides an unlimited supply of oxygen to fuel the fire. The loaded structure did not bend or buckle. Metallurgical tests taken from a spot that remained red the longest after the fire subsided. The steel had lost some of its carbon and strength. The fire could not be stopped, only going out when all the wood was consumed, as it was in a location that was inaccessible to fire fighting equipment. The structure didn’t fail and continued to hold the load for which it was designed.

The fires in the Twin Towers did not last long enough to even start to deteriorate structural steel. Heating steel quickly can only be accomplished with the addition of pressurized oxygen, such as is used in steel fabricating shops to cut or form steel. The explosion of the jet fuel upon impact of the planes actually reduced the effect of the resultant fire. Oil-well fires are put out with explosives that rob the fire of the oxygen needed to maintain a fire. We must demand to know the “facts of 9-11.”

Report this

By All in Good faithe, October 17, 2006 at 7:36 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

From a Canadian to my good American buddies—just one request,please go to all the canidates meetings ,( blurt out with the same type of megaphone Bush’t used at Ground Zero)—911 was an inside job- AND-which one of you shmucks is going to support a proper 911 ,meanful investagation ?Demand an answer.
Do record the event and post it here.Time to get off our fannies and sharpen those pitch forks and gilotines.Don’t forget to charge up the torches with petrol.—Good luck, make sure you have a good lawyer at your side.

Report this

By Maani, October 16, 2006 at 7:49 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

To Jarod:

I don’t believe that there is any causal connection or correlation between the fact that believing in God requires “faith” (i.e., “the belief in things unseen; the certainty of things hoped for”) and the fact that many of those who disbelieve the “official story” may be people of faith (though I’m not sure what the statistics are on that, and they may not be as close as we think).

Besides, there is a clear difference here: while there is essentially ZERO tangible, empirical evidence for the existence of God, there is PLENTY of tangible, empirical evidence to support various alternative theories of what occurred on 9/11.  Even if some of that evidence is “flimsy” - or even if some of it conflicts with other “flimsy” evidence - the point is that there IS evidence to support various aspects of the alternative theories.

I also want to add to Deborah’s statistics that every poll done in the past two years - by CNN, Zogby, The New York Times, Harris, etc. - indicates that fewer and fewer people now “buy into” the entirety of the “official story.”  This does not mean that they have made the leap to believing that their government was COMPLICIT in the attacks.  But they are becoming increasingly certain that the government knew more than it claimed prior to the attacks, and is thus, at very least, guilty of negligence or worse.

In all cases, every poll indicates that a near-majority or majority of Americans want a new, independent, non-partisan, non-political investigation into the 9/11 attacks - one in which ALL leads are followed, and “let the chips fall where they may.”

Peace.

Report this

By deborah conner, October 16, 2006 at 2:55 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This is an issue that concerns us all simply because it CONCERNS us all so much—a wound barely scabbed over that has to be opened if we’re ever to heal.

Startling 9/11 Poll by the New York Times and CBS: “Only 16 per cent of respondents say the government headed by U.S. president George W. Bush is telling the truth on what it knew prior to the terrorist attacks.”


http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/13469.
Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research
Americans Question Bush on 9/11 Intelligence
October 14, 2006

- Many adults in the United States believe the current federal government has not been completely forthcoming on the issue of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, according to a poll by the New York Times and CBS News. 53 per cent of respondents think the Bush administration is hiding something, and 28 per cent believe it is lying.

Only 16 per cent of respondents say the government headed by U.S. president George W. Bush is telling the truth on what it knew prior to the terrorist attacks, down five points since May 2002.  more

Report this

By jarod, October 16, 2006 at 1:05 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

A quotation:
*“When [the president] talks about the Faith-Based Initiative, this is one of these things where he believes years and years down the road… this is going to be one of the signal accomplishments - harnessing the power of faith in dealing with some of the most intractable problems our society faces.”*
There is no doubt that 9/11 was a *Faith-Based Initiative*.
So the believers in the ‘conspiracy’ are right ? Religion is about believing without evidence, even with ample evidence about the contrary. America is a very religious country.
How does this all add up ?

Report this

By Both Parties need a boot, October 16, 2006 at 4:13 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Spinoza—-Hay man,why not break down the BS. in your thoughts,instead of referring to some garbage from an idiot that goes around telling stories as a hamster in a turning wheel—-just ending no where—just crap-nonsense- In ,your referral- The 9/11 Conspiracy Nuts By ALEXANDER COCKBURN ,the only nut is Alex.
Why is there so many gullable dinks in USA, can’t they read past the head line ?

Report this

By don plummer, October 15, 2006 at 1:40 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I’m so embarrassed.  The process of accepting the basic 9/11 Truth Movement tenets took me 2 ½ years.  2 ½ years of intense, obsessive research; averaging about five hours a week.  I know, that’s 650 hours; I’m a little slow O.K., but I do have excuses.  Three plus years ago when my quest commenced the available info was a bit undeveloped, (today 135 websites devote to this topic) plus, who in their right mind would think segments of our own government intentionally, with premeditation, blew up the World Trade Center and killed its own citizens.  That last statement can seem startling; particularly when you personify the virtues I was instilled with.

The total fabric of my quest was woven with skepticism.  Qualifying 9/11 information is like peeling a gargantuan onion; you know there must be underlying layers to support the layer you are seeing, and each sub-layer represents another piece of info to be fact-checked, and on and on and on.  Then there is that insidious psychological layer to break through, called denial.  Who wants to believe this!  My most difficult layer, denial, was finally penetrated ten months ago when thirty scholars, (now 300+ including high ranking military) joined in solidarity to uphold the scientific evidence that Towers 1, 2 & 7 were brought down by high explosives, not fire due to crashing airplanes. Fortunately, proving controlled demolition brought down two 100 story buildings and one city block long 47 story building is the easiest to prove.  Fortunate because the 9/11 Truth Movement needs adherents.

