Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Experts Claim Official 9/11 Story is a Hoax

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
Solve_et_Coagula Donating Member (42 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-11-06 09:26 AM
Original message
Experts Claim Official 9/11 Story is a Hoax
Experts Claim Official 9/11 Story is a Hoax
Mon Jan 30, 11:37 AM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/

Duluth, MN (PRWEB) January 30, 2006 -- A group of distinguished experts and scholars, including Robert M. Bowman, James H. Fetzer, Wayne Madsen, John McMurtry, Morgan Reynolds, and Andreas von Buelow, have concluded that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11.

They have joined with others in common cause as members of "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" (S9/11T), because they are convinced, based on their own research, that the administration has been deceiving the nation about critical events in New York and Washington, D.C.

These experts suggest these events may have been orchestrated by elements within the administration to manipulate Americans into supporting policies at home and abroad they would never have condoned absent "another Pearl Harbor." (Don't forget that Dubya supposedly wrote in his diary that night "We have just had another Pearl Harbor"- If anyone believes that King george wrote that all by his lonesome or even wrote it that night, I have a bridge for sale in the AZ desert)

They believe that this White House is incapable of investigating itself and hope the possibility that Congress might hold an unaccountable administration accountable is not merely naive or wishful thinking.
They are encouraging news services around the world to secure scientific advice by taking advantage of university resources to verify or to falsify their discoveries. Extraordinary situations, they believe, require extraordinary measures.

If this were done, they contend, one of the great hoaxes of history would stand naked before the eyes of the world and its perpetrators would be clearly exposed, which may be the only hope for saving this nation from ever greater abuse.

They hope this might include The New York Times, which, in their opinion, has repeatedly failed to exercise the leadership expecedt from our nation's newspaper of record by a series of inexplicable lapses. It has failed to vigorously investigate tainted elections, lies leading to the war in Iraq, or illegal NSA spying on the American people, major unconstitutional events. In their view, The Times might compensate for its loss of stature by helping to reveal the truth about one of the great turning-point events of modern history.

Stunning as it may be to acknowledge, they observe, the government has brought but one indictment against anyone and, to the best of their knowledge, has not even reprimanded anyone for incompetence or dereliction of duty. The official conspiracy theory--that nineteen Arab hijackers under control of one man in the wilds of Afghanistan brought this about--is unsupportable by the evidential data, which they have studied. They even believe there are good reasons for suspecting that video tapes officially attributed to Osama bin Laden are not genuine.
They have found the government's own investigiation to be severely flawed. The 9/11 Commission, designated to investigate the attack, was directed by Philip Zelikow, part of the Bush transition team in the NSA sector and the co-author of a book with Condoleezza Rice. A Bush supporter and director of national security affairs, he could hardly be expected to conduct an objective and impartial investigation.

They have discovered that The 9/11 Commission Report is replete with omissions, distortions, and factual errors, which David Ray Griffin has documented in his book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. The official report, for example, entirely ignores the collapse of WTC7, a 47-story building, which was hit by no airplanes, was only damaged by a few small fires, and fell seven hours after the attack.
Here are some of the kinds of considerations that these experts and scholar find profoundly troubling:

* In the history of structural engineering, steel-frame high-rise buildings have never been brought down due to fires either before or since 9/11, so how can fires have brought down three in one day? How is this possible?

* The BBC has reported that at least five of the nineteen alleged "hijackers" have turned up alive and well living in Saudi Arabia, yet according to the FBI, they were among those killed in the attacks. How is this possible?

* Frank DeMartini, a project manager for the WTC, said the buildings were designed with load redistribution capabilities to withstand the impact of airliners, whose effects would be like "puncturing mosquito netting with a pencil." Yet they completely collapsed. How is this possible?

* Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700*F, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800*F under optimal conditions, and UL certified the steel used to 2,000*F for six hours, the buildings cannot have collapsed due to heat from the fires. How is this possible?

* Flight 77, which allegedly hit the building, left the radar screen in the vicinity of the Ohio/Kentucky border, only to "reappear" in very close proximity to the Pentagon shortly before impact. How is this possible?

* Foreign "terrorists" who were clever enough to coordinate hijacking four commercial airliners seemingly did not know that the least damage to the Pentagon would be done by hitting its west wing. How is this possible?

* Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, in an underground bunker at the White House, watched Vice President Cheney castigate a young officer for asking, as the plane drew closer and closer to the Pentagon, "Do the orders still stand?" The order cannot have been to shoot it down, but must have been the opposite. How is this possible?

* A former Inspector General for the Air Force has observed that Flight 93, which allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania, should have left debris scattered over an area less than the size of a city block; but it is scattered over an area of about eight square miles. How is this possible?

* A tape recording of interviews with air traffic controllers on duty on 9/11 was deliberately crushed, cut into very small pieces, and distributed in assorted places to insure its total destruction. How is this possible?

* The Pentagon conducted a training exercise called "MASCAL" simulating the crash of a Boeing 757 into the building on 24 October 2000, and yet Condoleezza Rice, among others, has repeatedly asserted that "no one ever imagined" a domestic airplane could be used as a weapon. How is this possible?

Their own physics research has established that only controlled demolitions are consistent with the near-gravity speed of fall and virtually symmetrical collapse of all three of the WTC buildings. While turning concrete into very fine dust, they fell straight-down into their own footprints.

These experts and scholars have found themselves obliged to conclude that the 9/11 atrocity represents an instance of the approach--which has been identified by Karl Rove, the President's closest adviser--of "creating our own reality."

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA James Fetzer 218 724-2706
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
geezer1 Donating Member (9 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-11-06 09:29 AM
Response to Original message
1. Searching...
for my tinfoil hat. It's nice that these people consider themselves "distinguished experts and scholars".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-11-06 09:30 AM
Response to Original message
2. Things that make you go hmmmm. Thanks for this. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LaurenG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-11-06 09:32 AM
Response to Original message
3. Kicked and Nominated
I only hope for quick investigations next. To the hague with them all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaLynne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-11-06 09:33 AM
Response to Original message
4. Do you have a link directly to the article?
That link just goes to Yahoo's New Page and I didn't see the article there ... Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Botany Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-11-06 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. this help?
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

a prof @ BYU has looked into the WTCs collapse and has come up
with solid ? into the official story.

BTW the picture of the the building being blown out at 90 degrees to it's collapse
is damning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
teryang Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-11-06 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. great link!
The explosive demolitions guy gave it away on live tv.

The squibs on the lower floors were apparent on the videos televised the first day or two. Didn't see them after that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-11-06 09:35 AM
Response to Original message
5. When you read the details
It does make you wonder. There are just too many things that don't add up. I would think our government would have dedicated a lot of resources to fact finding, but they didn't. In fact, it seems they were in a big hurry to cover it up and close the file.

It just doesn't add up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-11-06 09:52 AM
Response to Original message
7. Some things to consider ...
1.
* In the history of structural engineering, steel-frame high-rise buildings have never been brought down due to fires either before or since 9/11, so how can fires have brought down three in one day? How is this possible?


Yet the fires in the Madrid highrise were hot enough to buckle steel and cause large portions of the building to collapse after 3 hours.

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/default.htm

2.
* Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700*F, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800*F under optimal conditions, and UL certified the steel used to 2,000*F for six hours, the buildings cannot have collapsed due to heat from the fires. How is this possible?


This is a strawman as no one is claiming the steel was melted, merely that the fires were hot enough to weaken the steel so it could not carry the weight of the building above the impact zone. This happens at approx 1000 F, well within the bounds of a normal highrise fire (see nr 1 above for real world proof).

3.
* The Pentagon conducted a training exercise called "MASCAL" simulating the crash of a Boeing 757 into the building on 24 October 2000, and yet Condoleezza Rice, among others, has repeatedly asserted that "no one ever imagined" a domestic airplane could be used as a weapon. How is this possible?


Another strawman - who said the Pentagon scenario involved a plane as a weapon? This was an annual disaster preparedness drill and the Pentagon is in the flight path of a major airport. If you were preparing a scenario that would test every aspect of your disaster plan, wouldn't an airplane crashing on takeoff or landing be an obvious scenario? Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

4.
Their own physics research has established that only controlled demolitions are consistent with the near-gravity speed of fall and virtually symmetrical collapse of all three of the WTC buildings. While turning concrete into very fine dust, they fell straight-down into their own footprints.


Can you provide a link to this research? Was actual experimentation done? Was it published for peer review.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
choie Donating Member (899 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-11-06 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Madrid building collapse took 5 hours, not 50 minutes!
According to the chart on the linked page re: Madrid, your comment about the building falling in three hours is not correct. Only "chunks of facade" started to fall after three hours. The floors of the upper level -- where the fire began at 11:00PM -- collapsed "progressively," beginning at 4AM. That's five hours, not three. And the whole building didn't collapse, although the fire did spread to the lower levels.

It's impossible to seriously consider this comparable to the collapse of the twin towers of the WTC. One tower fell only 50 minutes after impact, the other less than two hours. Building 7 wasn't even hit, for God's sake, but it fell anyway.

Also, the Madrid's building's progressive collapse is important. It's common for a building collapsing due to a fire to do so in this manner -- i.e., for one floor to fall onto another, which after a little while collapses onto the one below it, and on and on. This is called "pancaking," and is not an instant process.

The twin towers didn't go this route, as you can see this in any of the videos, if the image isn't easy to call up into your mind. (God knows, it's burnt into mine.) In each of the twin towers, the whole building practically disintegrated, the tiny remnants going into free-fall and sinking within fifteen seconds. That is simply impossible to explain according to the official story.

If you haven't read David Ray Griffen's book, as mentioned in the above release, you really should. Illuminating, to say the least.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-12-06 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. The Madrid fire started tiny and took time to grow large..
the WTC fires started large and got huge. Take some time to research the 3 phases of building fires and then tell me what phase the WTC started at.

The Madrid design had many more concrete vertical supports holding up each floor - the design alone explains the difference between how they collapsed. Why do CTrs keep forgetting that the WTC was a very unique design? Concrete and steel react differently to fire - how would have Madrid building collapsed if the concrete supports had been replaced by steel?

The weight of the WTC above the impact zone most likely weighed as much as the entire Madrid building - consider the immense potential energy contained in tens of thousands of tons of building suspended 700 feet in the air. Don't you think all this energy would make a huge difference how the building collapsed?

I have read Griffen - he is clueless. The fact that he is a professor of philosophy of religion and theology has something to do with it. If he was an engineer I would pay more attention to him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-12-06 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. No, the Madrid fire burned through eight floors in one hour.
From your own link:

"23:00 -- Fire started at the 21st Floor....
00:00 -- All floors above the 21st floor were in fire (news report)."

By all accounts the Windsor hotel burned quickly because it a) had no fireproofing, b) had no fire sprinklers, and c) was undergoing renovation. None of these conditions were found in the WTC, where the fires started small and were nearly extinguished by the automatic sprinklers.

Incidentally, those flimsy steel studs holding up the Windsor hotel curtain walls are about as comparable to the Trade Center columns as a sailboat is to a battleship:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-12-06 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. So a 767 spewing thousands of gallons of burning fuel..
into a huge open office space containing tons of combustibles and with no fireproof subdivisions is going to start tiny fires? There is no way you will ever convince me of this - it simply defies logic.

As to the sprinklers - tell me why you never fight gasoline fires with water? A little research into class Bravo fires will show that if the sprinklers were to actually survive the impact (which is highly unlikely) they would have actually spread the fire during the first 10 minutes of the fire.

There is also the minor detail the sprinklers would have been effective for only 15 percent of each floor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-12-06 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. Don't forget
that those "thousands of gallons of burning fuel" were traveling at 500 mph, and would have continued traveling right out the other side of the building, along with the other plane debris.

Also, the sprinklers controlled those oh-so-hot secondary fires (burning Kleenex boxes, calendars, etc.), not the plane fuel, which mostly burned off in the first 10 minutes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-12-06 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. I think we have reached the point of diminishing returns ..
have a good day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-11-06 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. "who said the Pentagon scenario involved a plane as a weapon?"
Do you honestly think that military people involved in an accident simulation
did not have the imagination to suppose that somebody might create such an
incident as a matter of aggression?

Besides, al Qaeda's Project Bojinka plot to fly planes into Sears Tower,
the WTC, and the Pentagon was known to the Philippine authorities, and they
told the US authorities about it.

The French disrupted a plot to fly hijacked airliners into Eiffel tower.

