Email to AAR in San Diego re: 9-11

[Klimmer]

Stacy and Scooter,

I listen to you both in the a.m. on AAR AM 1360 in San Diego, while on my way to work and agree mostly with you, perhaps 90% of the time. We Progressive Dems have to stick together --- we are all we have. However, the two of you have some homework to do regarding 9-11. If you are not willing to question the events of 9-11 and look into the evidence, you'll never know. You need to get beyond the question, "Well, if it didn't happen the way our government has told us, then where are all the passengers?" We can't answer that question, and we don't have to. All we have to do is invalidate the official 9-11 Commission Report CT. They have to answer the question, "Where are the passengers and bodies?"

I was pleasantly surprised to hear you both talking to several callers about 9-11 and Flight 93 (the morning of 1-31-06). Very surprised to hear that you might agree that Flight 93 may have been shot down rather than what the 9-11 Commission Report says what happened (the official Conspiracy Theory of our Government) regarding the heroic effort of the passengers to try and wrestle control from the terrorists which ultimately ending in disaster. So you are willing to admit that the government might be lying to us about the events on 9-11? That is a good place to begin. Now follow up on it.

There are a lot of wacky ideas and CTs out there on the internet regarding 9-11. It takes time to sort through it all and find the facts and really concentrate on the evidence that can be verified. I'm a HS Physics teacher in SDCS, and I approach it from a scientific point of view --- testable and verifiable hypotheses only. The 9-11 Truth movement is real and happening. Many science, engineering academia and scholars are coming to the same conclusions: we have been fed a huge lie about what really happened on 9-11 and the evidence that is being looked at, found, discovered, and the studies being done, and the detailed accounts from eye-witnesses are all completely invalidating the official 9-11 Commission report CT hypothesis. One of the best groups to come forward within the movement that has respected academia and scholarly credentials is the newly formed group "Scholars for 9-11 Truth". I advise you to take a deep look into their original research projects by several of their members:


http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/index.html


The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True
by David Ray Griffin, Ph.D.
http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html


Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
by Steven E. Jones, Ph.D.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html


In a nut shell (and you'll have to check the evidence for yourself):

*UA Flights 11 and 175 did not bring down the WTC towers #1 and #2, controlled demolition did, along with felling WTC tower #7

*UA Flight 77 didn't crash into the Pentagon, something else did.

*UA Flight 93 was shot down.



Science is a very powerful tool and can be used to invalidate the official government CT. Using the scientific method, a scientist subjects their scientific hypothesis to the test, and if invalidated, the hypothesis must be abandoned and another brought forth to test, and on and on until hopefully one day a hypothesis is found that is never invalidated and fits all the evidence. Then that is the basis for a scientific theory. Scientific theories have overwhelming evidence supporting them. We as scientists can never prove with 100% certainty, but we can invalidate with 100% certainty. That is how the very powerful scientific method works. The official 9-11 Commission Report CT is a hypothesis. It can be put to the test. And when it is, it is invalidated over and over again. The official 9-11 Commission Report CT "Hypothesis" is invalid. In fact, it isn't even a good scientific hypothesis.

As an example, we don't have to "prove" what happened to the passengers of flight 77. We don't know. But the official Government hypothesis that UA flight 77, a 757 passenger jet flew into the Pentagon is easily invalidated. The evidence that is available however, does suggest a smaller military jet with explosives on board or a cruise-like bunker buster missile made from Depleted Uranium was most likely flown into the Pentagon. How do you get a massive boeing 757 through an approximately 16 ft. diameter hole in the facad of the Pentagon, without breaking the windows surrounding the hole, no evidence of the massive vertical stabalizer causing damage, and where are the massive wing structures loaded with fuel that would have been sheared off the jet leaving ample evidence all over the lawn and facad of the Pentagon, even if the wings blew-up on impact? Many people have observed the many pictures of the Pentagon after the initial strike area. The Pentagon at the crash site looks like an immaculate golf course with a small 16 ft. hole in the side of the Pentagon. Where is the massive jet and all the massive damage a 757 would have caused? That portion of the Pentagon didn't collapse for about 1/2 an hour after the initial strike. There are many images showing the actual original damage immediately after the Pentagon was struck. Look at them all. Study them in detail. You tell me how you get a massive 757 through that small hole? It is physically impossible. Solid doesn't go through solid. You would have to alter the laws of nature, the laws of physics to do so, and sorry that just isn't allowed. Everything in the universe obeys these laws, and there is nothing we can do to change that. The evidence doesn't fit having a 757 fly into the Pentagon. This is classic Newton's 3rd Law of Motion --- For every Action Force there is an opposite and equal Reaction Force. Where is the damage that is equavilent to a 757 slamming into the Pentagon? It isn't there. There are many ways to look at this and they all scream no 757 hit the Pentagon.

So if the Bush Crime Family, this Neocon Fascist Regime of a government we are currently imprisoned under, is willing to lie to us about this huge infamous event and try to convince us it happened the way they said it did, then what else are they lying about? You know the answer to that question --- plenty. Even Rumsfeld said publically that a missile hit the Pentagon, but then he quickly corrected himself when he realized he just let the-cat-out-of-the-bag. Doh!

I would hope that you both have the nerve enough, to be brave enough, to ask these hard questions and to really check-it out, if not for others, then at least for yourselves. Don't you really want to know the truth, no matter what?


Hey, here is a bonus. We don't have to be scarred anymore. There is no boogy-man Al CIAda. Here is the BBC documentary all about it . . .


The Power of Nightmares - Part I - Baby It's Cold Outside
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1037.htm

The Power of Nightmares - Part II - The Phantom Victory
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1038.htm

The Power of Nightmares - Part III - The Shadows In The Cave
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1040.htm


BBC Blog on The Power of Nightmares by the Writer, Producer, and Narrator:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/4202741.stm



I enjoy your show. Keep hope alive. NGU.

[Klimmer]

1. Boy, this made it to the basement in lightning speed!!!!

[carlvs]

2. Yes Air America,

Discredit yourself by becoming a font of 9-11 conspiracy garbage.

If they have any sense, they would have placed your e-mail in the same Garbage Can or Recycle Bin (depending on computer) as the hate mail they get from conservatives...

[pauldp]

3. So you believe the 911 Commission then? n/t

[Beam Me Up]

4. Obviously. The Bush administration has LIED about everything else but

NOT 9/11. At least, so holds the forces of denial that can't get beyond the idea that the Bush administration are either a) not THAT vicious or b) so totally incompetant 'they' couldn't possibly have 'pulled it off'. Never mind that 'they' didn't have to. And especially never mind all the literaly hundreds of damning 'coincidences' that make the official story not only implausible but down right impossible.

Gore Vidall said it: "Conspiracy Theory has now become short hand for unspeakable truth." It can't even be spoken about here at DU without someone jumping down your thread like you are an idiot for asking legetimate questions.

:mad:

[pauldp]

5. Exactly. Ask Halliburton and Exxon if Bushco is incompetent.

This baffling "They wouldn't go that far" bullshit has got to stop.
No more free ride on 911. OK fine if you want to believe it was only criminal negligence - they didn't want to mess with their long time business partners the Saudis and Bin Ladens, whatever, but stop giving them a fucking free ride. Even if it is only criminal negligence, it should be the main story, the big story, the fist thing out of everyone's mouth every fucking day. The silence MUST STOP.

:grr: :mad:

[jmb597]

6. 9/11 Commission Report

Hi, this is only my 3rd post, but hey, who's counting? Anyway, I am one who does not believe the commission Report. I have many reasons why, but one of them is this report was not truly nonpartisan. The chairman was a republican and although the vice chairman was a democrat, he wasn't the co chairman. The person who served as the commissions executive director was Philip Zelikow, whom was also in charge of the staff, which isn't the commissioners you saw on tv, they are the ones that did all of the work on the commissions report. Those we saw on tv conducted their own interviews and discussions, and then Zelikow decided what was going in the report. He lead the staff that was doing all of the investigative work and even decided which theories they were going to investigate. That is why nobody even tried to investigate if it was an inside job...they only investigated what the administration claimed happen which was conveniently Osama Bin Laden.

Philip Zelikow also edited the final version.

Before all of this, he was closely associated with the Bush I Administration and even wrote a book with Condoleezza Rice. He is close to this administration as well...I don't know...to me, this should have been done by an independent...not someone closely tied to the administration.

[Beam Me Up]

7. Welcome to DU, jmb597!

:hi:

Yes, there are many reasons to be skeptical of the official story--and the white-wash that was the 9/11 commission is only one.

[mirandapriestly]

8. Good e-mail, Yeah, AAR is good but they are afraid to "go there"

with 9-11, they don't want to be branded "conspiracy nuts". The worse is Stephanie Miller, her sidekick is good, but she starts acting like "oh, no , not that crazy stuff, I'm not that crazy.." and ridiculing it, which does more harm than good.