Two scary parts to this escapade are: the treasonous 9/11 culprits are not interested in getting caught, jailed, or duly executed, and secondly, when confronted with the evidence, the average American will not endanger their financial security or social standing to speak up.  I know this all sounds insane, but the one man who predicted 9/11 two months prior to the event, suggests an imminent event which will may make 9/11 look insignificant.  That’s when the average American may find out the Patriot Act affectively abolishes our constitution.  My suggestion, spend however much time you need to come to terms with this topic, then swiftly start knocking on every mass media door you can find.  There comes a time when silence becomes betrayal”  Martin Luther King Jr.

Report this

By need2know, October 10, 2006 at 5:51 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Well, I happened on a couple more things today.
The first was yet another coincident regarding WTC 7:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a647alarmnoton

6:47 a.m.: WTC Building 7 Alarm Not Operating -
According to later reports, the alarm system in WTC 7 is placed on “TEST” status for a period due to last eight hours. This ordinarily happens during maintenance or other testing, and any alarms received from the building are generally ignored. [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 6/2004, pp. 28 ]

Anyway, I just thought it was yet another weird coincident regarding this building and this time frame.

The other thing is this video I just watched:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6645678004850801305&q=Bush's+Odd+Behavior+on+the+Morning+of+9/11

Perhaps you all have already seen this, but I hadn’t. It only deals with George Bush and that morning. It had some things in it that I hadn’t seen or considered yet. It was interesting.

And John Doraemi, thanks for what you said.

Report this

By deborah conner, October 10, 2006 at 5:38 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

<<That being said, I feel compelled to point out that simply learning to handle a firearm does not necessitate violence in itself. >>


But think. Think fast. What would guns do here?
Oct 7, 6:50 PM EDT

Jeb Bush Seeks Refuge From Pa. Activists
 
PITTSBURGH (AP)—Protesters greeted Florida Gov. Jeb Bush on his way to a campaign event for a Pennsylvania senator, and he briefly took refuge in a subway station supply closet to avoid the anti-Republican demonstrators.

The president’s brother encountered protesters on their way to join a demonstration outside the exclusive Duquesne Club, where Sen. Rick Santorum, a Republican, was holding a fundraiser Friday.

Officers used stun guns to subdue two protesters, saying they disobeyed orders to disperse, said Bob Grove, a Port Authority spokesman.

“It was a very tense situation. They were very close to the governor and shouting on top of him,” Grove said.
 
Bush was not injured.

The protesters, made up of members of the United Steelworkers union and the anti-war group Uprise Counter Recruitment, chanted, “Jeb go home,” and said Bush blew them a kiss. ... more

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/07/ap/politics/mainD8KK0LNG0.shtml

I was adressing the ref to civil war, etc. Most of all, the very thing above. Again: Liberals and Progressives do things by Law. Research. Reason.
As this administration faces being called to accountability, there’s nothing that would serve them better than a chance to call for martial law.

As for what made the Holocaust “possible”—how many Pogroms have been carried out against them in history, all without the assistance of the Waffengesetz’ / National Weapons Law? If we are to apply history, to ask it for ways than might help us, I would look to Denmark in WW2 for ways to handle living under an oppressive regime.

Report this

By John Doraemi, October 10, 2006 at 4:07 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The self-described “intelligent” one who can’t understand why 70 million Americans suspect Bush white house involvement in 9-11 is clearly ignorant.  That’s right, ignorant.  I didn’t say stupid, crazy, or a shill.  You just don’t understand the volume of evidence. 

I don’t need to talk about the towers collapsing or the pentagon. 

You think George Bush’s reaction in the classroom proves something? 

Perhaps it does.  He should never have been sitting IN that seat at that time.  His secret service team isn’t as “deer in the headlights” as you interpret the President as being.  The secret service was in Genoa Italy, two months previous, as was Bush when he was physically moved out of a high-rise hotel because of fears of an “Al Qaeda” assassination plot to crash hijacked jet liners into the summit. 

As they knew all about the first WTC crash—before entering the classroom—and the alerts from FAA about current emergencies (the Secret Service is not out of the loop, as your ignorant comments suggest), there was clearly an order for them to remain at the location, and to stall for time.

Ari Fleischer held up a sign on the back of a yellow legal writing pad that said to Bush, “DON’T SAY ANYTHING YET” (Washington Times, Bill Sammon)

Bush has never been “in charge.”  He follows the script, as best he can.

Then we can talk about the complete cover up that the head of Pakistani Intelligence, Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmed ordered $100,000 to Mohamed Atta prior to the attacks.  Not one word about that makes it into any “investigations.”  The money transfer was supposed to be iron-clad evidence of an Al Qaeda tie, but the Indian intelligence service threw a monkey wrench into the works, and suddenly the world found out something true: the head of ISI was involved with funding September 11.

There is so much that you are completely ignorant of, you’ll have to start researching (from square one) if you ever hope to catch up to what is known and out in the press, yet covered up and not discussed in official investigations.

And much of it implicates the US Federal governemnt.  (No missiles, no explosives, no what you call “physics.”)  Conspiracy is a legal concept, and the most common charge.  This knee jerk anti-intellectual revulsion to the word “conspiracy” is highly irrational and based in gross ignorance.

CRIMES OF THE STATE BLOG

Report this

By Amendond Secment, October 9, 2006 at 9:24 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

In regards to #27632 by deborah conner:

I do not know the individual who posted that ‘learn how to shoot’ comment, therefore I have no idea as to his/her intention(s).

That being said, I feel compelled to point out that simply learning to handle a firearm does not necessitate violence in itself.