The idea that nobody conceived of the idea of hijacked planes as weapons is as
absurd as the idea that nobody ever conceived of boats or cars or motorcycles as
weapons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-12-06 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. You merely have to link it directly to the Pentagon drill - thats all, nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
martymartin Donating Member (6 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-12-06 05:46 PM
Response to Original message
17. A Doctor is puzzled
A Doctor’s Puzzlement -

Most people remember what they were doing on the day of September 11. On that day, I was working as a medical director for the U.S. Postal Service. I remember walking in to the lunch room at the main post office in CITY DELETED and everybody was watching the television set. Nobody was eating. Then I asked somebody what was going on. And I watched for few minutes, then went to my office and did my work for the day and didn’t think too much about it.

The next day, I had lunch with my boss and he said “they know the guy who did it. It was Osama bin Laden.” And I thought, that’s great they already figured out who the criminal is behind this and now they’re going to go catch him.

And I didn’t think too much more about it.

Then, a month later, all hell broke loose at the post office. This was because of the anthrax letters. I spent most of my time for the next several months focused on this because I was in charge of handling all of the telephone calls about anthrax questions from postal workers in much of the country. Several postal workers died because of the anthrax letters, so we were very worried.

I talked to a lot of people, and I gave lectures to educate the workers and managers. I met with the postal inspectors and with public health officials and with the FBI, and we participated in evacuation exercises.

So I became a kind of an expert about anthrax. I would tell people that they didn’t have to worry because they were only a few letters that were mailed in the whole United States, and the kind of dangerous anthrax that was sent was very, very special. This was called “weaponized anthrax” that would stay in the air for a long time. So because I was spending so much time learning about anthrax and meeting with officials, coordinating our responses, I learned a lot and I became interested in other aspects of the investigation. I wanted to know who sent those letters.

In October, 2001, the Administration was trying to get the Patriot Act passed. That’s when the BBC reported Vice President Cheney said there “could be a connection between the anthrax cases and bin Laden’s terror network”.

One day, I heard that the FBI had done an analysis of the anthrax and found that it was called the Ames strain. This type of anthrax had been specially treated with certain chemicals to make it “weaponized” it turns out that this process was developed at a U.S. Army facility called Fort Detrick. So it turns out that the source of the anthrax that killed the postal workers was probably the United States government. I then asked myself who could get their hands on that weaponized anthrax from Fort Detrick?

So I then I heard that the FBI was questioning one of the scientists who had worked with the U.S. biological weapons program, however, he was not arrested.

And then, the investigation just stopped. There was no more news about who sent the letters.

And I said to myself, “That’s strange”.

So I looked into this a little bit more, and found out that there were only a few letters sent. It turns out that the Senators who got letters (Daschle and Leahy) were both Democrats who were opposed to the rapid passage of the Patriot Act. But after they got their letters, the Capitol buildings were closed, and lots of people in Washington were scared. And then, shortly after that, the Patriot Act was voted on and passed, even though most senators did not have a chance to read it before they voted for it.

And then, a couple months later, I remember hearing that President Bush wanted us to go to war with Iraq. And he said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And that Saddam Hussein wanted to attack the United States with anthrax and other weapons. And I remember the terrorist alerts, yellow, orange. And postal workers called me, very afraid when the homeland security chief said to go by plastic sheets and duct tape to protect against terrorist chemical and biological attacks. But I told the postal workers “Don’t worry, I’ve checked with the Centers for Disease Control and you don’t have to buy duct tape”.

But people were very frightened.

And then, I remember watching General Colin Powell, our Secretary of State on TV at the United Nations. He held up a little bottle file of white powder and said, if this were anthrax and distributed just the right way, thousands of people could die.

And shortly after that, we invaded Iraq.

But then we found out that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. They didn’t have weaponized anthrax. And we found out that the president’s state of the union message about Iraq trying to buy uranium and the question about the aluminum centrifuge tubes was all wrong. And there never was any danger of our first warning being a mushroom cloud. And later, it was called an “intelligence failure”. So I didn’t understand why, when CIA director George Tenet resigned, President Bush gave him the Presidential Medal of Freedom.


And about that time, I was listening to a morning radio talk show.

The host of the show took a telephone call, and interviewed a young man who had produced a video. This video was about how the government of the United States was hiding the truth from us about September 11. And he said that the Twin Towers in New York could not have fallen led the way to the ground from just from the airplanes and from the fires. And he said that they never did find that Boeing 757 that was supposed to have crashed at the Pentagon.

And I thought that was pretty interesting. But then, the radio talk show host asked this young man “Who in the United States government would possibly want to kill thousands of our own citizens. Who would want to crash those planes. Why would they want to do that. Who would benefit?”

And then, the young man tried to answer that question. He said he didn’t really know. And then, the talk show host changed his attitude. He was no longer just asking questions. He was now being very aggressive. It was obvious that he thought the young man was a crazy fool, and he almost caught him unpatriotic. The young man had mentioned a book called 9/11 - The New Pearl Harbor.

So I ordered that book and read it. The book was written by Professor David Ray Griffin. That book raised lots of questions and pointed out that much of the official government story did not make sense.

And then, the 9/11 commission report was published. And it was a best seller. It sold more than Harry Potter for a while. Finally, we were going to have the answers to what happened on 9/11. But then, I heard some criticism of the report and of the Commission. I remember that at first, President Bush did not want a Commission. After the Challenger space shuttle blew up, there was almost an immediate investigation, and millions and millions of dollars were spent to investigate. But the 9/11 commission did not start for more than one year after 9/11, and did not have very much money to run the investigation.

So it does not look like President Bush was supporting this commission very much. But when it was finally started, he appointed Henry Kissinger to lead the commission. But then, Mr. Kissinger resigned, he said because he refused to disclose the names of the clients for his consulting company. It turns out that the man who ran the investigation day to day and who was responsible for editing the final report, was Mr. Phillip Zelikow. And Mr. Zelikow had worked with the Bush transition team on national security matters when Clinton was leaving office, and he had co-authored a book with Condoleezza Rice, who was one of the key witnesses who finally testified to the Commission.

And I remember that President Bush and Vice President Cheney did not want to testify in front of the commission. And finally, when they did, they had to be together in the same room at the same time, but it was not under oath, and the commissioners could not take notes from the room until the White House approved them.

And the press kept calling this the “independent” commission. But the commission’s draft report was given to the White House for vetting before final publication, and the White House helped edit the report before it was published.

So I wondered about this commission report’s conclusions. It turns out that nobody in our government was to blame for the 9/11 attacks except the Federal Aviation Administration. And we had “intelligence failures”. But they forgot to mention World Trade Center Building 7. Not one word about that building that fell all the way to the ground even though it was not hit by an airplane. And they forgot to mention lots of other things. They also got some things completely wrong. When discussing the “collapse” of the Twin Towers, they say the towers had hollow cores comprised of stairways and elevators. In fact, the towers each had 47 central steel support columns. (David Ray Griffin has published a very good book called the 9/11 Commission: Omissions and Distortions.)

I don’t think anybody was disciplined or fired because of incompetence over what happened on September 11. This seemed very strange to me.

Then, I read the newspaper story about a man who had died in Memphis Tennessee. He had fallen off of a bridge and drowned in the Mississippi river. That was very strange, so I wondered who was this man? And it turns out that he was a Harvard microbiologist who was visiting Memphis for a science conference.

His rental car was found abandoned on the Hernando de Soto bridge 11/16/01 with the keys in the ignition pulled over to a lane that was closed at the side of the bridge without hazard flashers on.

His body was found on 12/20/01 snagged on a tree in the water in Vidalia, La., 300 miles south of Memphis.


His obituary reads:
Don C. Wiley, one of the most distinguished structural biologists of his generation, has died. He was 57. Wiley, whose teaching and research career spanned three decades at Harvard University, conducted key research on the structure of viruses and of proteins in the human immune system. His work focused on the molecular mechanisms that enable viruses to infect cells, and on how cells respond to external challenges by presenting antigens and mobilizing defensive cells. A senior investigator of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Wiley studied the structure of such viruses as the AIDS virus, Ebola, herpes simplex, and influenza. He examined the ways in which viruses bind to cell surfaces, enabling their entry into the cell, and the ways in which viruses evolve to infect different organisms and to escape the immune response of their hosts. By understanding these processes, Wiley sought to find new ways to combat these viruses

The coroner ruled that he had “likely lost his balance on a narrow curb of a Memphis bridge, fell over the thigh-high guardrail and down 135 feet to his death.”

(When I looked this up with a search engine, I found reports of other microbiologists dying around the same time, including Dr. Robert M. Schwartz, Dr. Benito Que, Dr. Set Van Nguyen, and Dr. Vladimir Pasechnik who was reported to be the former chief of the Soviet bioweapons program.)

