Experts Claim Official 9-11 Story is a Hoax ! FINALLY!

Amigo, I'm sure that you saw that laughable film they released. What a bunch of idiots. They've had almost five years to doctor that flash to make it look like a plane but the bozos released the same old crap!

Unreal! I guess they think everyone in the country is as dumb as Chicken george.

Apparently,we arent as dumb as you.

WE didnt believe that Rove would be indicted.
You did.

Guess you are dumber then we already thought you are.

Yes, I saw it.

"Without the complicity of the mainstream media, the 9/11 cover-up could not exist. Those who control the mainstream media control the brainstem of our collective consciousness. When those charged with being the skeptical inquirers are neither skeptical nor do they inquire, the only phrase for it is deep complicity. When investigative journalists fail to investigate the obvious, it is deep complicity. When investigative journalists only investigate that which distracts the public from the obvious, it is even deeper complicity."
-- Barrie Zwicker


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt. ... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies -- all this is indispensably necessary."
- George Orwell, on "Doublethink" from his book of faction, "1984"

http://www.loosechange911.com/

Interesting article but do they have the right thugs. At the very least Chicken george & his thugs allowed 9-11 to happen. At the worst & most likely, Cheney, Rummy & PNAC gang revised Operation Northwoods and carried it out with junior's blessing. I would never give Junior credit with revising or doing anything that required brains!



- - CIA Hid Key Info on 9/11 Thugs
by Derek Rose
New York Daily News
July 3rd, 2006

Perhaps another piece of the puzzle for those still
wondering why CIA chief George Tenent received Bush's profuse thanks and the Medal of Freedom instead of 30 to life in Leavenworth. - Ed.

The feds bungled a key opportunity to possibly nix the
9/11 terror plot, it was reported yesterday.

An Arabic-speaking FBI agent had requested information
about a Jan. 5, 2000, Al Qaeda meeting in Malaysia, but the CIA never turned it over, The New Yorker reported.

The ambitious FBI detective, Ali Soufan, was so upset
when he eventually got the information - after 9/11 - that he vomited.

Soufan, who had been investigating the 2000 attack on
the U.S. Navy destroyerCole that killed 17 sailors, realized the two plots
were linked.

"And if the CIA had not withheld information from him
he likely would have drawn the connection months before Sept. 11," The New Yorker reported. The intelligence Soufan had sought showed that a
one-legged jihadi named Khallad -a key Al Qaeda lieutenant linked to the Cole bombing - had attended the Malaysia meeting where the Sept. 11 plot was hatched.

Source:
www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060703165608141

The Next Stage of the 9/11 Truth Movement http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2006/110706Movement.htm

Carol Brouillet / Global Outlook | July 11 2006

To win this struggle to reveal the truth we need to know where we are in terms of the 8 Stages of the evolution of our movement so we can plan and carry out more effective social action.
In January 2002, when we first marched to demand a Congressional Investigation of 9-11, we passed out worksheets, which mapped out the Eight Stages of Social Movements (chart is on page 130 of Global Outlook) , and the Effective and Ineffective Roles that activists play (page 132), pointing out that we were at Stage One- Alerting the public that a Critical Social Problem Exists.

Bill Moyer, author of Doing Democracy The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements, a strategist for Martin Luther King, Jr. who had been organizing and empowering activists for forty years, was with us. He taught that all social movements have been about the struggle between power-holders and the rest of us, that societal myths allow power-holders to maintain their position, and that exposing their secret violation of those myths, ideals, values is a catalyst for social change.

All social change, from the abolition of slavery, the right to vote for African Americans and women, the growing environmental movement has helped empower people and pulled other movements forward. When movements succeed, however, there is backlash, power-holders try to undermine social gains. This phenomena is at the core of 9/11, an act of fear perpetrated by a criminal elite who feared losing power. Terrorism and war are classic methods to expand state power. 9/11 was used to roll back civil liberties globally, justify the construction of a police state to protect the few against the majority who oppose government and corporate policies, and to frighten the world into silence and submission. As Aung Sung Suu Kyi wrote:


"It is not power that corrupts, but fear -- fear of losing power and fear of the scourge of those who wield it."
The biggest societal myth of all is that power-holders are all powerful, wise, and the rest of us- stupid, powerless, atomized, weak, vulnerable, unable to change our situation. In a climate of fear, power-holders prevail. When the supporting myths are shattered, and people find the courage to oppose and expose tyranny, tyrants fall, institutions fail, policies can change to allow genuine self-governance.