The Holocaust was made possible in large part due to ‘Waffengesetz’ or National Weapons Law, which made firearm possession illegal for those of Jewish heritage.

“The law barred Jews from businesses involving firearms. On November 10, 1938 new regulations under the Weapons Law barred Jews from owning any weapons, even clubs or knives.”

One has only to look to 1968 to our own ‘Gun Control Act’ for parallels:

“Perhaps most vociferous in opposition to the GCA are the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership and the Gun Owners Alliance, both of whom conjecture that the GCA appears inspired by the earlier National Weapons Law of Nazi Germany. This claim, disputed by some, is based on work by the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership that claims to demonstrate that the GCA’s author, Senator Thomas J. Dodd, (father of current Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut), requested the Legislative Research Service translate his personal copy of the Nazi-era National Weapons Law of Germany, (which he had obtained while serving as a war-crimes prosecutor at Nuremberg in the post war era), and to adapt its language to the American legal system. A side-by-side comparison of the two laws supports the existence of several similarities with the Nazi-era law, which was used to strip opposition groups, dissidents, Jews, and other undesirables from their ability to defend themselves or conduct an effective underground resistance movement within Nazi Germany.”

Those who fail to learn from and heed lessons of past injustices are doomed to repeat them.

Be vigilant, America.

Report this

By Jackie T. Gabel, October 8, 2006 at 8:32 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I attended Robert’s book-tour lecture in Portland 10/07/06. I was surprised to hear him lay a complete foundation for the manufactured hysteria of Islamo-fascist terror, even citing Gulf of Tonkin, but without taking the plunge.  I asked him when, if ever, he thought he and his colleagues in the progressive media, many published at http://www.truthdig.com, would take up 911Truth as an issue in stopping this renegade regime?

Robert answered me politely, more or less as written above, though a bit defensive, criticizing me for tearing down his and his colleagues’ good work, presumably just because they don’t agree with me.  To be clear, you’re all doing admirable work, but time is running out.  There’s no point even discussing 9/11 as an inside job. Simply put, the (documented) patsies could not possibly have executed it. What is at issue for everyone with any public life is its volatility. I’m only a little-known regional artist with much less at risk than any of you and it’s clear 911Truth is both the journalistic and political 3rd rail. But, that’s exactly why it must be pursued. 

It’s obvious.  All other issues (WMD lies, hyper-mega war profiteering, domestic spying, torture, etc., etc.) fail to impede in any way these madmen set upon WWIII. Time is running out. They must be stripped of their ability to wage war and their access to the intelligence networks of patsies, moles and professional executioners - the operatives required to execute massive 9/11-scale false flag, black-ops/psy-ops attacks of terror that intimidate, manipulate and shock into witless submission virtually everyone—what’s very likely planned as the pretext to invade Iran.

911Truth is the only thing even marginally capable of cracking their 30% die hard support—what must be done to bring them down. They must be stopped and it is the treason at the heart of 911Truth that can do it. 911Truth is the only stake that can pierce the heart of this vampire regime.

Robert Sheer, Amy Goodman, Gore Vidal, Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, Molly Ivans and all other progressive voices in the milieu of professional journalism and opinion, please join us in this mission. Please support 911Truth. The fate of the world is at stake!

Report this

By deborah conner, October 7, 2006 at 10:20 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Exactly, Edward. Thank you. Liberals and Progressives do things by Law. Research. Reason.

As they face being called to accountability, there’s nothing the Right would like better than a chance to call for martial law. Comments like #27535 by winterfire6’s “Liberals and progressives, learn how to shoot, now!” smack of troll.

Report this

By Edward, October 7, 2006 at 3:34 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Lets work to get the problem fixed before there is any potential for civil war.. The most important thing for everyone to do it spread the necessary information before the upcoming election.  There are people running who will put a stop to the insanity, namely Bob Bowman of Florida..

Please check out the audio and video clips on this page about the questions of government involvement in the 9/11 attacks..

http://www.newsofinterest.tv/911.html

Please send the link around, there is a lot of good information here.

Report this

By winterfire6, October 7, 2006 at 8:29 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

In case anyone hasn’t noticed, the civil war we need to be concrened about is the Cold Civil War right here, in the USA.

This is exactly how the last one began.

It is only a matter of when, not if, it gets hot.

Liberals and progressives, learn how to shoot, now!

Report this

By Bruce, October 6, 2006 at 12:01 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Congratualtions on the many of you waking up to the horrors of what is going on.  Keep up the research everyone and maybe one day you may wake up and still have a constitution.

keep up the fight

Report this

By need2know, October 6, 2006 at 10:00 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Comment #27358 by Maani on 10/06 at 9:16 am:

I was confused as well concerning that Carlyle Group meeting. Yesterday I went back and looked it up.
It was on September 10th. The Bushes spent the night at the WH and then left for the airport early on the morning of 9/11 to catch a flight to Minnesota for some kind of speaking engagement.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&day;_of_9/11=bush

Report this

By Ranselar VanDerpoel, October 6, 2006 at 9:28 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Wow! There is someone out there that has read Aristotle. People are starting to wake up finally. Why do so many give the “little monkey” so much credit? He is just a Greedy little 4 year old playing “king of the hill”. These people you refer to as the government are only a CIA soap opera for your intertainment! In the past 60 years the NAZI group brought here to accomplish the goal they couldn’t reach back in the forties, have done a great job. If you hadn’t been so busy enjoying life, you wouldn’t have given up your constitutional government to them. You allowed them to instill fear in you so deeply, plus get you to believe anything the government told you that you would rather believe their lies than the truth. I have watched each time the CIA was threatened with downsizing, there was another insident. Each one was more horrific than the one before; the guy on the train in NYC,towers#1,Oklahoma City, each time the american memory forgot it, this time they try to keep it in front of you to save over playing their hand. They keep warning you if you forget , become a threat,they will cause a pandemic & bushie said they do have ebola, and he has said if he has it he intends to use it. So folks I’ll probably get to see you in the detention center! Just remember the “conspiracy theroists” in Boston in the 1700’s.