Then, I heard about a physics professor at Brigham Young University, Doctor Stephen Jones. Doctor Jones had published a paper on the Internet that described problems with the official government story about how the twin towers crashed all the way to the ground on September 11. He says that the best explanation seems to be “controlled demolition”. That is when a company puts explosives inside a building, and then sets them off in a very specific away, to cause the building to collapse into its own foot print. Also, World Trade Center building 7 fell exactly this way, but it was not hit by a plane. They say the fires caused building seven to crumble all the way to the ground. But fires have never caused a steel framed high-rise building to ever collapse all the way to the ground, before or after September 11.

The government’s own FEMA investigation was unable to explain what happened to WTC building 7 seven, but they did not consider the hypothesis of controlled demolition.


I wonder why the American press hasn’t done a better job informing the public. Most people don’t know about building 7, and most people think that Osama bin Laden has never denied that he was behind the 9/11 attacks. In fact, he has denied it publicly at least twice. The press did tell us about a video that was provided by the Pentagon, in which a man they claim to be bin Laden admits guilt. But the press forgot to tell us that experts believe this video tape was a fake.

Recently, somebody sent me an e-mail that got me to thinking.
Sometimes, when politicians don’t like somebody they call him a “Hitler”.

It turns out that Hitler was very good at fooling and manipulating the citizens of Germany. In some ways, he tricked them into war. He did this using a technique called the Big Lie. When I read about the Big Lie, I remembered that phone call with the radio announcer and the young man in Idaho. Mr. Hitler said that people are unable to believe that the government would tell them a very very Big Lie. And because the people were psychologically unable to believe a very Big Lie, the government could fool the people and manipulate them.

But the lie must be very very big. So big, that it seems impossible. Most people find it impossible psychologically to believe that our government could in any way be involved with any kind of harm being done to American citizens.

Some people say that the Bush administration knew about the September 11 attacks before they happened, and purposely did nothing to stop them. This is called complicity with the attacks.

Other people say that there is a “secret government” within our intelligence community that actually helped plan and carry out those attacks. This is such an outrageous suggestion that most people are completely unable to consider it, even for one minute. I hope this is not what happened. But, I must ask more questions because the 911 commission report leaves so much out. There are so many omissions, and distortions.

There are many very important questions that have not been answered. Now, there is a group of academic professors who have come together to propose a credible challenge to the 9/11 commission report. They say that the buildings came down probably because of controlled demolition.

Their web site is http://www.st911.org
Another site that asks about the collapse of the buildings is
http://www.911truestory.com

This is where we need to start the investigation. If this turns out to be true, then many other questions should be asked. It’s time for the 9/11 puzzle to be finally and accurately solved piece by piece.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-12-06 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. ooh, excellent. thanks!
Yes, most people think that bin Laden confessed and everyone has all but forgotten about the anthrax. When the Hollywood movies come out it will really be all over for the truth because that will cement the "Big Lie" in place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harald Ragnarsson Donating Member (366 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-16-06 01:49 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. The Anthrax Attack is the thread that will unravel it all
Someone in our Shadow Government sent Anthrax through the mail killing 9 people, making who knows how many sick and the main targets were DEMOCRATS and JOURNALISTS, a clear warning and murder attempt all wrapped up in one.

Along with the Anthrax came notes which attempted to throw blame for these attacks on ARABS and muslims.

My friends, if your government will kill you with anthrax and frame arabs for it, they would kill you with airplanes and frame arabs for that too if they could.

Anyone that dismisses government involvement in the 911 attacks is being deadly foolish, in my humble opinion.

You're taking your life in your own hands. They'd kill you and not blink an eye if it further an aim of theirs.

Also, doesn't it kill you when people ask "What MOTIVE would they have?".

My god, people are sitting on death row all over this country for bumping off their wife for $100K insurance, but these people wouldn't kill complete strangers for ruling the world and billions and billions in stolen wealth?

I'm beginning to think it must be required to remove your brain if you're an American citizen. I love this country with all my heart, but can't see the point in remaining here to watch it ran into the ground and be told I'm loony for pointing it out to people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Twist_U_Up Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-27-06 08:31 PM
Response to Original message
20. Ouch.................nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 12:39 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC