2
   

Where Were You When you Started to Doubt the Official 9/11..

 
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Aug, 2006 12:55 pm
squinney wrote:
I dunno - remember that dumb "deer in the headlights" look when Bush was told about the second plane? He just sat there looking stupid.

Ya really wanna give him that much credit f4f? To be able to pull off such a scam and keep it under wraps all this time? The 9/11 Commission has already reported that he couldn't even scramble a plane to intercept the PA flight when there was plenty of time to do so. They've already reported that they know NORAD lied about the timing of the supposed scramble.

You're giving Bush way too much credit by saying he planned the whole thing!

He may have known it was gonna happen (which he did) and didn't stop it, but he certainly couldn't have pulled off anything this big through his own planning.


credit him for making people long for the days when his father was president... that's about it...
0 Replies
 
freedom4free
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Aug, 2006 01:05 pm
squinney wrote:
I dunno - remember that dumb "deer in the headlights" look when Bush was told about the second plane? He just sat there looking stupid.

Ya really wanna give him that much credit f4f? To be able to pull off such a scam and keep it under wraps all this time? The 9/11 Commission has already reported that he couldn't even scramble a plane to intercept the PA flight when there was plenty of time to do so. They've already reported that they know NORAD lied about the timing of the supposed scramble.

You're giving Bush way too much credit by saying he planned the whole thing!

He may have known it was gonna happen (which he did) and didn't stop it, but he certainly couldn't have pulled off anything this big through his own planning.


You may be right squinny, whoever, the penalty would/should be just as harsh as actually being the mastermind of the attack.

Bush may not have been the mastermind, he may have been just following orders from his masters.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Aug, 2006 01:09 pm
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
okie wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

Although I live in the real world, I at least at one point in ,my life was able to, by a choice of will believe in it somewhat. No more.


Perhaps you need to try a little harder, as the real world does in fact exist. Believe it. Bi-Polar is kind of a tough road to go down, so I would suggest you choose the real pole in your life and go with it. Don't let the imaginary pole get the best of you.


I don't believe in you okie.


Well, I do exist, Bi-Polar. By the way, you have aptly named yourself. I would suggest you get help.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Aug, 2006 01:20 pm
freedom4free wrote:
... farmerman who blindly supports Bush & co ...

Now, there's a statement which well serves to demonstrate and display the depth of its author's familiarity with the way things are. f4f's credentials and credibility certainly are not in question.
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Aug, 2006 01:26 pm
i don't think anybody in the administration was the mastermind, i still believe that al queeda was behind the attack, i think that it's possible that the administration had general knowledge of the plot and let it proceed
0 Replies
 
freedom4free
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Aug, 2006 01:44 pm
timberlandko wrote:

Another bit of conspiracy silliness is that Flight 93 was shot down, and that an "unmarked mystery aircraft" was observed "tracking Flight 93" then circling the crash site...


Quote:
Flight 93 'was shot down' claims book

by ROWLAND MORGAN
19th August 2006

To a nation still reeling from the attacks on New York's World Trade Centre and the Pentagon that same September morning, these were men and women every bit as heroic as those who had fought at the Alamo.

Yet my own exhaustive investigations have led me to conclude that the story of Flight 93 is far from being the straightforward account of supreme courage that the authorities would have us believe.

Instead, the real story is mired in cynical manipulation and warmongering propaganda. I am convinced there is evidence to suggest a wholly sinister twist to the tale that already holds pride of place in American folklore. For I believe that Flight 93 may well have been deliberately shot down as a means of stopping it from reaching its ultimate target - even at the expense of the 40 blameless people on board. It is a suspicion that was held even by the FBI, but was swept aside as a shaken America clung on to the official version of selfless sacrifice and raw patriotism.

dailymail


I will go you one better. I have concluded that Flight 93's passengers had succeeded in regaining control of the aircraft, and as a result, the plane was shot down to prevent the public from ever learning just who and how the plane had actually been hijacked, BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT HAVE MATCHED THE OFFICIAL STORY OF ARAB HIJACKERS.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Aug, 2006 01:47 pm
okie wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
okie wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

Although I live in the real world, I at least at one point in ,my life was able to, by a choice of will believe in it somewhat. No more.


Perhaps you need to try a little harder, as the real world does in fact exist. Believe it. Bi-Polar is kind of a tough road to go down, so I would suggest you choose the real pole in your life and go with it. Don't let the imaginary pole get the best of you.


I don't believe in you okie.


Well, I do exist, Bi-Polar. By the way, you have aptly named yourself. I would suggest you get help.


okie, heal thyself.... Laughing

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/18/D8JJ01N80.html

thanks for your obviously sincere concern and may I say Okie certainly seems to suit you and bring up a rather amusing mental picture :wink:

I can just picture you, granny, Jethro and Ellie Mae hangin at the ceement pond......
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Aug, 2006 04:04 pm
f4f, while I in no way expect it to be of interest to or influence upon you, others may be amused to know that your Mr. Rowland's CV includes no investagative nor pertinent technical credentials, and his published works consist, apart from his 9/11-related conspiracy fantasies, several children's books and a couple of forgettable (and, as they no longer are in print, forgotten) crime novels, along with a tome warning of the dangers posed to Earth by extraterrestrial aliens.

Here's an interesting appraisal of Mr. Rowland's contribution to the 9/11 knowledge base:

Quote:
9/11 Reveald?

New book repeats false conspiracy theories


9/11 Revealed, published in August 2005, is the latest book putting forth bizarre conspiracy theories about the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States. Its two British authors, Ian Henshall and Rowland Morgan, give credence to a hodgepodge of sinister, unfounded allegations.

The book claims a drone Boeing 757, or a smaller plane painted in American Airlines colors, hit the Pentagon, but ignores the fact that forensic specialists identified the crew and passengers of American Airlines flight 77 from remains found in the Pentagon, proving irrefutably that the flight hit the Pentagon.

The book claims the World Trade Center (WTC) twin towers collapsed because they were pre-rigged with explosives but ignores an extraordinarily thorough, three-year investigation by the U.S. National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST). NIST concluded the towers collapsed because the impact of the plane crashes severed and damaged support columns and dislodged fireproofing insulation from the steel floor trusses and support columns, which allowed the fires to weaken them to the point where they bowed, buckled, and failed. It recently stated, in the WTC Towers Report on its Web site, that it found "no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition… ."

The book suggests that the 47-story World Trade Center 7 building, which also collapsed on September 11, was intentionally demolished, citing a comment by the property owner that he had decided to "pull it." The property owner was referring to pulling a contingent of firefighters out of the building in order to save lives because it appeared unstable.

The book repeats long-standing rumors of insider trading based on alleged advance warnings of the attack. It ignores the conclusion in The 9/11 Commission Report that all trades that initially appeared suspicious were found to have innocuous causes, after an exhaustive investigation.

The book takes the bizarre position that the September 11 attacks were not real terrorist attacks and were somehow designed to "limit casualties." Apparently, the largest terrorist event in history was not large enough to convince the books' authors that it was real.

The Attack on the Pentagon

Allegation: 9/11 Revealed suggests that American Airlines flight 77 was not hijacked and flown into the Pentagon but that, instead, "a drone Boeing 757 is used or a smaller, more manageable plane painted in American Airlines colors."

Facts: This theory ignores the fact that the passenger and crew remains from American Airlines flight 77 were recovered at the Pentagon crash site. A team of more than 100 forensic specialists and others identified 184 of the 189 people who died in the Pentagon attack (125 from the Pentagon and 64 onboard American Airlines flight 77). All but one of the passengers onboard American Airlines flight 77 was positively identified as a match with DNA samples provided by the families of the crash victims, as reported in the Washington Post on November 21, 2001. This provides irrefutable proof that American Airlines flight 77, not a drone or other aircraft, crashed into the Pentagon on September 11.

The Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers

Allegation: 9/11 Revealed suggests that the collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers occurred because not the terrorists flew airliners filled with jet fuel into them, but because the towers were "pre-rigged with explosives."

Facts: The U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) conducted an extremely thorough, three-year investigation into what caused the WTC twin towers to collapse, as explained on NIST's WTC Web site. Some 200 staff reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than one thousand people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they collapsed. Its conclusion is that the twin towers collapsed because the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns and dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, which meant that the subsequent fire, which reached 1000 degrees Celsius, weakened the floors and columns to the point where they bowed and buckled, causing the towers to collapse.

NIST's Draft Summary Report stated (pp. 171-172):

The two aircraft hit the towers at high speed and did considerable damage to principal structural components: core columns, perimeter columns, and floors. However, the towers withstood the impacts and would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged insulation and the subsequent multifloor fires. …

In WTC 1, the fires weakened the core columns and caused the floors on the south side of the building to sag. The floors pulled the heated south perimeter columns inward, reducing their capacity to support the building above. Their neighboring columns quickly became overloaded as the south wall buckled. The top section of the building titled to the south and began its descent. …

In WTC 2, the core was damaged severely at the southeast corner …. The steady burning fires on the east side of the building caused the floors there to sag. The floors pulled the heated east perimeter columns inward, reducing their capacity to support the building above. Their neighboring columns quickly became overloaded as the east wall buckled. The top section of the building tilted to the east and to the south and began its descent. …

The WTC towers would likely not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact and the extensive, multifloor fires if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.


In September 2005, NIST issued a clarification in its WTC Towers Report, stating:

NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photos and videos from several angles clearly showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward, until the dust clouds obscured the view.


Allegation: Other conspiracy theorists have claimed that the fact that the towers collapsed at near a "free fall" rate indicates that explosives were needed to cause this rapid a rate of collapse.

Facts: This allegation ignores the fact that the enormous weight of the top portions of the towers completely overwhelmed the carrying capacity of the floors beneath them, which is what caused the towers to collapse at very close to a "free fall" rate. NIST's Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers states:

The structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass .... The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that ....

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall .... As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.

The falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it, much like the action of a piston, forcing material, such as smoke and debris, out the windows ....


The Collapse of World Trade Center 7

Allegation: 9/11 Revealed suggests that the 47-story World Trade Center 7 building, which collapsed at 5:20 pm on September 11, was intentionally demolished. The primary piece of evidence for this is a comment that Mr. Larry Silverstein, who owned the World Trade Center complex, made on the September 2002 television documentary American Rebuilds. Mr. Silverstein said:

I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said, you know, "We've had such terrible loss of life that the smartest thing to do is just pull it." And they made that decision to pull it and we watched the [World Trade Center 7] building collapse.

9/11 Revealed and other conspiracy theorists put forward the notion that Mr. Silverstein's suggestion to "pull it" is slang for intentionally demolishing the WTC 7 building.

Facts: On September 9, 2005, Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Silverstein Properties, issued the following statement on this issue:

Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conducted a thorough investigation of the collapse of all the World Trade Center buildings. The FEMA report concluded that the collapse of Seven World Trade Center was a direct result of fires triggered by debris from the collapse of WTC Tower 1.

In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.

Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.


As noted above, when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, "I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it." Mr. McQuillan has stated that by "it," Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology has stated unequivocally, "NIST has seen so evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by bombs, missiles, or controlled demolition," in its Collapse of WTC 7 report (p. 6). NIST's working hypothesis for the collapse of WTC 7 is that it was caused by the collapse of a critical column due to "fire and/or debris induced structural damage." There was substantial damage to WTC 7 when the nearby WTC 1 tower collapsed and fires began shortly afterwards. Also, WTC 7 was a very unusual building because it was built over an existing Con-Edison power generation substation, which contained two large 6,000 gallon fuel tanks for the emergency generation of power. The fuel from these tanks could have contributed to the intense heat that apparently weakened the supporting columns in WTC 7.

Insider Trading

Allegation: 9/11 Revealed repeats long-standing rumors of "insider trading [based] on advance warnings of the attack."

Facts: The 9/11 Commission examined this issue in detail, stating, in The 9/11 Commission Report (p. 499):

Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options - investments that pay off only when a stock drops in price - surged in the parent companies of United Airlines [UAL] on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10 - highly suspicious trading on its face. Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades. These examples typify the evidence examined by the investigation. The SEC [Security and Exchange Commission] and the FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation], aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous.

Absurd, Sinister Interpretations

9/11 Revealed often places the most absurd, sinister interpretations upon unremarkable occurrences in its effort to construct complex conspiracy theories. For example, it states:

According to the Kean Commission [9/11 Commission] Report (p. 168), in March 2000, [Mohammed Atta] "emailed 31 different U.S. flight schools on behalf of a small group of men from various Arab countries studying in Germany who, while lacking prior training, were interested in learning to fly in the United States." Why would a terrorist openly approach flying schools in the USA this way?

The obvious answer, of course, is that Mohammed Atta was not afraid to openly approach flying schools in the United States because he presumably did not identify himself to them as a terrorist who wished to learn how to fly planes in order that he could crash one into the World Trade Center. This rather simple explanation seemed to have not occurred to the authors of 9/11 Revealed.

Similarly, 9/11 Revealed gives credence (p. 177) to nonsensical statements such as the one made by "Internet activist" Brian Quig: "[when Flight 77] bypassed a straight-in shot at the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, only to hit an insignificant spot in the back of the Pentagon, I said to myself then, it is not a real terrorist attack."

The authors of 9/11 Revealed apparently do not believe that the largest terrorist attack in history was large enough to demonstrate that it was real. Instead, in their minds, the fact that the terrorists did not fly even larger Boeing 747 jumbo jets into the World Trade Center towers, or attack an hour or two later, when more people would have been at work, or hit the offices of the Secretary of Defense or the Joint Chiefs of Staff, means that the events of 9/11 were not real terrorist attacks, but were engineered in order to minimize the number of deaths. 9/11 Revealed states bizarrely, "the attacks … seem almost designed to limit casualties." One wonders how many more thousands of people would have had to die to convince the authors of 9/11 Revealed that the attacks were real.

In sum, 9/11 Revealed is a collection of unfounded conspiracy theories that bear no relationship to the tragic realities of September 11.






Created: 16 Sep 2005 Updated: 16 Sep 2005


Look out for those aliens, now ...
0 Replies
 
freedom4free
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Aug, 2006 04:44 pm
What we know and don't know about 9/11
"Holding the Bush regime accountable for its obvious & documented lies"


by Paul Craig Roberts

August 18, 2006
Information Clearing House - 2006-08-16


I received a number of intelligent responses from readers of my August 14 column, "Gullible Americans," The letters deserve a reply. Moreover, some contain important points that should be shared with a wider audience. Pundits such as myself are not the only people who have interesting things to say. Considering the number of letters and the time it would require to respond individually, I am replying instead in this column.

Most readers from whom I heard understand the difference between loyalty to country and loyalty to a government. They understand that to support a political party or a government that is destroying the US Constitution and America's reputation in the world is, in fact, an act of treason. Therefore, I did not have to read the usual drivel about how doubting "our government" is un-American.

Among the issues raised are:

How could the complicity of the US government, or some part of it, in the events of 9/11 be kept a secret? For the most part, this question comes from Americans who believe the government must have been, to some extent, complicit in the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon.

How can we differentiate between the real facts, the 9/11 Commission's reporting of the facts, and "conspiracy theories"?

What about the role of suicide flyers led by M. Atta?

What about the Popular Mechanics article and the TV documentary that debunk the skeptics and support the official explanation of 9/11?

What about the role of the US media in propagandizing Americans with the official explanation instead of examining the explanation, especially with regard to such truncated hatchet-job interviews with 9/11 skeptics such as the hatchet jobs presided over by Donny Deutsch on CNBC and by neocon Tucker Carlson on MSNBC?

Why are so many Americans hostile to holding the Bush regime accountable for its obvious and documented lies, lies that have misled America to war and gratuitously slaughtered and maimed tens of thousands of people, including our own troops?

I will begin by stating what we know to be a solid incontrovertible scientific fact.

We know that it is strictly impossible for any building, much less steel columned buildings, to "pancake" at free fall speed. Therefore, it is a non-controversial fact that the official explanation of the collapse of the WTC buildings is false.

We also know for a fact that the Air Force somehow inexplicably failed to intercept the alleged hijacked airliners despite the fact that the Air Force can launch jet fighters to 29,000 feet in 2.5 minutes. We also know that the two co-chairmen of the 9/11 Commission have just written a book that reveals that the US military lied to the Commission about its failure to intercept the hijacked airliners.

There are various explanations for this second fact. The military could have lied to cover up complicity or to cover-up its incompetence. However, no investigation has been made to ascertain the true explanation for the failure.

This leaves us with the incontrovertible fact that buildings cannot "pancake" at free fall speeds.

The only explanation known to science for the free fall collapse of a building, especially into its own footprint, is engineered demolition, which removes the supports for each floor of the building at split second intervals so that the debris from above meets no resistance on its fall. To call this explanation a "conspiracy theory" is to display the utmost total ignorance. Any physicist or engineer who maintains that buildings can "pancake" at free fall speed has obviously been bought and paid for or is a total incompetent fool.

The WTC buildings are known to have collapsed at free fall speed into their own footprints.

This fact does not tell us who is responsible or what purpose was served.

Since the damning incontrovertible fact has not been investigated, speculation and "conspiracy theories" have filled the void. Some of the speculation is based on circumstantial evidence and is plausible. Other of the speculation is untenable, and it is used to protect the official explanation by branding all skeptics "conspiracy theorists." I would not be surprised if some of the most far-out "conspiracy theories" consist, in fact, of disinformation put out by elements in the government to discredit all skeptics. But I do not know this to be the case.

How could government complicity be kept a secret? It can be kept a secret, because so many Americans are scientifically ignorant and emotionally weak. They are incapable of realizing the contradiction in the government's claim that the WTC buildings "pancaked" at free fall speed, and they are emotionally incapable of confronting the evil of the Bush regime. Many Christians think that Bush is "a man of God" who is protecting American morality from homosexuals and abortionists. Others who wear their patriotism on their sleeves think Bush is standing up for America and innocent Israel, and that they must not let anti-American anti-war protesters cause America to lose another war and repeat the Vietnam experience. Americans are both ignorant and full of resentments against the left. This makes them easily manipulated by the neoconservatives who dominate the Bush regime and the media.

Also, many anti-war and anti-Bush online sites are scared of being called "crazy conspiracy kooks." They protect their sites by staying away from the 9/11 issue, just as so many Americans are scared to death of being called "anti-semitic" and thereby do not dare criticize Israel no matter the heinous war crimes that state routinely commits. Of all the online subscribers to my column, only vdare.com and NewsMax had the courage to post my column. Realizing that even antiwar sites would serve as de facto gatekeepers for the neocons, I offered the column to ICH, whose editor cannot be intimidated.

The Popular Mechanics article and the TV documentary are obviously false since they both endorse the official explanation that the WTC buildings "pancaked" at free fall speed, an obvious scientific impossibility. Whether the false reporting by Popular Mechanics and television are due to incompetence or to complicity in a government cover-up, I do not know.

We know nothing about alleged suicide flyers led by M. Atta except what the government has told us, a government that has lied to us about everything else, such as Iraq's alleged WMD and alleged links to Osama bin Laden, and Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program, a program for which the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors cannot find evidence.

According to reports, the BBC has found 6 of the alleged suicide hijackers alive and well in their home countries. I do not know if the report is true, but I do know that the report has been ignored and there has been no investigation. Both the US government and the US media have turned a blind eye. We have no way of knowing if Atta and his named accomplices hijacked the planes, or, if they did, whether they were dupes of intelligent services that pretended to be a terrorist cell and organized the cover for the engineered demolition.

The fact that we do not know any of these things, and the fact that the 9/11 Commission co-chairmen now tell us that their report is flawed, are good indications that we have no documented information of who was behind the plot, why it occurred, or how it operated.

With regard to the role of the US media, if it is indeed a media rather than a propaganda ministry, one reader cited remarks by the distinguished investigative reporter, John Pilger, made in an address at Columbia University on 14 April 2006:

"During the Cold War, a group of Russian journalists toured the United States. On the final day of their visit, they were asked by their hosts for their impressions. 'I have to tell you,' said their spokesman, 'that we were astonished to find after reading all the newspapers and watching TV, that all the opinions on all the vital issues were by and large, the same. To get that result in our country, we imprison people, we tear out their fingernails. Here, you don't have that. What's the secret? How do you do it?'"

This quote is probably apocryphal, but it is well used to make a valid point. The answer to the Russian's question is that during the cold war the American public viewed the Soviet Union as a dangerous adversary and were amenable to reports to that effect. The fact that the Soviets were a potentially dangerous adversary made Americans blind to the roles of the US military-industrial complex, which benefited financially from cultivating the adversary relationship, and the US government, which benefited politically from cultivating the adversary relationship, in keeping the adversarial relationship alive.

The uniformity of the US media has become much more complete since the days of the cold war. During the 1990s, the US government permitted an unconscionable concentration of print and broadcast media that terminated the independence of the media. Today the US media is owned by 5 giant companies in which pro-Zionist Jews have disproportionate influence. More importantly, the values of the conglomerates reside in the broadcast licenses, which are granted by the government, and the corporations are run by corporate executives--not by journalists--whose eyes are on advertising revenues and the avoidance of controversy that might produce boycotts or upset advertisers and subscribers. Americans who rely on the totally corrupt corporate media have no idea what is happening anywhere on earth, much less at home.

Despite the dark days in which we live, some readers find optimism in recent polls that show more than one-third of the US public now disbelieve the official account of 9/11 despite the Bush regime's propaganda faithfully trumpeted by the US media. Bush's own rock-bottom polls show that Americans, like the Russians of the Soviet era, can read between the lines of the propagandistic US media. Many Americans can still spot a liar and a cheat when they see one.

Key Ronald Reagan advisor Hon. Paul Craig Roberts: "Gullible Americans have been duped by the 9/11 Hoax... Wise up -- the World is laughing at you."

Gullible Americans

By Paul Craig Roberts Information Clearing House 08/14/06

I was in China when a July Harris Poll reported that 50 percent of Americans still believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when Bush invaded that country, and that 64 percent of Americans still believe that Saddam Hussein had strong links with Al Qaeda.

The Chinese leaders and intellectuals with whom I was meeting were incredulous. How could a majority of the population in an allegedly free country with an allegedly free press be so totally misinformed?

The only answer I could give the Chinese is that Americans would have been the perfect population for Mao and the Gang of Four, because Americans believe anything their government tells them.

Americans never check any facts. Who do you know, for example, who has even read the Report of the 9/11 Commission, much less checked the alleged facts reported in that document. I can answer for you. You don't know anyone who has read the report or checked the facts.

The two co-chairmen of the 9/11 Commission Report, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, have just released a new book, "Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission." Kean and Hamilton reveal that the commission suppressed the fact that Muslim ire toward the US is due to US support for Israel's persecution and dispossession of the Palestinians, not to our "freedom and democracy" as Bush propagandistically claims. Kean and Hamilton also reveal that the US military committed perjury and lied about its failure to intercept the hijacked airliners. The commission even debated referring the military's lies to the Justice Department for criminal investigation. Why should we assume that these admissions are the only coverups and lies in the 9/11 Commission Report?

How do you know that 9/11 was a Muslim terrorist plot? How do you know that THREE World Trade Center buildings collapsed because TWO were hit by airliners? You only "know" because the government gave you the explanation of what you saw on TV. (Did you even know that three WTC buildings collapsed?)

I still remember the enlightenment I experienced as a student in Russian Studies when I learned that the Czarist secret police would set off bombs and then blame those whom they wanted to arrest.

When Hitler seized dictatorial power in 1933, he told the Germans that his new powers were made necessary by a communist terrorist attack on the Reichstag. When Hitler started World War II by invading Poland, he told the Germans that Poland had crossed the frontier and attacked Germany.

Governments lie all the time--especially governments staffed by neoconservatives whose intellectual godfather, Leo Strauss, taught them that it is permissible to deceive the public in order to achieve their agenda.

Some readers will write to me to say that they saw a TV documentary or read a magazine article verifying the government's explanation of 9/11. But, of course, these Americans did not check the facts either--and neither did the people who made the documentary and wrote the magazine article.

Scientists and engineers, such as Clemson University Professor of Engineering Dr. Judy Woods and BYU Professor of Physics Dr. Steven Jones, have raised compelling questions about the official account of the collapse of the three WTC buildings. The basic problem for the government's account is that the buildings are known to have fallen at freefall speed, a fact that is inconsistent with the government's "pancaking" theory in which debris from above collapsed the floors below. If the buildings actually "pancaked," then each floor below would have offered resistance to the floors above, and the elapsed time would have been much longer. These experts have also calculated that the buildings did not have sufficient gravitational energy to accommodate the government's theory of the collapse. It is certainly a known and non-controversial fact among physicists and engineers that the only way buildings can collapse at freefall speed into their own footprints is by engineered demolition. Explosives are used to remove the support of floors below before the debris from above arrives. Otherwise, resistance is encountered and the time required for fall increases. Engineered demolition also explains the symmetrical collapse of the buildings into their own foot prints. As it is otherwise improbable for every point in floors below to weaken uniformly, "pancaking" would result in asymmetrical collapse as some elements of the floor would give sooner than others.

Scientific evidence is a tough thing for the American public to handle, and the government knows it. The government can rely on people dismissing things that they cannot understand as "conspiracy theory." But if you are inclined to try to make up your own mind, you can find Dr. Jones' and Dr. Woods' papers, which have been formally presented to their peers at scientific meetings, on line at http://www.st911.org/

Experts have also pointed out that the buildings' massive steel skeletons comprised a massive heat sink that wicked away the heat from the limited, short-lived fires, thus preventing a heat buildup. Experts also point out that the short-lived, scattered, low-intensity fires could barely reach half the melting point of steel even if they burned all day instead of merely an hour.

Don't ask me to tell you what happened on 9/11. All I know is that the official account of the buildings' collapse is improbable.

Now we are being told another improbable tale. Muslim terrorists in London and Pakistan were caught plotting to commit mass murder by smuggling bottles of explosive liquids on board airliners in hand luggage. Baby formula, shampoo and water bottles allegedly contained the tools of suicide bombers.

How do we know about this plot? Well, the police learned it from an "Islamic militant arrested near the Afghan-Pakistan border several weeks ago." And how did someone so far away know what British-born people in London were plotting?

Do you really believe that Western and Israeli intelligence services, which were too incompetent to prevent the 9/11 attack, can uncover a London plot by capturing a person on the Afghan border in Pakistan? Why would "an Islamic militant" rat on such a plot even if he knew of it?

More probable explanations of the "plot" are readily available. According to the August 11 Wayne Madsen Report, informed sources in the UK report that "the Tony Blair government, under siege by a Labor Party revolt, cleverly cooked up a new 'terror' scare to avert the public's eyes away from Blair's increasing political woes. British law enforcement, neocon and intelligence operatives in the US, Israel, and Britain, and Rupert Murdoch's global media empire cooked up the terrorist plot, liberally borrowing from the failed 1995 'Oplan Bjinka' plot by Pakistan- and Philippines-based terrorist Ramzi Ahmad Yousef to crash 11 trans-Pacific airliners bound from Asia to the US."

There are other plausible explanations. For example, our puppet in Pakistan decided to arrest some people who were a threat to him. With Bush's commitment to "building democracy in the Middle East," our puppet can't arrest his political enemies without cause, so he lays the blame on a plot.

Any testimony against Muslim plotters by "an Islamic militant" is certain to have been bought and paid for.

Or consider this explanation. Under the Nuremberg standard, Bush and Blair are war criminals. Bush is so worried that he will be held accountable that he has sent his attorney general to consult with the Republican Congress to work out legislation to protect Bush retroactively from his violations of the Geneva Conventions.

Tony Blair is in more danger of finding himself in the dock. Britain is signatory to a treaty that, if justice is done, will place Blair before the International Criminal Court in the Hague.

What better justification for the two war criminals' illegal actions than the need to foil dastardly plots by Muslims recruited in sting operations by Western intelligence services? The more Bush and Blair can convince their publics that terrorist danger abounds, the less likely Bush and Blair are ever to be held accountable for their crimes.

But surely, some readers might object, our great moral leaders wouldn't do something political like that!

They most certainly would. As Joshua Micah Marshall wrote in the July 7 issue of Time magazine, the suspicion is "quite reasonable" that "the Bush Administration orchestrates its terror alerts and arrests to goose the GOP's poll numbers."

Joshua Micah Marshall proves his conclusion by examining the barrage of color-coded terror alerts, none of which were real, and, yes, it all fits with political needs.

And don't forget the plot unearthed in Miami to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago. Described by Vice President Cheney as a "very real threat," the plot turned out to be nothing more than a few harmless whackos recruited by an FBI agent sent out to organize a sting.

There was also the "foiled plot" to blow up the Holland Tunnel and flood downtown New York City with sea water. Thinking New Orleans, the FBI invented this plot without realizing that New York City is above sea level. Of course, most Americans didn't realize it either.

For six years the Bush regime has been able to count on the ignorant and naive American public to believe whatever tale that is told them. American gullibility has yet to fail the Bush regime.

The government has an endless number of conspiracy theories, but only people who question the government's conspiracies are derided for "having a conspiracy theory."

The implication is even worse if we assume that the explosive bottle plot is genuine. It means that America and Britain by their own aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan, and by enabling Israel's war crimes in Palestine and Lebanon, have created such hatred that Muslims, who identify with Bush's, Blair's, and Israel's victims, are plotting retaliation.

But Bush is prepared. He has taught his untutored public that "they hate us for our freedom and democracy."

Gentle reader, wise up. The entire world is laughing at you

globalresearch
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Aug, 2006 04:52 pm
Quote:
Why should we trust farmerman who blindly supports Bush & co, who had lied to us about WMD (and hundreds of other lies) ?

Once a liar always a liar. Why do you people trust a liar ?


Dear Butt4Brains--I dont wish to make this thread revolve around me but I do deserve this just as a slight rebuttal.
If youve read any of my other posts in other threads , Ive never , ever been a Bush supporter and my posts will back me up> After I, like most Americans and tyhe Congress realized, that we were hornswaggled about WMDs I was quite critical of his war in Iraq. I was also critical of his tax policies and his Messianic reign. I merely like truth more than personality. I, like Squinne, cant see the boy being smart enough to mastermind anything close to 9/11. He couldnt even bring in an oil well in a producing field.

Timbers post was excellent and was compounded from forensic evidence at the various scenes. I was not aware that the DNA evidence of the flight crew and passengers was accomplished. The "Scholars for Truth" crowd has been changing its story do frequently that you cant really be pinned down on any piece of evidence.

Therefore, how many LIES have we now caught the "9/11 Scholars for Truth" gaggle? Quite a few and still rising.
Another recent lie was the misquote of the Loiseaux rep (CDI). He stated that the building dropped like we try to accomplish in a controlled demo" He was commenting on how dtraight the building dropped, not speculating on a cause. Another one was the "Steaming pile of steel in the subfloor. It was melted Aluminum some of which had actually rapidly oxidized like the hull of tyhe British Ship HMS Sheffield , which was hit with an exocet missile and the Al hull actually burned violently.

I would love to see this put on "trial" so to speak and have equally good lawyers o either side armed with their best evidence. Full disclosure rules would pertain and the issues would be presented to a "jury" with a verdict at the end. I feel comfortable that the science surrounding the 9/11 Commission and other forensic data would blow your "scholars for Truth" out of the water and simple minds like yours could be convinced.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Aug, 2006 05:03 pm
For those who aren't old enough to recall the Falkland Islands War of nearly twenty-five years ago, here is an image of HMS Sheffield after being struck by an air-launched Exocet missle from an Argentine fighter-bomber:

http://www.psywar.org/psywar/images/sheffield.jpg

But an even more graphic demonstration of what FM is talking about would be the frigate HMS Antelope:

http://www.ausairpower.net/HMS-Antelope-BBC-2-S.jpg

Whose magazine exploded as the result of an Argentine air attack. Antelope was still burning when she finally went down on the morning of May 21, 1982:

http://www.skyhawk.org/2E/argentina/ar_antlp.jpg
0 Replies
 
freedom4free
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Aug, 2006 05:06 pm
Farmerboy

Quote:
I was not aware that the DNA evidence of the flight crew and passengers was accomplished.


ONCE A LIAR ALWAYS A LIAR, don't you EVER forget that Farmerboy. Laughing

Now get that through your thick head. Boy!

Autopsy Part I: No Arabs on Flight 77
By Thomas R. Olmsted, M.D


Autopsy Part II: No Arabs on Flight 77
By Thomas R. Olmsted, M.D


Quote:
The AA list only had 56 and the list just obtained has 58. They did not explain how they were able to tell “victims” bodies from “hijacker” bodies. In fact, from the beginning NO explanation has been given for the extra five suggested in news reports except that the FBI showed us the pictures to make up the difference, and that makes it so.




I could thrash every single point you dumbheads make, but i can't be bothered, because obviously your heads are stuck up Bush's a$$.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Aug, 2006 05:21 pm
Dont continue t be a jerk Butts. The fact that the DNA of the entire crew and the passengers verifies the fact that this apparent "drone " was full of people. WAIT, I get it, Bush had the drone flown into the Pentagon and then secreted the flight crew and passengers off 77 and then ran them through a chipper and distributed their remains.

MAYBE, There wasnt any DNA from which they could match the terrorists.
You need samples of the persons or family members in order to make a match .

Hey, were here for ya Butts, if you need some of the more technical issues explained .
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Aug, 2006 05:23 pm
farmerman wrote:
Dont continue t be a jerk Butts. The fact that the DNA of the entire crew and the passengers verifies the fact that this apparent "drone " was full of people. WAIT, I get it, Bush had the drone flown into the Pentagon and then secreted the flight crew and passengers off 77 and then ran them through a chipper and distributed their remains.


???

I see you actually read his link, farmerman?
0 Replies
 
freedom4free
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Aug, 2006 05:24 pm
farmerman wrote:
..
MAYBE..


Great rebuttal.

Are you enjoying the fresh smell of dubya's excrement ? Laughing
0 Replies
 
Sweet Thistle Pie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Aug, 2006 05:38 pm
Bush? Mastermind? Talk about an oxyMORON.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Aug, 2006 06:50 pm
I read butt4brains link and both of them were hysterical rants that included, among other great conspiracies, the sinking of the Lusitania. Ill admit Im not really up on that one but, I believe that the Lusitania is what we normally call a red herring. Something used to throw the scent away from an argument that is losing steam.
Ill just wait till your boilers cool down , butts.
Did you read those links? If you did, would you be so kind as to point out where it actually says that theyve proved that no arabs were on the flight?
The author writes like someone many of us know who also tries to use scholarly sounding (but empty headed) divertiment to escape staying on topic or to be exposed as a big bag of wind. Im not sure which your links represent but either way, thyer not compelling in the least. YOU are easily swayed, I am not.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Aug, 2006 06:57 pm
freedom for free to portray farmerman as a bush supporter is just way the hell off.....sorry dude....
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Aug, 2006 07:12 pm
The one thing that has always baffled me is why there was only a small crater where Flight 93 is said to have crashed. No debris; no fire in the grass.... nothing. How does such a large aircraft leave a small hole and nothing else?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Aug, 2006 07:21 pm
Intrepid, my family and I went to Shanksville 2 years ago when the site was beginning to be constructed as a living memorial. Theres evidence that **** from that plane was spread out for miles.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/07/2020 at 03:52:39