Report this

By Maani, October 6, 2006 at 9:16 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

need2know:

Your post should be required reading.  It is the most geniune, honest and heartfelt thing I have read thus far.  Bravo.

DawnS:

You suggest that “Poppy Bush” was in the WH on 9/11.  As we learned from Michael Moore’s film, on the morning of 9/11, George Sr. was (quite coincidentally, of course…LOL) in DC attending the annual meeting of The Carlyle Group - which just happened to include some of Osama’s family members.  As well, as Moore points out, TCG realized a one-day profit of over $237 million when it took United Defense public only 30 days after 9/11: talk about war profiteering!

Still, I suppose it is possible that Bush Pere went from the meeting to the WH.  It just isn’t something I’ve heard rumored before.

Barbara O’Brien:

I, too, am sorry that you had to see that.  But like magicians who use misdirection to make you see what they want you to see, your eyes were deceiving you - for two reasons.

First, even if the exterior skeletal structure was meant to “peel away,” this does not explain the central interior core structure, which was made up of 47 double-thick steel beams.  Thus, had the building “pancaked” as alleged, this 47-column structure would have been left standing - unless it had been “compromised” first, such as with explosives.  As an aside, there are as many NYC firemen (and other first responders) who heard “multiple explosions” prior to and during the collapses as there are those who claim otherwise.  Indeed, many NYC cops, fireman and other first responders are seething internally over what they KNOW (but we only surmise), but are unable to speak about for fear of losing their jobs: over half a dozen firefighters told me there is a standing “gag order” from the FDNY Commissioner not to discuss anything about 9/11.

Second, your explanation STILL ignores the laws of physics.  Setting aside the 47-column interior core structure, even if “gravity” brought down the twin towers, there would STILL have been a kind of “stutter” effect as it fell, increasing the time of the collapse.  However, the towers collapsed at exactly one second over “free fall” speed.  As well, a collapse due to gravity would NOT have pulverized 95% of the concrete BEFORE IT HIT THE GROUND.  There is simply not enough force, even gravitational, to have pulverized ALL of the concrete.

Yet even if we set aside the laws of physics and the 47-column interior structure of the twin towers, how do you explain WTC 7?  It was not hit by an airplane, suffered only minor damage from external debris, and had only two or three relatively small fires in various places.  Yet, again, a 47-story steel-and concrete building collapsed in a “perfect” manner, falling into its footprint at free fall speed.

With all due respect, your eyes deceived you and your explanation fails.

Peace.

Report this

By Dawn S, October 5, 2006 at 11:39 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

To: Barbara O-
  If it does not disturb you too much, I would ask you to watch the following video in order to see why some 9/11 families and many objective viewers have serious questions about what really happened on September 11, 2001.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&q=911+mysteries

The video contains many scenes of the WTC buildings collapsing and people waving and phoning for help before the buildings fell.  These scenes are upsetting for me, so I can only imagine how it must affect people who lost friends and family on 9/11.
However, in my opinion, an objective investigation by impartial observers is necessary to bring justice and some closure to this catastrophic national event.

Report this

By Mac McKinney, October 5, 2006 at 9:19 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I have been asleep for five years regarding 9/11. But in the last few months I have been waking up, and now after watching 911 Mysteries, Part 1: Demolitions (911mysteries.com), I am fully awake and fully enraged.

What a terrific documentary this is, explaining a terrible event! The production values are 10 out of a max 10. It removed any and all lingering doubts in my mind that 911 was an inside job. Everything you may have suspected was happening was happening! How many of you know that Bush’s younger brother, Marvin, was in charge of twin towers security, and that another Bush relative, last name Walker, was CEO of the same security company? Whenever you see the name Walker pop up in American history, expect to see an ill episode! And guess what Bush’s middle name is?

How many of you know that the twin towers were on a power down the weekend before 911, meaning all power turned off? Thus, no security cameras, no computers, no electronically locked doors, nada, while strange workman were seen laying new “cables”, cables for what? That’s not hard to figure out.

Then there are the security, bomb-sniffing dogs being banned five days before 911, and strange goings on, strange noises and strange vibrations throughout the twin towers for six weeks prior to 911. During the attacks themselves, countless firemen and civilians heard explosions going off throughout the building, including the basement,especially the basement, and, as the towers fell, whitish horizontal squibs, obvious evidence of demolition charges cutting through supports, can be seen directly jetting out from the towers, always below the rappidly falling buildings in the video footage. There is a mountain of further evidence here.

We have been had, big time America! There’s no liberal versus conservative here, only truth and justice seekers versus those still with blinders over their eyes, or those who were part of the crime of the century. Time to dig even deeper, TruthDig, so we can start making arrests and pressing charges against these mass murderers.

Report this

By winterfire6, October 5, 2006 at 9:17 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

There is plenty wrong with the official story about 9/11.

Until those questions are answered there will be people who suspect that 9/11 was anything from an act of criminal negligence, to complicity, to an inside job.

What is stunningly clear by now, is that they knew something was coming, in the U.S. and that it probably would involve hijacked airplanes. They cannot name a single thing they did to stop such an attack. We have known how to prevent hijackings for years.

Rice was certainly concerned about Mubarak’s warning that Al Qaeda might try to fly a plane into the G-8 summit in Genoa, in early summer, 2001. She was so concerned about that, that Bush slept off-shore on a U.S. naval vessel. But she said she could not have imagined anyone using planes as missiles. Say what?

What is also stunningly clear by now is that a number of U.S. officials, predominantly from the Pentagon and the White House lied to the 9/11 Commission repeatedly.

It is high time for a truly independent commission, even if we have to go outside the country to find people who are not sick in the head with partisanism to sit on it.

On 9/11/01 a truly evil cycle was set in motion. That cycle can only truly end where it began, in lower Manhattan.

Report this

By Craig R. Lane, October 5, 2006 at 3:49 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Thank you Barbara for being brave enough to be insulted for your two cents worth, it is a dangerous thing to have a differing opinion about anything these days. I am not going to insult you, I am sorry that you had to see such a horrible sight up close. I beg you to please look into what people are trying to say here. Read Stephen Jones report, read any and all of the written material, from anywhere. From what I have read, yes, a pancake collapse of the OUTER RING of the WTC was plausible. But no such collapse should have occurred in the CORE structure of both towers. The core, as I understand it, should still be standing, damaged toward the top ends.

Report this

By Barbara O'Brien, October 5, 2006 at 7:25 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) as espoused by Popular Mechanics and the NPR program has been refuted.  The Popular Mechanics explanation is that the floors may have given way, due to uneven stresses placed on them by fire, and they may have “pancaked”.  The pancake theory is implausible because some of the upper floors would have remained intact once the falling ended.  Also, the time it took the towers to fall would have taken MUCH longer than the 10 seconds recorded by sound measuring devices.

I had a good, straight-on view of the tower collapses from a high-rise building on West 17th Street. It was obvious to me at the time that the towers collapsed from their own weight. When the support at the impact points finally gave way, and the upper floors of the buildings collapsed straight down on the floors below (gravity tends to do that), I could see clearly that each floor collapsed as the floor above it slammed into it. The handful of firefighters who survived in the stairwell have also said they could hear the pancaking as the floors slammed down.

You write, “some of the upper floors would have remained intact once the falling ended.”

Why would that be true? These were massive buildings. No building collapse on this scale has ever happened before, in the history of mankind. The energy generated by weight and gravity was huge—off the scale compared to what happens in a standard building collapse. And gravity pulled the towers—a massive amount of weight—straight down. I cannot imagine how anything could have been left intact.

Plus, the towers had a unique and deliberately light structural framework, because (I have read) the steel skyscraper framework standard for the time would have been too heavy to stand by itself, never mind support walls and floors.

The OCT actually makes perfect sense, based on what I saw. I know I’m going to be insulted for writing this, but it seems to me that people who claim the towers couldn’t have pancaked are not taking the scale of size and weight of the WTC towers into consideration. They are imagining a standard building collapse, which this was not.

Report this

By Rubber Man, October 4, 2006 at 11:47 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

What’s this article got to do with 9/11 narrative?  Nothing except to smear 2 american puppet countries.  So much Islamophobia talk, even from the supposed left.  Why was Al-Qaeda populated with Saudis?  Maybe because, first of all, America persuaded its puppet king in Saudi Arabia to tell all its Imans to wage jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan, thereby having that flood of Saudis go fight there.  And after the withdrawl of the Soviets, what did the US do?  Abandon the country.  In a situation like that, what do we expect Afghanistan’s neighboring country to do?  Let it go into anarchy and threaten its own stability?  Or act on its own self interest and support the group that has the most commonality ethnicity-wise with their own country.

The US abandoned Afghanistan and in that time period when Al-Qaeda was brewing, went on to either topple governments or push their puppet into massacres in places like Indonesia, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Somalia,  Haiti, Panama, etc.

Report this

By DawnS, October 4, 2006 at 7:24 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

MadAsHell wrote:  You STILL haven’t answered the fundamental question: Why would the WH TOTALLY abandon all anti-terror efforts if they were behind 9/11?

Reply:  The WH/PNAC cabal need the hijackers as patsies for their New Pearl Harbor Plan.  The planes attacking the WTC towers covered over the actual demolition charges that would eventually bring the towers down with thier steel cores melted and concrete pulverized to ash.  On 9/11, the WH cabal sent George to Florida and left Cheney in charge in the WH.  Cheney, remember, had to give the order to shoot down Flight 93.  As I remember, Poppy Bush was also in the WH on 9/11.  George did appear to be out of the loop.

The WH couldn’t let the concerns of Paul O’Neal, Sibel Edmonds, the Presidents Daily Briefing or George Tenet with his “hair on fire“, stop their plan to bring “shock and awe” to the US people, in order to further their PNAC goals of expanding US empire.

The Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) as espoused by Popular Mechanics and the NPR program has been refuted.  The Popular Mechanics explanation is that the floors may have given way, due to uneven stresses placed on them by fire, and they may have “pancaked”.  The pancake theory is implausible because some of the upper floors would have remained intact once the falling ended.  Also, the time it took the towers to fall would have taken MUCH longer than the 10 seconds recorded by sound measuring devices.  Each floor would have taken time and energy to disintegrate and give way.  The concrete floors were crushed to fine bits and each under floor would have slowed the time it took the above floor to reach the ground—up to several days by one calculation.  Pancaking floors also do not explain what happened to the central steel core.  Jet fuel (kerosene) does not burn hot enough to melt the steel cores, regardless of what Popular Mechanics reports.  There were reports of molten steel for weeks after the eleventh.  Professor Steven Jones of BYU, examined pieces of the wreckage and believes that Thermite was used to melt the steel beams.  The clean diagonal cuts on some of the lower steel beams indicate that a extraordinarily well planned demolition occurred at ground zero. 