The last four and a half years the media and government have relentlessly threatened the American people and the world with pending terrorist attacks, and unending war.

The attempts of the Bush Administration to crush any genuine investigation, the dubious joint Senate House Intelligence Oversight Committee's Official Inquiry into "the failure of the intelligence agencies to prevent the attacks, the eventual announcement of the creation of a 'Cover-up Commission' to be run by Henry Kissinger (which was like waving a red flag and saying "We did it!") gave the critics of the official story credibility.


Stage Two - Prove Failure of Official Institutions

There was a piece on NPR two weeks ago about the "conspiracy to cover up" the fact that 9/11 was a govt black ops. It was done in a fashion that discussed the mindsets of the people who bought into it. They are being fed by "authorities and experts" in fields that are almost relevant , published by individuals who sincerely belive their own crap and who have no evidence other than discrediting the official evidence.

Ive said already (and numerous times) that we know that the Sewismic data was "doctored" by the 9/11 conspiracy types . Thats good enough for me, when one piece of critical evidence is "FAKED" then I dont believe any of it.

I wish I could just shut this thread off my queu so it doesnt keep popping up. Im sure not in a summery mood to buy the babbling s of the wingnuts like Magginkat and her band of sycophants.

Mkat

Which goes to my point. They dont have any reason to "doctor" up any piece of evidence, they go with what they had. Only your side is interested in "faking it"

Fox News Spin Attack Ends With Red-Faced Anchors
9/11 truth scholar Fetzer anticipated slant of Hannity and Colmes spot

Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | July 11 2006

Fox News' tactic of mapping out a spin and attack policy for guests whose stance they disagree with was spotlighted and deflated recently by 9/11 truth scholar Jim Fetzer - who left Alan Colmes and Oliver North red-faced after he exposed them and Fox producers for not having done their homework.

Fetzer called the appearance, "perhaps the most interesting four and a half minutes of my life."

Fetzer described how in a pre-interview a Fox producer has insistently asked him if he taught alternative theories behind 9/11 as a college course. Fetzer was keen to stress that he taught a course on critical thinking but not a course specific to 9/11.

From this exchange Fetzer began to understand the spin that Fox were preparing to put on the interview.

Fetzer was then told that Sean Hannity had been replaced by Colonel Oliver North for the show.

"Because I'm a former Marine Corps officer I thought this was probably a good thing - that the Colonel and I would have a very cordial Marine to Marine conversation," said Fetzer.

"When I said this to my wife she said 'don't kid yourself, they're going to be out to kill you'."

Fetzer was picked up by a Fox limo and only arrived at the studio after the program had started. He insisted that a TV be turned on in the make-up room to gage how they were going to pitch his interview.

"Five minutes before I go on I catch their drift which is they're going to talk about a professor who is using his classroom to teach conspiracy theories about 9/11 to our children."

"During that five minutes it occurred to me that I was going to be able to explode this one way or another - that I would talk about how they had 'Foxed their facts'," Fetzer told a packed house at the L.A. 9/11 Symposium.

"What they were doing was saying I was teaching our children - I was offering a course on 9/11 - and the way they were defining it in terms of children and kids - this had to be a freshman level or equivalent course."

Fetzer was able to prepare to bite back at the attack dogs by exposing the fact that Fox had not done its homework and were simply preparing to savage Fetzer on an aspect of the topic that they had completely dreamt up.

"They were attacking me for a non-existent course, said Fetzer."

"There was no course that satisfied the description they were trying to nail me for having taught."

Fetzer was able to embarrass Colmes and North who cut the interview short because their attack strategy had clearly been ripped out from underneath them.

"The first question out of Colmes mouth was 'is this a required course?' - and I had to explain to him that he had his facts Foxed," said Fetzer.

"The fact is they had defined the parameters - I knew they knew they had made a mistake but I wasn't there to argue their case."

North and Colmes quickly changed their tone after they realized the 'evil professor teaching our children horrible liberal lies' approach had failed.

"When they tried to put me on the spot after they realized they had committed a mistake - when they tried to put me on the spot about the society - I began to explain some of the findings - how the towers had come down by controlled demolition - how the FBI was asserting that they had no hard evidence tying Osama bin Laden to 9/11," said Fetzer.

After Colmes asked if there was any hard evidence tying any Bush administration members to 9/11, Fetzer related the story of Norman Mineta who testified that Cheney's orders were to do nothing as Flight 77 hurtled towards the Pentagon.

"This was when Ollie started getting a little nervous and he asks how many there are in your organization - when he heard there were 300 and 200 with research credentials - 85 actually having academic affiliations - it took so much wind out of their sails that they tried to cut it off as quickly as they could," said Fetzer.

Fetzer said it was interesting how the anchors were more concerned about whether he was teaching the information to his students than inquiring about the evidence behind 9/11 being an inside job.

The interview was quickly canned and - as with the much vaunted Pentagon tape that was heralded to 'shut up 9/11 conspiracy theorists for good' - an expected propaganda coup for Fox turned into a red-faced debacle and a moral victory for the 9/11 truth movement.

Watch Jim Fetzer discuss his Fox appearance and present a high-quality 78 minute illustrated discussion on the collapse of the twin towers and the Pentagon controversy at Prison Planet.tv. Click here to subscribe and enjoy a multitude of exclusive membership benefits.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2006/110706spinattack.htm

The fct thqt FOx doent use a fair and balanced approach isnt news. However, Fetzer's credibility isnt enhanced because he doesnt teach a course in his theory.

Im sure we can dig up 300 phDs who will tell us that the earth is flat .
The fact that the conspiracy theorists actually DOCTORED the seismic data is an item you all conveniently dismiss and keep salivating about how Bush is to blame.

As anybody who reads A2K, Im not a supporter of Bush. However, Im also not a supporter of bullshit and actual lying to the people. Look at Fetzers motives then we will talk.

Well, that H&C interview was 4 minutes longer than it deserved to be.

-----

Here is an .mp3 clip of Jim Fetzer on Alan Colmes' radio show, following his appearance on the H&C show. He is given additional rope to expound on his theories:

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Media/060627_Fetzer.mp3

I advise you to listen to the entire clip, if only for its entertainment value.

Apparently, Barbara Olsen is alive and well and being arrested in Europe, where she lives with her husband Ted. Who knew?

Also, it appears the Bali explosion, the Madrid bombings, and the subway attacks in London may also have been caused by Cheney, et al.

Let's see, that was before Cheney blew up the levees around New Orleans, right? Don't you wonder where he finds the time?

It is essential that the excellent definition of Conspiracy Theories replcated by Ticomaya be posted once more. It shows that the extremist left wingers are solidly indentified as kooks!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amigo wrote:
Tico, Acording to the list of features from wikapedia this 9/11 thing is not really a conspiracy theory.


Hmm. Are all of the 12 present? Perhaps not ... but the Wiki article said "exhibiting several of the following features ...."

Let's take a look, shall we:


1. Initiated on the basis of limited, partial or circumstantial evidence;

Yep. You guys are all about circumstantial evidence.

2. Addresses an event or process that has broad historical or emotional impact;

Yep.

3. Reduces morally complex social phenomena to simple, immoral actions;

Yep. (E.g., the government (FBI/CIA) didn't drop the ball on the 9/11 attacks ... the Bush Administration either: (a) knew it was coming and did nothing to stop it -- because it wanted to invade Iraq, either for the oil or to avenge something for Bush Sr. or because PNAC directed Bush to ... and, it wanted to make Halliburton rich ... and, it wanted to make certain favored Jews in the New York area rich, because they could collect on the insurance money on the WTC buildings, or (b) the Bush Administration itself colluded with an unknown huge number of persons in an elaborate scheme to detonate explosives in the buildings, and fly planes into those buildings, and fire a missile at the Pentagon, having somehow managed to recruit a number of al Qaeda operatives and convincing them to work for the interests of this secret Bush Administration/PNAC group -- and were either able to keep these "terrorists" from realizing they were doing the bidding of a secret faction of the US government, or the "terrorists" were okay with it because in any event they thought they were on a jihadist mission and were going to get 70 virgins or some such either way -- all for the same reasons articulated in "a" above, and has somehow managed to keep each of these huge number of persons from speaking to the press about their participation, or perhaps they've already killed each of them, we're not exactly sure about that one.)

4. Personifies complex social phenomena as powerful individual conspirators;

Oh, yeah. PNAC & the Jews ... right?

5. Allots superhuman talents or resources to conspirators;

Well, this would have to apply to pull off a conspiracy of this magnatude.

6. Key steps in argument rely on inductive, not deductive reasoning;

Yep. "Controlled demolition buildings fall straight down. The WTC buildings fell straight down. Therefore, the WTC buildings fell as a result of a controlled demolition."

7. Appeals to 'common sense';

Yep. This could also be known as the Charlie Sheen Argument: "Anyone that cannot view this as a controlled demolition, I would have to say that their chair was not facing the television. Anyone that can look at this and say 'yes, that is a random event caused by fire' really needs psychiatric evaluation."


8. Exhibits well-established logical and methodological fallacies;

Yep.

9. Is produced and circulated by 'outsiders', often anonymous, and generally lacking peer review;

Mostly true. But of course the "9/11 Scholars" are attempting to claim legitimacy.

10. Is upheld by persons with demonstrably false conceptions of relevant science;

Yes. That has been demonstrated time and again.

11. Enjoys zero credibility in expert communities;

No ... if you consider the "9/11 Scholars" part of the "expert community." This feature doesn't address "experts" who have deep roots in the "conspiracy theorists" community.

12. Rebuttals provided by experts are ignored or accommodated through elaborate new twists in the narrative;

Yes. This would include the response to the Popular Mechanics article debunking most of the 9/11 myths (e.g., the author is a "cousin" of Micheal Chertoff, and PM is a "Hearst" publication, and thus has known Zionist ties, etc.)[/quote]



By my count, somewhere in the range of 10 to 11½ of the 12 features are present.

Farmerman's excellent post also needs replicating:


quote
The point about the Sheffield was that it burned. The aluminum skin set up a tremendous oxidation reaction. Here we are being fed some crap about thermite (or a variant that contains ANFO) and we just latch onto that as "proof of a conspiracy"
All along weve had the materials balance and conditions for the combustion of . Unless magginkat conveniently misses the data, the buildings WTC1 and 2 , were burning continuouisly till they fell, and the collapses were both propogated at the points where the planes hit.(DID we instruct thepilots to steer to those points because we conveniently planted cutter charges and air knives at those points.
Also, I will keep dwelling on this point, THE CONSPIRACY THEORISTS LIED THROUGH ONE OF THEIR "EXPERTS" . the matter of the seismic record was all bullshit and actual doctoring of the traces. Where else are they lying.

Forensic evidence means that one looks at everything and then pares away that which is improbable. You conspiracists seem to be starting with a conclusion and are trying to substantiate it through bad evidence and dishonest reporting.

Wanna buy some swampland magginkat?

From the 911 truth movement article.
Stage 8- Continuation
.
Continuation, the cycle and stages repeat in the evolution of human society. A handful of 9-11 Truth Activists can help nudge the trajectory of history off the adolescent suicidal path that we have been on. To make the major paradigm shift from a "dominating paradigm of Fear and Violence" to a mature, responsible "emerging peaceful paradigm" demands the engagement and involvement of multitudes of people. Individually and collectively, we need to recognize that power resides in all of us.

A friend of mine, Norie Huddle, says "Together we can do what no one of us could do alone." and suggested rules for this emerging paradigm which she dubbed "The Best Game on Earth:


-Speak the truth.
-Acknowledge the truth when others speak it.
-Come from love and respect.
-Leave the trail better than you found it.
-Expect miracles.
-Do what gives you joy and create joy in what you do.
-Be generous with who you are and what you have.
-Be a good friend and teammate.
-Clean up your messes, learn the lessons and move on.
-If you have an idea for how to improve The Game, share it!

they were digging up white/yellow hot steel weeks or months after the collapse. Not enough energy in the collapse itself. Kerosene burns at lower temperature. How and why? Not a conspiracy theorist, just like an answer.

Steve, seems you aint alone in having questions and wanting answers. "» Zogby Poll Finds Over 70 Million Voting Age Americans Support ...... REVEALS OVER 70 MILLION VOTING AGE AMERICANS DISTRUST OFFICIAL 9/11 STORY AND ... and answer the hundreds of still unresolved questions concerning 9/11, ... "
http://www.rinf.com/columnists/news/zogby-poll-finds-over-70-million-voting-age-americans-support-new-911-investigation

The excellent definition of Conspiracy Theories replcated by Ticomaya be posted once more. It shows that the extremist left wingers are solidly indentified as kooks!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amigo wrote:
Tico, Acording to the list of features from wikapedia this 9/11 thing is not really a conspiracy theory.


Hmm. Are all of the 12 present? Perhaps not ... but the Wiki article said "exhibiting several of the following features ...."

Let's take a look, shall we:


1. Initiated on the basis of limited, partial or circumstantial evidence;

Yep. You guys are all about circumstantial evidence.

2. Addresses an event or process that has broad historical or emotional impact;

Yep.

3. Reduces morally complex social phenomena to simple, immoral actions;

Yep. (E.g., the government (FBI/CIA) didn't drop the ball on the 9/11 attacks ... the Bush Administration either: (a) knew it was coming and did nothing to stop it -- because it wanted to invade Iraq, either for the oil or to avenge something for Bush Sr. or because PNAC directed Bush to ... and, it wanted to make Halliburton rich ... and, it wanted to make certain favored Jews in the New York area rich, because they could collect on the insurance money on the WTC buildings, or (b) the Bush Administration itself colluded with an unknown huge number of persons in an elaborate scheme to detonate explosives in the buildings, and fly planes into those buildings, and fire a missile at the Pentagon, having somehow managed to recruit a number of al Qaeda operatives and convincing them to work for the interests of this secret Bush Administration/PNAC group -- and were either able to keep these "terrorists" from realizing they were doing the bidding of a secret faction of the US government, or the "terrorists" were okay with it because in any event they thought they were on a jihadist mission and were going to get 70 virgins or some such either way -- all for the same reasons articulated in "a" above, and has somehow managed to keep each of these huge number of persons from speaking to the press about their participation, or perhaps they've already killed each of them, we're not exactly sure about that one.)

4. Personifies complex social phenomena as powerful individual conspirators;

Oh, yeah. PNAC & the Jews ... right?

5. Allots superhuman talents or resources to conspirators;

Well, this would have to apply to pull off a conspiracy of this magnatude.

6. Key steps in argument rely on inductive, not deductive reasoning;

Yep. "Controlled demolition buildings fall straight down. The WTC buildings fell straight down. Therefore, the WTC buildings fell as a result of a controlled demolition."

7. Appeals to 'common sense';

Yep. This could also be known as the Charlie Sheen Argument: "Anyone that cannot view this as a controlled demolition, I would have to say that their chair was not facing the television. Anyone that can look at this and say 'yes, that is a random event caused by fire' really needs psychiatric evaluation."


8. Exhibits well-established logical and methodological fallacies;

Yep.

9. Is produced and circulated by 'outsiders', often anonymous, and generally lacking peer review;

Mostly true. But of course the "9/11 Scholars" are attempting to claim legitimacy.

10. Is upheld by persons with demonstrably false conceptions of relevant science;

Yes. That has been demonstrated time and again.

11. Enjoys zero credibility in expert communities;

No ... if you consider the "9/11 Scholars" part of the "expert community." This feature doesn't address "experts" who have deep roots in the "conspiracy theorists" community.

12. Rebuttals provided by experts are ignored or accommodated through elaborate new twists in the narrative;

Yes. This would include the response to the Popular Mechanics article debunking most of the 9/11 myths (e.g., the author is a "cousin" of Micheal Chertoff, and PM is a "Hearst" publication, and thus has known Zionist ties, etc.)[/quote]



By my count, somewhere in the range of 10 to 11½ of the 12 features are present.

***********************************************************
Farmerman's excellent post also needs replicating:


quote
The point about the Sheffield was that it burned. The aluminum skin set up a tremendous oxidation reaction. Here we are being fed some crap about thermite (or a variant that contains ANFO) and we just latch onto that as "proof of a conspiracy"
All along weve had the materials balance and conditions for the combustion of . Unless magginkat conveniently misses the data, the buildings WTC1 and 2 , were burning continuouisly till they fell, and the collapses were both propogated at the points where the planes hit.(DID we instruct thepilots to steer to those points because we conveniently planted cutter charges and air knives at those points.
Also, I will keep dwelling on this point, THE CONSPIRACY THEORISTS LIED THROUGH ONE OF THEIR "EXPERTS" . the matter of the seismic record was all bullshit and actual doctoring of the traces. Where else are they lying.

Forensic evidence means that one looks at everything and then pares away that which is improbable. You conspiracists seem to be starting with a conclusion and are trying to substantiate it through bad evidence and dishonest reporting.

Wanna buy some swampland magginkat?

Bernard despite the excellent definition of Conspiracy Theories replcated by Ticomaya or maybe in support of it less than half of Americans believe the covernment's conspiracy theory on 911. 45% support new investigations by Congress or even an International investigation. Your view is an increasingly minority view in your own country.

Interesting ... I'll admit I don't follow the daily goings-on in the conspiracy theorist community, so I am unaware of the pollings that have been conducted that indicate less than 50% of Americans believe the official version of the events of that day.

Can you link me up, please?