To me there are an amazing number of incredible coincidences that OCT supporters just blow off.  Like: Why was the public not informed that George Bush’s brother Marvin was Head of the Company that provided security at the World Trade Center?  The public is also not aware that Bush’s Uncle was CEO of the same Security Company.  Why did Larry Silverstein buy the dilapidated and poorly occupied WTC just 6 months before 9/11 and then 6 months or so after 9/11 get paid double indemnity of 5 billion dollars by his insurance company?  What an excellent turn around on his investment.

Finally, being interested in debunking the Official Conspiracy Theory does not preclude my being active in politics in my county.  I worked for Presidential candidates in 2004, and am presently working to get a Democrat elected here in my district.  Understanding that the 9/11 attacks were either orchestrated by or invited by parties connected with the current WH occupants only makes me work harder to remove the hegemony Republicans have in our government.  Knowing what the opposition is capable of seems prudent to me.

Report this

By need2know, October 4, 2006 at 4:17 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I can see where it would be difficult to look at and accept the possibility that your government and elected leaders that you want to be able to trust and believe in may have betrayed that trust in the most heinous of ways possible. I don’t want to believe it. I hate feeling like I do right now. It is almost too awful to wrap your mind around. It would be so much easier to just accept what we have been told and move on with your life.

But, it doesn’t work out that way. There are too many questions. I have been trying very hard to learn more and find answers for the last month. I am in a continued state of shock and outrage with each new piece of information that I learn. There are just too many weird coincidences, anomalies, contradictions and outright lies to make this something a person can just dismiss.

A good place to start is:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003
Then read:
“The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions” by David Ray Griffin.
Wow..

I think for me, it was the collapse of WTC 7 and the fact there was absolutely no air support anywhere that morning. It is ridiculous to be expected to just accept the “official” story on it’s face. It doesn’t make me crazy, it just means I recognize the words don’t match up with the picture and the facts. You can’t just suspend the laws of physics. WTC 7 wasn’t hit by a plane, had some fire on only two floors, and yet it suddenly fell in a freefall into its own footprint, pulverized to dust. The 9/11 Commission didn’t even address WTC 7 because they didn’t have an explanation. Though, they also didn’t try to investigate it either.

It starts there. Once you realize that no time in ALL of history no steel frame building has ever collapsed due to fire. This was a 47 story skyscraper. It simply defies logic. From there, I had to look at the other two Towers because they were the only other two buildings to collapse in the same way. And then when you realize that the same person owned all three buildings, and then more facts, and more facts, ... well, that is where I started.

You really have to look at the rest of ALL the mountain of questions. It is what it is. It is about questions that need to be adressed and answered. If that means an investigation, then so be it. Why is that threatening if it clears up confusion? If there was no crime or culpability, then you would think these people would welcome the truth coming out or being cleared up. How could that possiblity threaten national security?

Then instead of having hundreds of thousands of people doubting what happened, you would have the support of everyone once the confusions were cleared up. There are plenty of things they can share with Americans to clear things up, starting with all the surveillance videos (unaltered) from the Pentagon.

It is only threatening if you don’t want any of this to come out and investigated because it would probably expose things that would rock this country to it’s core.

I still believe with all my soul that we have to know the truth. It is about preserving the integrity of this country and protecting what it stands for and what it was founded on. Everything that has happened since 9/11 is based on the catalystic events of that day. A lot of people have died because of 9/11 and the wars that were started because of what happened. We have lost almost 3,000 soldeirs, over 20,000 injured and maimed, and there are over 100,000 Iraqis killed. People will continue to die in larger and larger numbers, especially if we go into Iran next.

Our treasury is being drained of our tax dollars while our National Debt is inching up to 8.5 Trillion dollars. Our laws are being ignored, our government is illegally spying on its citizens, our constitution is in danger of becoming irrelevent or dismantled, we are ignoring International laws, and we now torture. This President is basically running the country unchecked. That is dangerous.

This war is now costing over $400 Billion dollars and it doesn’t stop there. Most of that money is going to war contracts with giant corporations with NO oversight or accountability. All of this has created major instability in the region and around the globe.

Don’t you think it is important enough to find out if what we were told about what happened was the truth? Or perhaps maybe it was all the manipulation based on lies of all time? It isn’t like this Administration has proved itself to be above lying, misrepresenting, and manipulating things to put forth their own agenda..

Well…, I think its important.

Report this

By Dan Noel, October 4, 2006 at 2:29 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Re: Comment #26861 by RC on 10/03, it gets even better!

For those eager to find the truth about 9/11 conspiracies, don’t bother with Popular Mechanics’ web. Instead, buy the book they recently published on 9/11 conspiracies. It provides extensive references to alternative explanations and spends much energy to refute all of them.

Now, before you get excited, be aware that anybody with a high school understanding of physics can see right through PM’s very summary and largely unsatisfactory explanations.

Paradoxically, a thorough review of PM’s book will make any intelligent and discerning reader equate the official 9/11 version with myths such as “abortion is murder,” “one chooses his/her sexual orientation,” “God created the universe 4,000 years ago.”

But, thinking of it, aren’t the same outfits working on making us swallow all these myths? Maybe it’s not a coincidence!

By the way, let’s be thankful to the federal government for their complicity in 9/11. It is very reassuring to know that Al-Qaeda either does not hate Western civilization or do not have the capability to harm it to the point that we have been made to believe. It is certainly a lot easier to tame the U.S. government than the monstruous organization we have been asked to imagine.

Report this

By david morrison, October 4, 2006 at 1:38 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

within the criticism of the 911 truth movement is a very revealing revulsion for anyone who can be pigeonholed as a conspiracy theorist.  if you take away the term conspiracy theorist and look at the 911 truth movement simply as a group of people who have done a lot of research and have come to the conclusion that the official story doesn’t add up then we are left with a crime that was committed and has not (latest msnbc poll 56% of americans believe government complicity in 911) been solved according to the majority of americans.  but let’s not be fooled by the tyranny of the majority.  when was the majority ever right?  it didn’t do much to elect a president in 2000 or 2004 but why quibble with numbers.  in the face of the virtual media blackout on the 911 truth movement there is a lot to be said for 56% of public opinion.  those of you that cling to the myth that we were attacked by terrorists outside the “govt.” are heavily invested in believing that we were being paid back for our international sins.  that would of course be understandable if there wasn’t so much evidence pointing to an inside job.  as morgan reynolds says, “if this ever made it to court the evidence would be overwhelming and people would go to jail.”  those who can’t see that are blinded by their “liberal” personality disorder.  Like Alexander Cockburn of the Nation in his latest rant against the 911 “conspiracy nuts”.  It is the word conspiracy that causes his self aggrandized feathers to flutter and spew forth a lot of literary airbrushing without countering a single piece of evidence with a worthwhile argument.  you folks just have derisive things to say about 911 truth and are willing to suspend the laws of physics to hold our foreign policy accountable instead of elements within the government.  blinded by your own egos and opinion and lacking in fact.  the fact is that no one has really stepped up to debate a 911 truth activist and i dare say no one will.

Report this

By Mad as Hell, October 4, 2006 at 12:43 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“THE most important historical event to happen, (thus far), within my lifetime at least. “

Only if we allow it to successfully be used to turn our beloved nation into a fascist empire.

Otherwise, I can think of LOTS of events that are more significant—just in the last few years.

In no special order, here’s a baker’s dozen:

1) The Tsunami
2) Katrina
3) The Fall of the Soviet Empire (maybe the biggest).
4) Richard Nixon resigning when he realized that at least 67 senators would vote for impeachment.
5) The Viet Nam War (for its effect on the US)
6) Chernobyl
7) Bhopal
8) The Reunification of Germany.
9) The conversion of Marxist China to a capitalist state.
10) Technology including: Practical home video recording, PCs, The Internet, Cell Phones.
11) Ronald Reagan’s tax breaks for companies moving their manufacturing operations overseas (and killing American manufacturing).
12) The Beatles and Bob Dylan.  Love them or hate them their influence is beyond imagination.
13) All the assassinations of the 60’s.

If we can save the Republic, then 9/11 will just be one of these.  If Mad King George becomes President-for-Life, then it will be the match that started a much, MUCH bigger fire.

Report this

By Craig R. Lane, October 4, 2006 at 10:49 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

To Jerry “26995”. I am so sorry that you are so easily offended by us reasonably intelligent folk, and our unwillingness to accept what we are told en masse, unlike yourself. However, let me assure you that most of us flock to NOTHING, whether it be “crack-pot” theories, or worthless opinions. What most of us ARE looking for are answers where we have been given lies or seemingly implausible or improbable answers to questions that relate to the events surrounding 9/11.  THE most important historical event to happen, (thus far), within my lifetime at least. To say that you are offended by conspiracy theories is ridiculous, and I am offended by your ridiculous statement. Go read Harper’s or Reader’s Digest. That should keep you safe from offensive material.

Report this

By Jerry, October 4, 2006 at 9:28 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It continues to amaze me that otherwise intelligent Americans would flock en masse to a variety of crack-pot theories which blame secret government operatives or the Bush family for the horror of 9/11, than to entertain the idea that the reason for the attacks stems from a U.S. foreign policy which favors royality and oil profits and the interests of Israel over basic human rights and human dignity.
It is myopia? Denial? Stupidity?
As a reasonably intelligent American, I am offended by such conspiracies.  The answer lies in front of us and yet we don’t look for it.  Apparently, current US-Israel policy in the middle east is too sacred to question.  Better to spend our time spinning tales of “Men in Black” or “Controlled implosion”. 
Get a Clue!

Report this

By Mad As Hell, October 3, 2006 at 7:40 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The old “look really, REALLY stupid and incompetent to throw them off the track” plan.

Give me a friggin’ break! Deniability wouldn’t come in the form of looking like a stunned deer in the headlights.

Rumsfeld didn’t have a clue.  Cheney didn’t have a clue, and John Ashcroft sure as HELL didn’t have a clue!

You STILL haven’t answered the fundamental question: Why would the WH TOTALLY abandon all anti-terror efforts if they were behind 9/11?

You are all SO wrapped up in conspiracy theory that you cannot see the forest for the trees.

Looking surprised is one thing—looking TOTALLY incompetent and, more importantly, unable to react is another.

Just so you know: Pearl Harbor WAS a surprise, because the attack was expected to be on the Dutch Asian territories, or the Philippines.  Pearl Harbor was seen as a low-probability target—but a target.  The incompetence showed up when the Japanese were delayed 12 hours in their attack on the Philippines—it was supposed to be simultaneous with Pearl.  When they got there—12 hours later, they found the airplanes neatly stacked on the field and FLATTENED it!

Think about how YOU would set up an attack to be used as a pretext.  You’d want to be in a position where you had been fighting to protect against XYZ, and other forces in the government had prevented you from fighting it adequately.  Then, when disaster strikes, it’s “We told you so: Now give us what we want.”  It’s a simple clean EFFECTIVE scenario.

You wouldn’t be saying “Nah, XYZ isn’t a threat. We’re not going to waste any time on it!”  There’s TOO much risk that the Congress will say “What the HELL is wrong with you? What kind of moron are you? We need to get your sorry ass out of the WH and put someone there with the brains to NOW fight this thing.”  Bush was damn lucky they DIDN’T say that!

As I said: the conspiracy theory involving the WH doesn’t make sense.  Opportunism does.

Report this

By Paul Captain, October 3, 2006 at 6:56 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Richard,

Why aren’t you screaming from the rooftops about the facts we_DO_know?

Please dust off your middle-school level science notes and try and explain how for the first time in the history of mankind that not just one but three steel framed high-rise buildings magically fell down right into their own footprints at near free-fall speed as a result of a fire. Perhaps you could enroll Galileo’s Equivalence Theorem or Newton’s Second Law of Motion to inform you about free falling objects. Perhaps you could even find the courage to look at other laws of Physics, such as the Laws of Conservation of Energy and The Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum.

Richard, where precisely did the energy come from to melt the steel? Where did the energy come from to pulverize cement to dust? How do you explain molten iron found at the foot of the elevator shafts 6 weeks after the terrible events of 9/11? What was responsible for the 45 degree cuts of the core columns found in the basements at the WTC and what on earth was sulphur doing there?

If the official fable is correct, every high-rise building in the world should be evacuated immediately given that any short-duration low temperature fire could well pulverize everything in sight within 1 hour. Perhaps we should also do away with the domestic oven and kerosene heaters for fear their steel assembly will melt at any given moment.

Why not take the time to look at the peer-reviewed technical papers found at:

http://journalof911studies.com/ or even view the video at:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&q=911+mysteries

and maybe even the calculations at:

http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/how-hot.htm


Are your eyes those special “Lying Eyes” that didn’t see the demolition rings and march of demolition charges and squibs up the face of WTC7 just prior to its collapse? Where did the pyroclastic flows come from? Perhaps your ears cannot hear the voices of the hundreds of eye-witness accounts talking of explosions. Perhaps you’ve not listened to William Rodriguez or looked at the seismic data. Is it so difficult to comprehend that false-flag operations occur? Have you not seen the declassified documents relating to numerous such events?

It is obvious to any thinking individual who has objectively looked at the evidence, that the best hypothesis that fits the data is DEMOLITION, using a combination of incendiaries (e.g., thermate) and explosives. It is a physical impossibility that these buildings came down in the manner they did, as a result of fire and I suggest that the laws of physics remained intact on that day.

Report this

By John Doraemi, October 3, 2006 at 6:28 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

SHEER:

When are you going to acknowledge that the head of Pakistani Intelligence was caught red handed funding the 9-11 “hijackers”, by ordering a $100,000 wire transfer to Mohamed Atta?

I mean honestly, how much can you say about 9-11 while sticking your head in the sand and ignoring WHO FINANCED IT?

Crimes of the State

Report this

By Broiler, October 3, 2006 at 3:31 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side: Aristotle”

Thanks for adding that Frank G!

I have stated time and again (it can’t be proven)
that Bush is an atheist playing at religion. He’s
using the faith card to control a large voting block
that is unaware of his true intentions. His father
started the movement toward a New World Order
(see NAFTA) and he is continuing the work.

These are the Illuminati at work. Religion is used
to control the masses. Their belief is that only
they know what is best for mankind. This is not
isolated to the Unitied States, this ruling class
is out to control the world. They are both parties,
two ends playing the middle.

Report this

By RC, October 3, 2006 at 2:18 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Yesterday I posted about the Popular Mechanics article but failed to post the link. Sorry.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4

For those who thing there should have been more parts to the aircraft hitting the buildings, watch this video of a Japanese test of a F$ Phantom hitting a concrete wall at 500 mph. That’s why many aircraft crashes only leave craters in the ground. The planes that hit the twins towers and the Pentagon were traveling faster.

http://www.break.com/index/concreteplane.html

American Eagle Flight 4184 hit the ground in Northern Indiana on October 31, 1994.

Before: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Aer.arann.atr72.ei-red.arp.jpg

After: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Eagle_4184_crashsite.jpg


I’m sure the mayor of that town asked, “Where is the plane?”

Report this

By Dawn S, October 3, 2006 at 12:40 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

MadAsHell wrote:
“So, I am still totally unconvinced that there is ANY substance to charges that Mad King George and his bad of Merrie Fascists, or their surrogates, could have been behind 9/11.”

Reply:
There was already a plan outlined in Zbignew Brezinski’s book:  “The Grand Chessboard”.  A conservative think tank “The Project for the New American Century” (PNAC)grew up around Brezinski’s plan.  His plan involved manipulating American politics so the PNAC objectives could be executed.  The PNAC plan involved creating a “new Pearl Harbor” that would arouse the American public to go along with
PNAC’s military objectives:
  1.  Control of strategic energy reserves.
  2.  Invasion of Iraq
  3.  Control of Eurasia
  4.  Control of strategic Caspean Sea Basin
  5.  Vast increase in American Military
    spending.
  6.  Create a “New Pearl Harbor” event that
    would act as a catalyst to get the
    American public to go along with PNAC’s
    military inititives.


I do not know whether Mad Puppet George W had any clue that the 9/11 attacks were being orchestrated by PNAC members of his administration or not.  He may have known the “New Pearl Harbor” plan was going to be implemented, but was flown to a Florida grade school to have “plausible deniability” of the PNACers plan.  PNAC members in the GW Bush Cabal include: Richard Cheyney, William Bennet,
Scooter Libby, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld,  John Bolton, Richard Pearl and others. 

Are you familiar with the Project for the New American Century and the Conservative Think tank that worked to get it enacted?  75&#xof; the initiative in the PNAC plan have been enacted so far.  The attack on Iraq was one of the first initiatives put in place after their 9/11 “Pearl Harbor”.

Please do your homework or at least watch this film
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483 512003&q=9/11+mysteries before entirely dismissing the Power of PNACers in the Bush Administration.

Report this

Page 5 of 7 pages « First  <  3 4 5 6 7 >

 

AP

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

 
 
 

Advertisement

Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 


A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Zuade Kaufman, Publisher   Robert Scheer, Editor-in-Chief
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook