On Point: 9/11 theories burst [Archive] - The Orange Mane

W*GS

08-31-2006, 10:03 AM

Rocky Mountain News

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion_columnists/article/0,2777,DRMN_23972_4951907,00.html

August 29, 2006

With the anniversary of 9/11 just a couple of weeks away, it's time to strike a blow for sanity and, yes, truth. If the polls are accurate, someone you know is flirting with 9/11 denial - or perhaps has succumbed already to the contagious delusion.

The symptoms are unmistakable. For starters, the victim uses the phrase "the official version" when referring to events of that day - or more likely, "the government version" - and utters the words with unconcealed contempt.

Maybe the skeptic has e-mailed you a video of a lecture by Brigham Young University physics professor Steven Jones, or a column by Morgan Reynolds or Paul Craig Roberts, accompanied by a note of wonder: "Have you seen this?"

Or perhaps your friend/relative has sent you a link to one of the dozens of Web sites dedicated to explaining why this or that critical aspect of the accepted version of 9/11 is allegedly full of holes.

There is no time to waste. You must purchase Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts, a paperback just released by Hearst Books, and get it to the afflicted person in time for the fifth anniversary of the terrorists' attack.

Debunking is the product of editors, writers and researchers at Popular Mechanics magazine, and is an expanded version of their March 2005 issue on the topic. Edited by David Dunbar, the magazine's executive editor, and Brad Reagan, a contributing editor, the book provides a sober, concise review of the major allegations and the consensus rebuttal of experts and eyewitnesses.

Let's dip our toes into a couple of the conspiracy buffs' favorite claims:

• Claim No. 1: Before 9/11, no steel-framed high-rise had ever collapsed because of fire. Why did the twin towers? Jet fuel doesn't even burn hot enough to melt steel. The collapse must have been triggered by an engineered demolition.

Responds Debunking: "The Twin Tower fires were unlike previous high-rise fires. . . . the planes that struck the two towers involved multiple floors, slicing through floors 93 to 99 in the North Tower and 77 to 85 in the South Tower . . . The resulting conflagrations were immediate and widespread.

"As the fires blazed and the temperatures rose within the buildings, NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) believes, the remaining core columns (those not severed by the planes during impact) softened and buckled, transferring most of the load to the building's outer structural columns. The floors . . . began to sag from the heat, pulling those columns inward and adding to the burden on the outer columns."

Important point: "The NIST report states that pockets of fire hit 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,832 degrees Fahrenheit). Steel begins to lose strength at temperatures as low as about 400 degrees Celsius . . . At 980 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit), it retains less than 10 percent (of its strength) . . . "

Debunking goes into much greater detail regarding what it says are among "the most extensively studied structural failures in American history," but you get its flavor: It's fact based, with lots of quotations from expert testimony.

• Claim No. 2: What about World Trade Center 7? This 47-story building also collapsed in the wake of the attacks, and it wasn't even hit by a plane. If it wasn't an inside job, what happened?

The collapse of building 7 was something of a puzzle to investigators at the outset. And the Federal Emergency Management Agency's preliminary report in 2002 may have missed the mark in several respects. However, Debunking notes, "with the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised than the FEMA report indicated. 'The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7,' NIST's (lead investigator Shyam) Sunder tells Popular Mechanics. 'On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom - approximately 10 stories - about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out.' "

FEMA didn't notice this in its early analysis, according to NIST, because "in the many photographs taken of the area following the attacks - a primary source in the FEMA report - the structure of WTC 7 is simply not visible" because of smoke.

Debunking deals with much more, of course, including many fraudulent claims involving the attack on the Pentagon as well as the demise of Flight 93. But among Debunking's most damning passages are those quoting numerous 9/11 witnesses, rescuers and others complaining about how conspiracy addicts have twisted and misused what they said to build their theories.

These guys are a disgrace: Buy this book and spare your loved ones the same fate.

Vincent Carroll, editor of the editorial pages, writes On Point several times a week. Reach him at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com.

Copyright 2006, Rocky Mountain News. All Rights Reserved.

W*GS

08-31-2006, 10:05 AM

Rocky Mountain News

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion_columnists/article/0,2777,DRMN_23972_4957231,00.html

On Point: ABC's of 9/11 skeptics

August 31, 2006

There are three types of 9/11 conspiracy buffs, I've learned in the past two days.

Type A's are mostly harmless. They are skeptics intrigued with the theory that 9/11 was an inside job involving government assistance or direction who are not ready to make the full-body leap into cuckooland. After my column Tuesday praising the new book Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts, a number of Type A's e-mailed me various reasons why they can't quite accept the consensus version of 9/11 that will appear in history books. Their attitude may even be healthy up to a point; the public should want to pore over the fine print of any complicated explanation for a tragedy.

Type B's are more aggressive. They have made up their minds but are still willing to ply their arguments on wayward journalists like me with a minimal number of insults.

Type B's will ask, with a tutoring tone, aren't you aware that real-estate developer Larry Silverstein slipped and used the term "pull it" - allegedly demolition slang - in referring to World Trade Center 7? (Actually, the context of his statement suggests a very different meaning, which Silverstein himself has confirmed.)

Or, they will say, don't you realize that two members of the 9/11 commission have written a book accusing the Pentagon and FAA of lying? (Sure, but Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton maintain the FAA and Pentagon misled the commission to cover their inept response to the attacks, not because they were complicit in them.)

Or - to cite just one more common query - how could the twin towers collapse at near free-fall speeds if they were unassisted by demolition? (Read the investigative report by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, or its recently posted fact sheet, for the nonconspiratorial answer.)

Finally, there are the Type C's, the red meat conspiracy hucksters who know a despicable traitor when they spot one.

"You are complicit in cover up and will be remembered!"

"You haven't the guts to truly understand what happened that day."

"You are as corrupt as your handlers."

"Your stance makes you an accessory to the crime."

"Obviously you're working hard to bring about the end of this country, our freedom, and constitutional rights. Proud of yourself? I hope you get what you deserve."

"The disgrace is your fascist ability to ignore evidence."

"You are the one lost puppie (sic)!"

"I'm afraid that your poorly researched article on 9/11 is what will be remembered as the REAL disgrace."

"On what planet do you live?"

"Have just read your fear-laced article in the Rocky Mountain News . . . It's time to free your mind; or at the very least, force those hands back out of your pockets."

"Mainstream media is owned by a very small group of people . . . and they can be bought and bribed just like most anyone else."

"If I was you, I'd be getting my a-- on a plane to Israel."

One of the "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" did write me a long, patient letter in which he urged me to investigate the collapse of Building 7 with a view to discovering "the culprits responsible for setting up the explosive charges. It was obviously done well in advance of 9/11 - it's impossible to configure and set up a building of this size in a day; the job would take a professional company several months to accomplish."

Several months? A professional company? The mind reels at the implausible scenario.

As one level-headed correspondent wrote, as if reading my mind, do "people in this country really believe that not one single person that allegedly rigged the WTC with explosives has ever had a momentary pang of conscience or remorse? Not one single weak link in the entire diabolical scheme? . . . why didn't the government officials that were so cunning and sinister arrange to have someone plant nukes or chemical weapons in Iraq and then 'find' them? If any country would have the means to do that, it would have been us. . . . But no, they instead have had to stumble around the awkward fact that they never found any."

Just so. But don't try pointing out this obvious objection to 9/11 conspiracy buffs. It will only prove your part in the sickening plot.

Vincent Carroll, editor of the editorial pages, writes On Point several times a week. Reach him at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com.

Copyright 2006, Rocky Mountain News. All Rights Reserved.

Bronco_Beerslug

08-31-2006, 10:08 AM

I swear, if people have to buy books to understand why these buildings collapsed this country will wither away into a cesspool of stupidity.

Spider

08-31-2006, 10:11 AM

I swear, if people have to buy books to understand why these buildings collapsed this country will wither away into a cesspool of stupidity.

So buying books reading about what hapened , looking at all angles is a bad thing ........ got it ....

Rohirrim

08-31-2006, 10:11 AM

Unfortunately, believing in conspiracies is a matter of faith, not reason. Argument is a process of reason, not faith. Two parallel tracks receding into the distance, and never meeting.

Bronco_Beerslug

08-31-2006, 10:42 AM

Unfortunately, believing in conspiracies is a matter of faith, not reason. Argument is a process of reason, not faith. Two parallel tracks receding into the distance, and never meeting.
Never a truer statement evidenced by posts here.

The Lone Bolt

08-31-2006, 11:26 AM

But don't try pointing out this obvious objection to 9/11 conspiracy buffs. It will only prove your part in the sickening plot.

Yes indeed. As I pointed out before, some are so committed to the government-was-behind-it-all conspiracy theory that their beliefs are impossible to disprove. Any information that conflicts with their theory is automatically "neocon misinformation", "government propaganda", "lies", etc.

And I do believe we have at least a couple of "Type Cs" on this board.

denver5459

08-31-2006, 11:41 AM

Nice post Wigs, wish it would put all the 9-11 conspiracies to rest. But it won't we have to many "Type Cs" out there.

enjolras

08-31-2006, 11:54 AM

I wish they'd all go back to JFK;) The only thing that really bothers me is how desperate people are to pin the murder of 3000 people on Bush. I have been quite ardently opposed to Bush for as long as he's had presedential aspirations. I think he has a tremendous number of shortcomings, but I stop short of believing that he's actually EVIL. Irrational? Yes. Anti-Intellectual? Yes. Inept? Ill-equipped? Reckless? Yes. Yes. Yes. But I've seen nothing to convince me that he's fundamentally evil.

Its sad that partisanship has reached the point that we have to beleive that the leader of our country is an actual bad human being. I recognize that this isn't a strictly democrat response, the Repubs demonized Clinton into something far worse than he was as well.

defenseman

08-31-2006, 04:08 PM

mhgaffney

09-01-2006, 05:13 PM

I swear, if people have to buy books to understand why these buildings collapsed this country will wither away into a cesspool of stupidity.

Yes, I recall your earlier post. You stated that you knew on 911 -- presumably even as the towers were falling -- the cause of the collapse.

That's as arrogant a statement as I've seen on this board. And how did you know, sir? Did God whisper in your ear?

Sorry, but your theory that the towers fell because of the jumbos they were not designed for -- doesn't explain the facts. You forget that the plane that hit the second tower spilled much -- maybe most -- of its jet fuel outside the building, fuel that exploded in a gigantic fireball outside the tower.

So there was no additional jet fuel (above and beyond the WTC specs) to weaken the enormous steel beams.

Nor have you explained the pulverization of vast amounts of concrete into dust that settled over the city. Are you saying the burning jet fuel, which is mostly kerosene, caused the enormous mass of concrete in these towers to disintegrate into dust? One thing is sure: gravity didn't do this.

It took an enormous amount of energy to pulverize those towers. You have yet to explain the source of that energy. Enormous steel beams were also thrown 200 feet away from the tower. Did gravity do that?

People read books because they are searching for answers -- and the truth. Of course, people who already know all the answers because God speaks to them don't need books. People who think they know are usually the most ignorant fools of all.

And then there are those who desire desperately to believe what their leaders tell them -- so desperately that they will swallow anything. The bigger the lie the easier to believe. Recall, these were the patriots who believed LBJ's lie that we had been attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin.

Pity the poor sheep, the lemmings, so willing to follow the "leader" over the precipice.

Above all, pity the nation.

MG

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

09-01-2006, 06:14 PM

Its sad that partisanship has reached the point that we have to beleive that the leader of our country is an actual bad human being.

Partisanship has nothing to do with it.

All the innocent blood on Bush's hands (because of his lies) has everything to do with it.

And anyone who has bothered to read Bush's bio understands that he's always been a crook and a con man who has abused every position of power with which he has been entrusted.

W*GS

09-01-2006, 06:23 PM

Nor have you explained the pulverization of vast amounts of concrete into dust that settled over the city. Are you saying the burning jet fuel, which is mostly kerosene, caused the enormous mass of concrete in these towers to disintegrate into dust? One thing is sure: gravity didn't do this.

Do the calculation yourself.

What's the potential energy of a concrete slab approximately an acre in area and a couple feet thick at an elevation of ~1,300' above the ground?

W*GS

09-01-2006, 06:25 PM

Partisanship has nothing to do with it.

In your case, partisanship and a radicalization (prompted by what?) has everything to do with it.

Bronco_Beerslug

09-01-2006, 07:03 PM

Yes, I recall your earlier post. You stated that you knew on 911 -- presumably even as the towers were falling -- the cause of the collapse.

That's as arrogant a statement as I've seen on this board. And how did you know, sir? Did God whisper in your ear?

Sorry, but your theory that the towers fell because of the jumbos they were not designed for -- doesn't explain the facts. You forget that the plane that hit the second tower spilled much -- maybe most -- of its jet fuel outside the building, fuel that exploded in a gigantic fireball outside the tower.

So there was no additional jet fuel (above and beyond the WTC specs) to weaken the enormous steel beams.

Nor have you explained the pulverization of vast amounts of concrete into dust that settled over the city. Are you saying the burning jet fuel, which is mostly kerosene, caused the enormous mass of concrete in these towers to disintegrate into dust? One thing is sure: gravity didn't do this.

It took an enormous amount of energy to pulverize those towers. You have yet to explain the source of that energy. Enormous steel beams were also thrown 200 feet away from the tower. Did gravity do that?

People read books because they are searching for answers -- and the truth. Of course, people who already know all the answers because God speaks to them don't need books. People who think they know are usually the most ignorant fools of all.

And then there are those who desire desperately to believe what their leaders tell them -- so desperately that they will swallow anything. The bigger the lie the easier to believe. Recall, these were the patriots who believed LBJ's lie that we had been attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin.

Pity the poor sheep, the lemmings, so willing to follow the "leader" over the precipice.

Above all, pity the nation.

MG
Your ignorance is beyond explanation. There were NO enormous steel beams. There were many smaller steel columns. Many of those were destroyed by the impacts. Many of the remaining steel columns were compromised by the additional weight they had to now support and the heat from the jet fuel fires. If you aren't intelligent enough to understand the buildings fell on themselves (millions and millions seen it happen with their own eyes live) then you probably should quit posting about it and embarrassing yourself.

Rock Chalk

09-01-2006, 07:19 PM

Partisanship has nothing to do with it.

All the innocent blood on Bush's hands (because of his lies) has everything to do with it.

And anyone who has bothered to read Bush's bio understands that he's always been a crook and a con man who has abused every position of power with which he has been entrusted.

The innocent blood is not on Bush's hands and that is sad that you think so. THe innocent blood is on the terrorists hands LABF. I would think that, being a democrat, you would understand personal accountability.

If Bush made mistakes, he made mistakes, but he did not order terrorist ****heads to blow up the WTC or smash the Pentagon.

Bush also did not refuse to get Osama bin Laden when he was offered by the Sudan (like Clinton).

This is not the fault of any America my disillusioned friend. This is SOLELY the fault of the terrorists. If they want to do something, no matter how hard we try, we will not be able to stop them. Like suicides, you cannot prevent it short of taking away all of the liberties of those that you wish to protect.

Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else wants that. We live in a world where madmen will do mad things to people who have nothing to do with them. For what reason? It doesnt matter. All that matters is that TERRORISTS, specifically ISLAMIC TERRORISTS are responsible for the deaths of 3000 people.

Could it have been avoided? Maybe. Maybe not. ALl I know is that Clinton failed to curb terrorism, Bush Sr failed to curb it, Reagan failed to curb it, Carter failed, every president has failed. Every leader has failed. You cannot stop terrorism. All you can do is attempt to thwart it as best you can. Sometimes you will make mistakes, its called being human. You cannot lay the blame on those people in charge for what others did. ALl you can do is lay the blame on those that committed the atrocity.

We do not put murderer's parents in the death chamber. We put the murderers there. We do not put the murderer's teacher's in the death chamber, we put the murderers there. Why is this any different?

Its not.

You wish to pin it all on Bush, but you miss the sad and simple truth. Terrorists committed the crime and terrorists are at fault. Not Bush, not Clinton even for not accepting Osama's head when it was offered long ago.

When you face that simple fact man, we will be on the same page. Im not asking you to like Bush, to agree with him, Im not even asking you to accept that he is YOUR President. All I am asking is that you put the blame on the people directly responsible for the act and quit deflecting it to other innocent people.

Spider

09-01-2006, 07:39 PM

I was thinking about quiting truck driving and persuing my life long dream of working in a theatre making popcorn ............

mhgaffney

09-01-2006, 07:58 PM

Your ignorance is beyond explanation. There were NO enormous steel beams. There were many smaller steel columns. Many of those were destroyed by the impacts. Many of the remaining steel columns were compromised by the additional weight they had to now support and the heat from the jet fuel fires. If you aren't intelligent enough to understand the buildings fell on themselves (millions and millions seen it happen with their own eyes live) then you probably should quit posting about it and embarrassing yourself.

Yes, we all saw the buildings fall. That is not the question.

Closer to the base of the building there most certainly were enormous steel beams. This is where the firefighters saw the flashes and heard the explosions just before the towers fell. They were on drugs I suppose?

Steel beams that lose their strength do not necessarily snap -- they sag or they give. So why the collapse of the entire building? Kerosine and gravity did this?

There was another steel high rise even closer to the WTC than building 7. It burned for 17 hours and sustained greater damage than 7, yet it never fell. Nor is there any other example before or since 911 of a steel high rise that fell due to fire.

As for building 7 itself, we are told it was damaged by falling debris from the WTC. OK fine. Falling debris would have damaged it from the top down. Yet, the video of its collapse clearly shows that it fell from the bottom up. It imploded into its footprint just like a controlled demolition.

None of this adds up. If part of the official story is a lie -- then the whole is a tissue of lies.

At this critical time in our nation's history we must maintain a healthy skepticism. We must remain open as we continue to seek answers.

MG

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

09-01-2006, 09:32 PM

The innocent blood is not on Bush's hands and that is sad that you think so. THe innocent blood is on the terrorists hands LABF. I would think that, being a democrat, you would understand personal accountability.

If Bush made mistakes, he made mistakes, but he did not order terrorist ****heads to blow up the WTC or smash the Pentagon.

Bush also did not refuse to get Osama bin Laden when he was offered by the Sudan (like Clinton).

This is not the fault of any America my disillusioned friend. This is SOLELY the fault of the terrorists. If they want to do something, no matter how hard we try, we will not be able to stop them. Like suicides, you cannot prevent it short of taking away all of the liberties of those that you wish to protect.

Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else wants that. We live in a world where madmen will do mad things to people who have nothing to do with them. For what reason? It doesnt matter. All that matters is that TERRORISTS, specifically ISLAMIC TERRORISTS are responsible for the deaths of 3000 people.

Could it have been avoided? Maybe. Maybe not. ALl I know is that Clinton failed to curb terrorism, Bush Sr failed to curb it, Reagan failed to curb it, Carter failed, every president has failed. Every leader has failed. You cannot stop terrorism. All you can do is attempt to thwart it as best you can. Sometimes you will make mistakes, its called being human. You cannot lay the blame on those people in charge for what others did. ALl you can do is lay the blame on those that committed the atrocity.

We do not put murderer's parents in the death chamber. We put the murderers there. We do not put the murderer's teacher's in the death chamber, we put the murderers there. Why is this any different?

Its not.

You wish to pin it all on Bush, but you miss the sad and simple truth. Terrorists committed the crime and terrorists are at fault. Not Bush, not Clinton even for not accepting Osama's head when it was offered long ago.

When you face that simple fact man, we will be on the same page. Im not asking you to like Bush, to agree with him, Im not even asking you to accept that he is YOUR President. All I am asking is that you put the blame on the people directly responsible for the act and quit deflecting it to other innocent people.

I was referring to Iraq.

Bronco_Beerslug

09-02-2006, 05:10 AM

Yes, we all saw the buildings fall. That is not the question.
Closer to the base of the building there most certainly were enormous steel beams. Unreal. You have been given the structural drawings of these buildings many times from many sites and you STILL don't seem to be able to comprehend what's in front of your face. I even gave the column steel alloy composition and exact sizes in the thread link I told you to read that you didn't. In fact, I even linked to where the columns were forged.

This is where the firefighters saw the flashes and heard the explosions just before the towers fell. They were on drugs I suppose? One more time, the twin towers fell on themselves, FROM THE TOP DOWN.

Steel beams that lose their strength do not necessarily snap -- they sag or they give. So why the collapse of the entire building? Kerosine and gravity did this?
Jet fuel, impact damage and physics. The columns that "snapped" were the remaining columns that weren't severed by impact. Outside columns bowed outwards at bolted and welded connection points as the weight of the structure above them became too much for them to support. Many broke (snapped) at these connection points when the buildings started coming down. Videos and pictures CLEARLY show this!

W*GS

09-02-2006, 08:05 AM

There was another steel high rise even closer to the WTC than building 7. It burned for 17 hours and sustained greater damage than 7, yet it never fell.

Name?

As for building 7 itself, we are told it was damaged by falling debris from the WTC. OK fine.

Not "we are told", it was indeed heavily damaged by debris. Think a 20-floor section "scooped" out to about 1/4 of the depth of the building. Something akin to what the federal building in OKC looked like after McVeigh bombed it.

Falling debris would have damaged it from the top down. Yet, the video of its collapse clearly shows that it fell from the bottom up. It imploded into its footprint just like a controlled demolition.

Two of your three sentences above are wrong.

None of this adds up.

Since you're mostly wrong, your data can't be "added"...

mhgaffney

09-02-2006, 02:19 PM

the twin towers fell on themselves, FROM THE TOP DOWN.
Jet fuel, impact damage and physics. The columns that "snapped" were the remaining columns that weren't severed by impact. Outside columns bowed outwards at bolted and welded connection points as the weight of the structure above them became too much for them to support. Many broke (snapped) at these connection points when the buildings started coming down. Videos and pictures CLEARLY show this!

What the videos of the second impact show is that the plane hit the building not head on like the first impact but at a rather severe angle. This accounts for the huge fireball of jet fuel spilled outside the building. In fact, the plane came close to missing the tower altogether. Given this angle of impact, there is no way the jet could have severed more than a few of the steel columns holding up the tower. As we know from the blueprints the main supports were concentrated in a grid located in the central part of the tower --- not around the exterior of the building.

Your theory of collapse ignores this. The towers by design had lots of redundancy built into them. The designer or engineer stated that each tower could absorb multiple impacts and survive. You ignore this.

I also went back and looked at your earlier post regarding building 7. You wrote:

He [Larry Silverstein] has stated he never said he ordered a building blown up. Only the Internet nerds could come up with that sh*t. He has, many times stated he said "pull it" to the fire chief who pulled his men because of the growing fire.

Well I've just viewed again the video of the building 7 collapse and also the original Silverstein interview -- and you are just plain wrong. Yes he tried later to back away from what he said -- but it's all there on video. He was clearly talking about demolishing the building -- a clear slip. At the time he did not comprehend the implications of what he was saying. His statement is not in the least ambiguous -- regardless of what he claimed later.

The video of the building 7 collapse also clearly shows that despite whatever damage might have happened to the the upper southern floors of the building, the collapse began at the bottom of the building. In fact, building 7 fell altogether, as one piece, starting at the bottom.

Is this not the signature of a controlled demolition? Yes it is.

Anyone can view this video. It's posted in many places. A quick google with key words "Larry Silverstein" "911" and "Building 7" should bring it up.

If a picture is worth a thousand words this filmed collapse of building 7 is worth a million.

MG

mhgaffney

09-02-2006, 02:23 PM

BTW anyone who would believe a FEMA report, after the sort of malfeasance we've seen from the agency in recent history, would have to be nuts.

ak1971

09-02-2006, 03:00 PM

What the videos of the second impact show is that the plane hit the building not head on like the first impact but at a rather severe angle. This accounts for the huge fireball of jet fuel spilled outside the building. In fact, the plane came close to missing the tower altogether. Given this angle of impact, there is no way the jet could have severed more than a few of the steel columns holding up the tower. As we know from the blueprints the main supports were concentrated in a grid located in the central part of the tower --- not around the exterior of the building.

Your theory of collapse ignores this. The towers by design had lots of redundancy built into them. The designer or engineer stated that each tower could absorb multiple impacts and survive. You ignore this.

I also went back and looked at your earlier post regarding building 7. You wrote:

He [Larry Silverstein] has stated he never said he ordered a building blown up. Only the Internet nerds could come up with that sh*t. He has, many times stated he said "pull it" to the fire chief who pulled his men because of the growing fire.

Well I've just viewed again the video of the building 7 collapse and also the original Silverstein interview -- and you are just plain wrong. Yes he tried later to back away from what he said -- but it's all there on video. He was clearly talking about demolishing the building -- a clear slip. At the time he did not comprehend the implications of what he was saying. His statement is not in the least ambiguous -- regardless of what he claimed later.

The video of the building 7 collapse also clearly shows that despite whatever damage might have happened to the the upper southern floors of the building, the collapse began at the bottom of the building. In fact, building 7 fell altogether, as one piece, starting at the bottom.

Is this not the signature of a controlled demolition? Yes it is.

Anyone can view this video. It's posted in many places. A quick google with key words "Larry Silverstein" "911" and "Building 7" should bring it up.

If a picture is worth a thousand words this filmed collapse of building 7 is worth a million.

MG

What a crock anything about the 36000 gallons of deisel in that bldg?

W*GS

09-02-2006, 03:16 PM

As we know from the blueprints the main supports were concentrated in a grid located in the central part of the tower --- not around the exterior of the building.

Wrong. The exterior columns were an integral part of the support system - they were not merely a curtain wall. The fact that each floor was about an acre in area with no interior support columns aside from the central core shows you're full of crap.

If a picture is worth a thousand words this filmed collapse of building 7 is worth a million.

You're clinging to falsehoods based on faith, not the facts. Pathetic.

Bronco_Beerslug

09-02-2006, 04:33 PM

What the videos of the second impact show is that the plane hit the building not head on like the first impact but at a rather severe angle. This accounts for the huge fireball of jet fuel spilled outside the building. In fact, the plane came close to missing the tower altogether. Given this angle of impact, there is no way the jet could have severed more than a few of the steel columns holding up the tower. As we know from the blueprints the main supports were concentrated in a grid located in the central part of the tower --- not around the exterior of the building.

Your theory of collapse ignores this. The towers by design had lots of redundancy built into them. The designer or engineer stated that each tower could absorb multiple impacts and survive. You ignore this.

It's quite evident now that you aren't dealing with facts provided but fantasy you have gleamed from the Internet.

You have been given the actual structure of the towers over and over and still haven't actually read and studied it.

I'm ashamed that there are fellow Americans in this country who behave and act out in this manner. Anyone here knows I give Bush and his administration a pass on NOTHING. He is the worst president in my history on this planet which spans over five decades so far. He has put our country at risk, more so than in any other time in our history.

BUT, he did not conspire to destroy the WTC. The WTC towers did NOT fall to the ground because of some "evil U.S conspiracy".

Your insistence on this tooth fairy scenario shows that you, and others who believe this kind uneducated, ignorant tripe, are truly more frightening than the idiot in the WH.

W*GS

09-02-2006, 10:12 PM

ak1971

09-03-2006, 01:16 AM

It's quite evident now that you aren't dealing with facts provided but fantasy you have gleamed from the Internet.

You have been given the actual structure of the towers over and over and still haven't actually read and studied it.

I'm ashamed that there are fellow Americans in this country who behave and act out in this manner. Anyone here knows I give Bush and his administration a pass on NOTHING. He is the worst president in my history on this planet which spans over five decades so far. He has put our country at risk, more so than in any other time in our history.

BUT, he did not conspire to destroy the WTC. The WTC towers did NOT fall to the ground because of some "evil U.S conspiracy".

Your insistence on this tooth fairy scenario shows that you, and others who believe this kind uneducated, ignorant tripe, are truly more frightening than the idiot in the WH.

amen!

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

09-03-2006, 05:20 AM

BUT, he did not conspire to destroy the WTC. The WTC towers did NOT fall to the ground because of some "evil U.S conspiracy"

So, do you buy the official WH account with no reservations, then?

Are you at least able to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence that Bush and Co. knew some sort of major attacks were coming and deliberately let them happen?

W*GS

09-03-2006, 06:53 AM

So, do you buy the official WH account with no reservations, then?

There are far fewer holes and inconsistencies in the official commission report than in those theories promulgated by the Bush-is-evil crowd...

Why is that?

Are you at least able to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence that Bush and Co. knew some sort of major attacks were coming and deliberately let them happen?

20/20 hindsight, m'dear.

Bronco_Beerslug

09-03-2006, 08:15 AM

So, do you buy the official WH account with no reservations, then?

Are you at least able to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence that Bush and Co. knew some sort of major attacks were coming and deliberately let them happen?
I don't buy much of anything out of this administration's mouths. There's plenty of evidence they ignored red flags out of ignorance IMO (I believe Bush was focused on finding a way to invade and occupy Iraq).
I never envisioned anyone hijacking jumbo jets and flying them into skyscrapers (nor did anyone else, I'm sure) but it wasn't my job or place to. The Bush administration may be at some degree of fault for not taking all intel available and putting it together.

W*GS

09-03-2006, 08:21 AM

The Bush administration may be at some degree of fault for not taking all intel available and putting it together.

That's the rub...

mhgaffney

09-03-2006, 11:50 AM

There's plenty of evidence they ignored red flags out of ignorance IMO

For the moment I will set aside the WTC collapse.

Are you aware that on September 11 a US naval task force arrived in the Persian Gulf? This was the naval armada used in the attack on Afghanistan.

There is plenty of other evidence, as well, that a US attack against the Taliban was imminent even before 911.

We know that despite what some have said the US never gave up on the pipeline through Afghanistan. Unocal was not the only US company involved. Enron had its own pipeline scheme, and provided huge sums of money to the Taliban to woo them. Enron must have been serious-- because they spent $400 million on the feasibility study. Much of that was payoffs to the Taliban. Enron funding continued as late as 2000 -- possibly later.

When Bush entered the White House the US government accelerated the talks with the Taliban. It's clear that despite the Taliban's obvious down side the US didn't give up on the talks -- possibly because our close ally Pakistan was a strong backer of the Taliban. (Incidentally, we also know that the Pakistani intelligence ISI was deeply involved with Al Qaeda. One of the chiefs of ISI was personally responsible for supplying $100,000 of funding to the same jihadists that the US accused of doing 911. Nor did the 911 commission dare to open this can of worms.)

The US talks with the Taliban broke down in July 2001, when the US threatened to remove the Taliban. But it appears that the US was already hedging its bets, preparing for war in case the talks failed.

By this time, for example, the US was already training Northern Alliance fighters in Kyrgyzstan. Also, Tajik and Uzbek troops received military training at bases in Alaska and Montana.

US Gen Tommy Franks visited Tagikistan in Spring of 2001.

Also, the order to attack Afghanistan actually landed on Bush's desk before 911 -- though he didn't sign it until after.

This summary doesn't even touch on the US complicity in the actual 911 attack -- for which there is vast evidence.

My source here is THE WAR ON TRUTH, by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, probably the best book in print on 911 and the war on terror, and which I will shortly review on this board.

There is plenty of explaining to do. There was nothing coincidental about the events surrounding 911.

MG

mhgaffney

09-03-2006, 12:06 PM

BUT, he did not conspire to destroy the WTC. The WTC towers did NOT fall to the ground because of some "evil U.S conspiracy".

Your insistence on this tooth fairy scenario shows that you, and others who believe this kind uneducated, ignorant tripe, are truly more frightening than the idiot in the WH.

You need to open your closed mind. Are you aware of Project Northwoods? A plan by the US military to stage a phony terrorist attack by flying planes into important US landmarks?

You need to dispense with your naivete about what our leaders are capable of doing.

W*GS

09-03-2006, 12:20 PM

For the moment I will set aside the WTC collapse.

Getting tired of revealing your ignorance and downright stupidity on that topic? Good!

My source here is THE WAR ON TRUTH, by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, probably the best book in print on 911 and the war on terror, and which I will shortly review on this board.

Oh goody. You found someone whose biases, prejudices, and view of the world match your own (twisted as it is) and who wrote a book that you just happen to think is "the best book". Amazing.

errand

09-03-2006, 12:24 PM

I wish they'd all go back to JFK;) The only thing that really bothers me is how desperate people are to pin the murder of 3000 people on Bush. I have been quite ardently opposed to Bush for as long as he's had presedential aspirations....... But I've seen nothing to convince me that he's fundamentally evil.
.

Too bad your side of the aisle has too many people who do see him as "evil"...we might actually win this damned war on terror if not for that.

errand

09-03-2006, 12:40 PM

BTW anyone who would believe a FEMA report, after the sort of malfeasance we've seen from the agency in recent history, would have to be nuts.

....speaking of malfeasance and FEMA....did you catch the billions of $$$$ lost as a result of fraud by all those poor Katrina "victims"

W*GS

09-03-2006, 01:02 PM

Corruption

Blame the weather
Aug 31st 2006 | WASHINGTON, DC
From The Economist print edition

An ill wind blows the dollars around

http://www.economist.com/images/20060902/3506US4.jpg
AP
But think of that FEMA cheque

As reports accumulate on the enduring mess in the Gulf states a year after Hurricane Katrina, here is some food for thought. Bad weather and bad government may be related.

According to a new paper by Peter Leeson and Russell Sobel of West Virginia University, natural disasters not only wreck property and disrupt lives, but also encourage graft. The academics compared the rate at which public officials were convicted for corruption in different states with the geographical distribution of natural disasters. Their correlation was striking. States which see lots of disasters, such as Mississippi, Florida and South Dakota, are also the most corrupt.

That link, reckon the authors, is not spurious. When disasters occur, the federal government dispenses large dollops of cash in affected areas through FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency. A windfall of federal cash spawns graft in much the same way that oil wealth or foreign aid can cause corruption in poor countries. States with bad weather get more frequent gobs of FEMA cash and hence are more corrupt.

Help from FEMA encourages graft in many ways. Public officials can embezzle cash directly; they can overstate peoples' damage claims in return for a bribe, or demand kick-backs for rebuilding contracts. All told, the impact is big. The authors' calculations suggest that in the average state, an extra $1 per person in money from FEMA increases corruption in that state by 2.5%. Eliminating FEMA relief entirely would cut corruption by more than 20% in the average state. But don't hold your breath.

Copyright © 2006 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.

DBruleU

09-03-2006, 01:07 PM

TheDave

09-03-2006, 01:07 PM

So, do you buy the official WH account with no reservations, then?

Are you at least able to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence that Bush and Co. knew some sort of major attacks were coming and deliberately let them happen?

Do i buy the account 100%... no, then again i don't buy anything 100%

As for them deliberately letting this happen... I doubt it. Most likely explanation is that they Fvcked it up, just like they have fvcked up everything they have touched.

I think it's time we all start getting a little more consistent with this group. The fact is they are incompetent.

War in Iraq... Fvcked up!
Katrina... Fvcked Up!
Economy... Fvcked Up!
Education... Fvcked Up!
FISA Court... Fvcked Up!

9/11... Fvcked Up!

Sorry guys but Stupid is as Stupid does... They can't be criminal masterminds on one hand, and complete screw ups on another...

TheDave

09-03-2006, 01:11 PM

Too bad your side of the aisle has too many people who do see him as "evil"...we might actually win this damned war on terror if not for that.

Put your partisan agenda aside and tell me you honestly believe that anyone, let alone this group can "Win" a war on terror... By now Errand even you have to admit this gang of politicians currently running things is about as incompetent as we have ever seen.

W*GS

09-03-2006, 01:11 PM

Sorry guys but Stupid is as Stupid does... They can't be criminal masterminds on one hand, and complete screw ups on another...

Bingo. Don't ascribe to malice what can be explained by incompetence. Or however that goes...

Stuck In Texas

09-03-2006, 01:15 PM

For the moment I will set aside the WTC collapse.

Are you aware that on September 11 a US naval task force arrived in the Persian Gulf? This was the naval armada used in the attack on Afghanistan.

There is plenty of other evidence, as well, that a US attack against the Taliban was imminent even before 911.

We know that despite what some have said the US never gave up on the pipeline through Afghanistan. Unocal was not the only US company involved. Enron had its own pipeline scheme, and provided huge sums of money to the Taliban to woo them. Enron must have been serious-- because they spent $400 million on the feasibility study. Much of that was payoffs to the Taliban. Enron funding continued as late as 2000 -- possibly later.

When Bush entered the White House the US government accelerated the talks with the Taliban. It's clear that despite the Taliban's obvious down side the US didn't give up on the talks -- possibly because our close ally Pakistan was a strong backer of the Taliban. (Incidentally, we also know that the Pakistani intelligence ISI was deeply involved with Al Qaeda. One of the chiefs of ISI was personally responsible for supplying $100,000 of funding to the same jihadists that the US accused of doing 911. Nor did the 911 commission dare to open this can of worms.)

The US talks with the Taliban broke down in July 2001, when the US threatened to remove the Taliban. But it appears that the US was already hedging its bets, preparing for war in case the talks failed.

By this time, for example, the US was already training Northern Alliance fighters in Kyrgyzstan. Also, Tajik and Uzbek troops received military training at bases in Alaska and Montana.

US Gen Tommy Franks visited Tagikistan in Spring of 2001.

Also, the order to attack Afghanistan actually landed on Bush's desk before 911 -- though he didn't sign it until after.

This summary doesn't even touch on the US complicity in the actual 911 attack -- for which there is vast evidence.

My source here is THE WAR ON TRUTH, by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, probably the best book in print on 911 and the war on terror, and which I will shortly review on this board.

There is plenty of explaining to do. There was nothing coincidental about the events surrounding 911.

MG

Your theories are interesting to say the least. One question I have, though, is that if 9/11 was allowed to happen on purpose to give the U.S. a reason to depose the Taliban; why did the U.S. give the Taliban the option of avoiding an attack if they would turn over bin Laden? It seems to me that they would have painted themselves into a corner if the Taliban had actually given him to the U.S.

DBruleU

09-03-2006, 01:17 PM

TheDave

09-03-2006, 01:25 PM

I dont think any group can completely defeat terrorism. Dems or Repubs. I think all we can do is slowing disrupt everything they do, so that they cant grow into a monster that hit us on 911. I dont think its necessarily Bush who doesnt know what hes doing, afterall, hes doing more now than anyone else has done to defeat terrorism.

Unfortunately that monster you speak of consisted of 19 young men with boxcutters... Not much of a monster there.

As for Bush doing more, well... let's just say we completely disagree. Think of how pissed off all of us were shortly after 9/11. Well according to everything I have read we have killed somewhere in the range of 100,000 Iraqi's during this war... If you think you were pissed off imagine how pissed they are. I'll gaurantee you there are whole new generations growing up right now with a hated for us that we have never seen... Thats your new monster

The war on terror is unfortunataly one that I dont think we will see the end of. It will always be around in one way or another, and Islamic fascism is rampant in the ME now. It's a major problem when the youth of the ME nations grow up learning to hate anyone outside of Islam.

Just like the "War on Drugs" It cant be won the way it is being fought. In any other walk of life doing the same thing over and over agian expecting a different outcome is considered insane... Unfortunately here people are willing to let it go as long as we are doing "Something"

DBruleU

09-03-2006, 01:44 PM

Unfortunately that monster you speak of consisted of 19 young men with boxcutters... Not much of a monster there.

As for Bush doing more, well... let's just say we completely disagree. Think of how pissed off all of us were shortly after 9/11. Well according to everything I have read we have killed somewhere in the range of 100,000 Iraqi's during this war... If you think you were pissed off imagine how pissed they are. I'll gaurantee you there are whole new generations growing up right now with a hated for us that we have never seen... Thats your new monster

Just like the "War on Drugs" It cant be won the way it is being fought. In any other walk of life doing the same thing over and over agian expecting a different outcome is considered insane... Unfortunately here people are willing to let it go as long as we are doing "Something"

You think just those 19 men were/are our only enemy? It takes a lot more than them to pull 911 off. Resources, training (much of which they did here), money, leadership. The generation that hated us now is no different than it was 10 or 20 years ago. You act like in the short 6 years Bush has been in office everything to do with terrorism has sprung forth.

You also paint the US with this brush of genocide. You act like we willingly have killed innocent Iraqis. Some Marines probably have, and thats their problem that they will have to answer for, but please dont act like the Military is in anyway acting like the terrorists do.

Anyway, you're a public school teacher, I can understand.

TheDave

09-03-2006, 01:57 PM

You think just those 19 men were/are our only enemy? It takes a lot more than them to pull 911 off. Resources, training (much of which they did here), money, leadership. The generation that hated us now is no different than it was 10 or 20 years ago. You act like in the short 6 years Bush has been in office everything to do with terrorism has sprung forth.

Didn't take long for the Strawman arguments to come out... Sorry boss but i never said any of that.

Problem is this "Monster" you speak of takes nothing more than a couple of people and some desire how much "training" did Oklahoma City take? The answer is none... When the next attack happens you will be shocked by just how simple it is also.

You also paint the US with this brush of genocide. You act like we willingly have killed innocent Iraqis. Some Marines probably have, and thats their problem that they will have to answer for, but please dont act like the Military is in anyway acting like the terrorists do.

This has nothing to do with what i or you think. How do you suppose this invasion and the death tolls are being reported in their world... Thats what is happening, and thats what will make the terrorist problem in the future so much worse... It has nothing to do with our opinion of this war.

Anyway, you're a public school teacher, I can understand.

Good then explain it to me... every time we cross paths the only thing out of your mouth is "Your a Teacher"... What the hell does that have to do with anything?

Stuck In Texas

09-03-2006, 03:03 PM

Problem is this "Monster" you speak of takes nothing more than a couple of people and some desire how much "training" did Oklahoma City take? The answer is none... When the next attack happens you will be shocked by just how simple it is also.

I hope you're right. I hope it is a simple attack because that means it's not nuclear. I also agree that it's just matter of time before the next one. I don't see any way to prevent it if people are determined enough to pull it off.

This has nothing to do with what i or you think. How do you suppose this invasion and the death tolls are being reported in their world... Thats what is happening, and thats what will make the terrorist problem in the future so much worse... It has nothing to do with our opinion of this war.

Couldn't agree with you more here. Because of our free press we won't be able to win a propaganda war. I don't know how you convince people that are raised from birth to believe that America is the "Great Satan" that we are not as bad as they think we are. Added to that, the U.S. press is very polarized now. There don't seem to be any "objective" media sources anymore. It seems like all of them either lean left or lean right. Instead of just reporting the news they are trying to advance their respective agendas.

Good then explain it to me... every time we cross paths the only thing out of your mouth is "Your a Teacher"... What the hell does that have to do with anything?

My wife is a public school teacher. You guys are underpaid! ;D

errand

09-03-2006, 04:11 PM

You need to open your closed mind. Are you aware of Project Northwoods? A plan by the US military to stage a phony terrorist attack by flying planes into important US landmarks?

You need to dispense with your naivete about what our leaders are capable of doing.

..all I know is I'm glad this clown is on your side.

errand

09-03-2006, 04:30 PM

Put your partisan agenda aside and tell me you honestly believe that anyone, let alone this group can "Win" a war on terror... By now Errand even you have to admit this gang of politicians currently running things is about as incompetent as we have ever seen.

It can be won.

Sure there have been mistakes...but what is truly hindering our ability to win it is the left's constant siding with those who would do this nation harm. Pick up any national newspaper and read it....nothing about the heroic actions of our troops. Just another story of atrocities being committed by them, based on the testimony of questionable sources.

Look at the war on terror...what part of it does the left support?

Patriot Act? Nope....

Electronic surveillance? Barely....

Military tribunals? Nope.

They will go out of their way to print any negative story about the war effort or the guys fighting it....and they also go out of their way to be sympathetic to the guys on the other side.

I mean some maniac from Iran wants a nuke, and wants to debate Bush on what I don't know...but look at the usual suspects on here jumping on his side instead of the president of the US?

Compare the outrage of a terrorist beheading an American, vs the bad conduct of a few American troops. The left constantly will bring up a few bad apples, and ignore what is basically the normal behavior of a terrorist.

Go thru this forum and look at the threads started by well known posters who lean to the left...if it isn't a doom and gloom story, it's accusing our troopos, president and nation of doing something underhanded.

LABF is now defedning Iran's wanting nuclear technology.....despite the fact the entire world knows this bastard wants a nuke for one reason only.

errand

09-03-2006, 04:39 PM

The war on terror is unfortunataly one that I dont think we will see the end of. It will always be around in one way or another, and Islamic fascism is rampant in the ME now. It's a major problem when the youth of the ME nations grow up learning to hate anyone outside of Islam.

I beg to differ....what's going on in the ME is almost the same as what went on in Germany during the early 30's. The German nation was not only infested with anti-Semitism, it was spreading it's hatred into other nations. Austria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Norway, etc....the Germans had fifth collumns in almost every nation. People in important positions who were on the Nazi's side who enable them to take over most of Europe and control it as well.

It's gonna take the complete defeat of those nations that sponsor such an idealogy of hatred. Knock out Iran, and you've got half the battle won.

Now the question is does America have the stomach for it....with almost half of America a bunch of linguini spined liberals...I doubt it.

To those on that side, I say start buying your prayer rugs guys.

errand

09-03-2006, 04:44 PM

So, mhgaffney, if WTC1 and WTC2 were in fact collapsed via controlled demolition, why bother with all the intricacies of the jet hijackings and flying them into the buildings?

Can you explain that particular bit of subterfuge?

Exactly...and why stop there? Why not have them happen in other US cities like LA, Chicago, Boston?

Imagine all the hatred Bush could have drubbed up if that happened?

TheDave

09-03-2006, 04:49 PM

It can be won.

Sure there have been mistakes...but what is truly hindering our ability to win it is the left's constant siding with those who would do this nation harm. Pick up any national newspaper and read it....nothing about the heroic actions of our troops. Just another story of atrocities being committed by them, based on the testimony of questionable sources.

You are not seriously trying to tell me that political rhetoric and a free press finally speaking against the administration overshadows....

WMD's
Abu garihb (i have no idea how to spell that)
public policies condoning torture
A death toll at 100,000+
etc.

Come on, Errand you know thats not true. Free speech is what makes America great, not the other way around. The mess we are in now has nothing to do with dissenting opinions.

Notice not one person around here has ever complained about our involvement in Afghanastan... Had we simply done our job there gotten OBL and continued to squeeze the life out of Iraq's regime none of these current problems would exist today. Yes there would be other challenges but right now alot of us are getting really tired of spending trillions on a ME Blood bath that no longer seems to have a viable solution let alone a place in the "War on Terror".

errand

09-03-2006, 04:51 PM

I don't buy much of anything out of this administration's mouths. There's plenty of evidence they ignored red flags out of ignorance IMO (I believe Bush was focused on finding a way to invade and occupy Iraq).
I never envisioned anyone hijacking jumbo jets and flying them into skyscrapers (nor did anyone else, I'm sure) but it wasn't my job or place to. The Bush administration may be at some degree of fault for not taking all intel available and putting it together.

So tell us wouldyou have supported Bush had he said in say, July of '01

"We have found some red flags and have now installed the Patriot Act.

We have deported 19 Muslim men who were residning here on expired visas, 5 of which were attending flight school....

We have begun searching every person wanting to board a plane....

We have started to conduct electronic surveillance on phone calls coming and going from foriegn nations.

And have begun rebuilding our nation's military in a preactive step to thwart possible terrorists acts based on these red flags."

Something tells me you'd have screamed foul regardless.

TheDave

09-03-2006, 05:15 PM

So tell us wouldyou have supported Bush had he said in say, July of '01

"We have found some red flags and have now installed the Patriot Act.
NO

We have deported 19 Muslim men who were residning here on expired visas, 5 of which were attending flight school....
YES

We have begun searching every person wanting to board a plane....
YES

We have started to conduct electronic surveillance on phone calls coming and going from foriegn nations.
NO

And have begun rebuilding our nation's military in a preactive step to thwart possible terrorists acts based on these red flags."
YES

Something tells me you'd have screamed foul regardless.

That probably would of fixed a few things...

errand

09-03-2006, 05:34 PM

Come on, Errand you know thats not true. Free speech is what makes America great, not the other way around. The mess we are in now has nothing to do with dissenting opinions.

If they were dissenting opinions that'd be one thing...but the crap our newspapers are printing and half of the crap the leftists on here are posting is borerline sedition.

They have even gone out of their way to forge documents in an effort to sway a national election for the world's most powerful leadership position.

They have taken the side of our enemies time and time again. They have become accomplices in our enemies staged incidents of alleged atrocities, even doctoring photos and staging casualties (trust me it isn't just Hezbollah and Hamas doing it...al-Jazeerah is a big time contributor of this crap)

Sorry, but that's what the majority of our national news media is doing...

Spider

09-03-2006, 05:41 PM

You are not seriously trying to tell me that political rhetoric and a free press finally speaking against the administration overshadows....

WMD's
Abu garihb (i have no idea how to spell that)
public policies condoning torture
A death toll at 100,000+
etc.

Come on, Errand you know thats not true. Free speech is what makes America great, not the other way around. The mess we are in now has nothing to do with dissenting opinions.

Notice not one person around here has ever complained about our involvement in Afghanastan... Had we simply done our job there gotten OBL and continued to squeeze the life out of Iraq's regime none of these current problems would exist today. Yes there would be other challenges but right now alot of us are getting really tired of spending trillions on a ME Blood bath that no longer seems to have a viable solution let alone a place in the "War on Terror".

errand does have a problem with the truth , no question about it .......

Spider

09-03-2006, 05:42 PM

If they were dissenting opinions that'd be one thing...but the crap our newspapers are printing and half of the crap the leftists on here are posting is borerline sedition.

They have even gone out of their way to forge documents in an effort to sway a national election for the world's most powerful leadership position.

They have taken the side of our enemies time and time again. They have become accomplices in our enemies staged incidents of alleged atrocities, even doctoring photos and staging casualties (trust me it isn't just Hezbollah and Hamas doing it...al-Jazeerah is a big time contributor of this crap)

Sorry, but that's what the majority of our national news media is doing...

Much like the forged documents we tried to show the UN ....... I think that did more harm then Dan Rather .......

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

09-03-2006, 08:16 PM

They have even gone out of their way to forge documents in an effort to sway a national election for the world's most powerful leadership position.
.

Who are "they?"

Do you mean to tell us the "forgers" have been identified and/or caught?

Please direct us to the report. Links would be helpful.

Meanwhile, ample proof that Bush was AWOL from the ANG was availible long before the CBS memo came along, so your argument, as usual, is bullsh*t.

DBruleU

09-03-2006, 09:19 PM

I beg to differ....what's going on in the ME is almost the same as what went on in Germany during the early 30's. The German nation was not only infested with anti-Semitism, it was spreading it's hatred into other nations. Austria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Norway, etc....the Germans had fifth collumns in almost every nation. People in important positions who were on the Nazi's side who enable them to take over most of Europe and control it as well.

It's gonna take the complete defeat of those nations that sponsor such an idealogy of hatred. Knock out Iran, and you've got half the battle won.

Now the question is does America have the stomach for it....with almost half of America a bunch of linguini spined liberals...I doubt it.

To those on that side, I say start buying your prayer rugs guys.

I dont think we differ. We agree. I think the way to win is to completely destroy it. If that means destroying nations that support this Islamic Fascism, then so be it. I said I dont think we can win it though because we dont have the spine to do it, like you said.

DBruleU

09-03-2006, 09:21 PM

Didn't take long for the Strawman arguments to come out... Sorry boss but i never said any of that.

Problem is this "Monster" you speak of takes nothing more than a couple of people and some desire how much "training" did Oklahoma City take? The answer is none... When the next attack happens you will be shocked by just how simple it is also.

This has nothing to do with what i or you think. How do you suppose this invasion and the death tolls are being reported in their world... Thats what is happening, and thats what will make the terrorist problem in the future so much worse... It has nothing to do with our opinion of this war.

Good then explain it to me... every time we cross paths the only thing out of your mouth is "Your a Teacher"... What the hell does that have to do with anything?

All it means really is every teacher that I ever had in HS was so liberal, its sickening. I have an aunt who just retired after teaching 30 years, shes probably one of the most liberal people I know. Shes only a step behind LABF.

I had one conservative teacher in HS, he was a history teacher, and a Christian. Go figure.

Spider

09-03-2006, 10:22 PM

All it means really is every teacher that I ever had in HS was so liberal, its sickening. I have an aunt who just retired after teaching 30 years, shes probably one of the most liberal people I know. Shes only a step behind LABF.

I had one conservative teacher in HS, he was a history teacher, and a Christian. Go figure.and at no time did it ever occure to you that these people were alot smarter then you , have better understanding of the world .....you was a virgin and knew everything ........... not insulting , just putting your point of view in prespective ........

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

09-03-2006, 10:31 PM

If that means destroying nations that support this Islamic Fascism, then so be it.

:oyvey:

Unbelievable.

All you do is parrot the latest jingoistic Bush slogan/talking point of the week, e.g., "Islamic fascism," etc.

And then you advocate destroying entire nations just to get rid of the bad apples or the boogeymen Bush has created for you?

And, in spite of advocating such wanton, indiscriminate bloodshed, you still call yourself a "Christian?"

I have to tell you, I wasn't entirely sure before, but now I'm convinced: You must be mentally ill.

Rigs11

09-03-2006, 11:31 PM

:oyvey:

Unbelievable.

All you do is parrot the latest jingoistic Bush slogan/talking point of the week, e.g., "Islamic fascism," etc.

And then you advocate destroying entire nations just to get rid of the bad apples or the boogeymen Bush has created for you?

And, in spite of advocating such wanton, indiscriminate bloodshed, you still call yourself a "Christian?"

I have to tell you, I wasn't entirely sure before, but now I'm convinced: You must be mentally ill.

Every right wing stooge on this board is using the fascism word. I mean we've been telling them over an over how brainwashed they are and this is just another example.Hilarious!

DBruleU

09-04-2006, 12:03 AM

and at no time did it ever occure to you that these people were alot smarter then you , have better understanding of the world .....you was a virgin and knew everything ........... not insulting , just putting your point of view in prespective ........

Yeah sure. Not insulting. Spider, you know no other way.

But how would that explain you then?

DBruleU

09-04-2006, 12:04 AM

:oyvey:

Unbelievable.

All you do is parrot the latest jingoistic Bush slogan/talking point of the week, e.g., "Islamic fascism," etc.

And then you advocate destroying entire nations just to get rid of the bad apples or the boogeymen Bush has created for you?

And, in spite of advocating such wanton, indiscriminate bloodshed, you still call yourself a "Christian?"

I have to tell you, I wasn't entirely sure before, but now I'm convinced: You must be mentally ill.

Sorry, but thats what it is.

I've been using the word fascism when referring to terrorists before Bush used it in one of his press conf.

sixstringlass

09-04-2006, 05:18 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by errand
So tell us wouldyou have supported Bush had he said in say, July of '01

"We have found some red flags and have now installed the Patriot Act.
NO

We have deported 19 Muslim men who were residning here on expired visas, 5 of which were attending flight school....
YES

We have begun searching every person wanting to board a plane....
YES

We have started to conduct electronic surveillance on phone calls coming and going from foriegn nations.
NO

And have begun rebuilding our nation's military in a preactive step to thwart possible terrorists acts based on these red flags."
YES

Something tells me you'd have screamed foul regardless.

That probably would of fixed a few things...

Well what would've really fixed a few things is if those people in charge of issuing visas would have adhered to this nation's already existing laws. If they had, those guys from Saudi Arabia would've never gotten into the country in the first place.

mhgaffney

09-04-2006, 05:44 AM

if 9/11 was allowed to happen on purpose to give the U.S. a reason to depose the Taliban; why did the U.S. give the Taliban the option of avoiding an attack if they would turn over bin Laden? It seems to me that they would have painted themselves into a corner if the Taliban had actually given him to the U.S.

The Taliban DID offer to turn over bin Laden for a public trial in Pakistan. It happened. But Bush refused. Later, after the US invaded Afghanistan, we allowed bin Laden to escape from Tora Bora. One night a caravan of 200 or more vehicles made an exit out the back way into Pakistan (our supposed ally) and the US didn't block the way. We allowed bin Laden to escape.

That tells you the invasion was not about catching bin Laden -- despite all the rhetoric -- it was about regime change, same as in Iraq.

Spider

09-04-2006, 06:07 AM

Yeah sure. Not insulting. Spider, you know no other way.
ok where did I insult ?

But how would that explain you then?

Explain me ? I am a democrat .........did you not understand ?

Spider

09-04-2006, 06:11 AM

The Taliban DID offer to turn over bin Laden for a public trial in Pakistan. It happened. But Bush refused. Later, after the US invaded Afghanistan, we allowed bin Laden to escape from Tora Bora. One night a caravan of 200 or more vehicles made an exit out the back way into Pakistan (our supposed ally) and the US didn't block the way. We allowed bin Laden to escape.

That tells you the invasion was not about catching bin Laden -- despite all the rhetoric -- it was about regime change, same as in Iraq.
I agree I Dont want Bin Laden tried in Pakistan either , WTF is that ? New York isnt in Pakistan, it is in America , those were Americans killed that day , who in the **** is Pakistan to try people that commit crimes against us ? Thats like someone killing a family memeber of mine , but has a trial in California for it .... screw that ....... Bush did right by invading Afghanistan , only Bush screwed the execution of Afghanistan up ..............

Stuck In Texas

09-04-2006, 06:14 AM

The Taliban DID offer to turn over bin Laden for a public trial in Pakistan. It happened. But Bush refused. Later, after the US invaded Afghanistan, we allowed bin Laden to escape from Tora Bora. One night a caravan of 200 or more vehicles made an exit out the back way into Pakistan (our supposed ally) and the US didn't block the way. We allowed bin Laden to escape.

That tells you the invasion was not about catching bin Laden -- despite all the rhetoric -- it was about regime change, same as in Iraq.

Thanks for the info. I had never heard that the Taliban actually did offer to turn over OBL. Do you have a link? If not, no big deal - I'll try to do some searching on my own. That's very interesting. I have to admit that if I was the president, I might not accept turning him over to Pakistan either since Pakistan supported the Taliban, it would make me a little uneasy.

I had always heard that it wasn't the U.S. soldiers who let him escape, it was Afghan militia. I definitely think the U.S. should have had more troops in the area to prevent that type of thing from happening, though.

Now the U.S. seems to be stuck. To go get OBL we would have to invade a supposedly friendly nation.

I look forward to reading more of your opinions. You are obviously VERY well educated and well versed on world events.

Stuck In Texas

09-04-2006, 06:19 AM

I agree I Dont want Bin Laden tried in Pakistan either , WTF is that ? New York isnt in Pakistan, it is in America , those were Americans killed that day , who in the **** is Pakistan to try people that commit crimes against us ? Thats like someone killing a family memeber of mine , but has a trial in California for it .... screw that ....... Bush did right by invading Afghanistan , only Bush screwed the execution of Afghanistan up ..............

I agree that there weren't/aren't enough troops in Iraq to do the job properly, but when it comes to Afghanistan I was always under the impression that the reason we used so few troops was to keep a lower profile. I think the plan was that the SF guys would basically assist the warlords to do the job for us, along with support from airpower. I am a firm believer in the "Powell Doctrine". If you're going to invade, go in with overwhelming numbers. Unfortunately, we didn't do that in either case.

I would argue that President Bush didn't screw up the invasions, he isn't a strategist. I would lay the blame at the feet of the people who actually planned the specifics of the campaign(s).

Spider

09-04-2006, 06:26 AM

I agree that there weren't/aren't enough troops in Iraq to do the job properly, but when it comes to Afghanistan I was always under the impression that the reason we used so few troops was to keep a lower profile. I think the plan was that the SF guys would basically assist the warlords to do the job for us, along with support from airpower. I am a firm believer in the "Powell Doctrine". If you're going to invade, go in with overwhelming numbers. Unfortunately, we didn't do that in either case.

I would argue that President Bush didn't screw up the invasions, he isn't a strategist. I would lay the blame at the feet of the people who actually planned the specifics of the campaign(s).

we outsourced the job ........ Bush wanted in Iraq more then Afghanistan , low profile ? horse piss , Afghanistan was damn near stone age when we went in , Bush put his faith in Pakistan military ..........
as for being a strategist , it is up to Bush to surround him self with good people , it is at Bush feet , he makes decisions based off the People he hires or appoints ..........

Stuck In Texas

09-04-2006, 06:36 AM

we outsourced the job ........ Bush wanted in Iraq more then Afghanistan , low profile ? horse piss , Afghanistan was damn near stone age when we went in , Bush put his faith in Pakistan military ..........
as for being a strategist , it is up to Bush to surround him self with good people , it is at Bush feet , he makes decisions based off the People he hires or appoints ..........

I have to disagree with you here. It is up to the generals to come up with the battle plan. Those aren't hired by the president. I do think that the idea was to keep a low profile. Everybody remembers what happened to the Soviets when they went in there with huge numbers. Any group of people, even those opposed to their government, will fight off an invading army to defend their homeland. I'm just guessing here, but if the U.S. put a "local" face on the fight they are more likely to gain the support of the people or at least not generate hostility.

Bronco_Beerslug

09-04-2006, 06:41 AM

I agree that there weren't/aren't enough troops in Iraq to do the job properly, but when it comes to Afghanistan I was always under the impression that the reason we used so few troops was to keep a lower profile. I think the plan was that the SF guys would basically assist the warlords to do the job for us, along with support from airpower. I am a firm believer in the "Powell Doctrine". If you're going to invade, go in with overwhelming numbers. Unfortunately, we didn't do that in either case.

I would argue that President Bush didn't screw up the invasions, he isn't a strategist. I would lay the blame at the feet of the people who actually planned the specifics of the campaign(s).
This is completely wrong, Bush IS RESPONSIBLE for the whole cluster****. Bush fired the people that told him how to conduct his invasion and occupation properly.

Stuck In Texas

09-04-2006, 06:44 AM

This completely wrong, Bush IS RESPONSIBLE for the whole cluster****. Bush fired the people that told him how to conduct his invasion and occupation properly.

Which people would those be?

Spider

09-04-2006, 06:45 AM

I have to disagree with you here. It is up to the generals to come up with the battle plan. Those aren't hired by the president. I do think that the idea was to keep a low profile. Everybody remembers what happened to the Soviets when they went in there with huge numbers. Any group of people, even those opposed to their government, will fight off an invading army to defend their homeland. I'm just guessing here, but if the U.S. put a "local" face on the fight they are more likely to gain the support of the people or at least not generate hostility.
wrong ..........Rummy is running the Show ......a few Generals have been Shít canned for speaking out ...............

mhgaffney

09-04-2006, 06:46 AM

BUT, he [Bush] did not conspire to destroy the WTC.

Your insistence on this tooth fairy scenario shows that you, and others who believe this kind uneducated, ignorant tripe, are truly more frightening than the idiot in the WH.

It may turn out that you are correct about the immedate cause of the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. Surely you know that no one person can read every report.

Even if you are correct, it does not change the overall conclusion that the neo cons were complicit in the 911 attack. If any part of the official 911 narrative is a lie then the whole house of cards comes crashing down --

You did not respond to my last post about building 7. I just read a FEMA report about it -- even the FEMA report (which I do not trust) admits that the scenario of fire induced collapse has only a low probability of occurrence. The report found no evidence that building 7 was damaged by the collapse of WTC 1. According to the report, only one part of building 7, the SW corner, showed significant structural damage. The damage was top down -- no evidence of damage near the bottom of the building.

Officially the cause remains unexplained, but even a casual look at the videotape of the collapse points to a controlled demolition -- and there's no way around it.

The other case that stinks to heaven is the attack on the pentagon. We are expected to believe that a Boeing 757 disappeared without a trace into a 12 foot diameter hole in the building. Now that is a theory worthy of the tooth fairy. Of course, the security cameras in the vicinity captured the attack on film. The Bush administration could end this controversy instantly simply by releasing the footage showing the 757 slamming into the pentagon. But they haven't done it -- nor will they. As we know, government agents confiscated the film from the cameras within minutes of the attack. How very efficient of them.

Recently another eye witness came forward with an account that disputes the official version of events. His name is Samuel Danner and he is an electrical engineer and also a licensed pilot. Danner was driving by the pentagon on 911 -- when he saw a strange object approaching in the distance. He pulled his car over to the side of the road, got out, and watched the entire event. He figures he was about 500 feet away. He says it was not a 757 but a smaller plane with a single engine. His description fits that of a Global Hawk. Here is the story. You can draw your own conclusions.

http://vancouver.indymedia.org/?q=node/1534

Bronco_Beerslug

09-04-2006, 06:47 AM

Which people would those be?
Google everyone he's fired so far and look for generals, WH officials and anyone else that may possess common sense.

Stuck In Texas

09-04-2006, 06:50 AM

wrong ..........Rummy is running the Show ......a few Generals have been Shít canned for speaking out ...............

Who has been fired for speaking out?

Stuck In Texas

09-04-2006, 07:06 AM

I have heard a lot about Gen Shinseki's firing so I went and did some research. I found that yes, many people do agree that he was fired for contradicting the president. There are others that say that is not true. I even found one from Amanda Huffington's website which is notoriously anti-President Bush that claims it's not true. The author is obviously no fan of the president. Here is that link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-schlesinger/nancy-pelosi-the-shinsek_b_11532.html

Part of the claim made in that post and this one, http://www.answers.com/topic/eric-shinseki say that while some things were done irregularly, he was not fired and, in fact, served the normal amount of time as a member of the JCS. Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that he wasn't targeted, I don't have the knowledge to say he was or he wasn't. Some things were said and done that make you wonder. It just seems like maybe there isn't as much to this story as it appears at first glance.

That being said - he was right! IMHO there are not enough troops in Iraq to keep the peace now. Obviously there were enough for the invasion, but not enough to maintain order.

W*GS

09-04-2006, 07:14 AM

I just read a FEMA report about it -- even the FEMA report (which I do not trust) admits that the scenario of fire induced collapse has only a low probability of occurrence. The report found no evidence that building 7 was damaged by the collapse of WTC 1.

That report is shortly to be replaced by a more accurate report. WTC7 suffered considerable damage by the collapse of WTC1 - a 20-story or so impact on the south face that went about 1/4 of the way into the building. Add in the fact that no water was available to fight the fires in WTC7 (aided by the thousands of gallons of diesel stored there) and there are ample conditions to cause its collapse.

Officially the cause remains unexplained, but even a casual look at the videotape of the collapse points to a controlled demolition -- and there's no way around it.

Wrong and wrong.

The other case that stinks to heaven is the attack on the pentagon. We are expected to believe that a Boeing 757 disappeared without a trace into a 12 foot diameter hole in the building.

"Without a trace" is wrong, and the key aspect of the hole width is the diameter of the fuselage - the wings and tail were basically ripped off at impact.

Recently another eye witness came forward with an account that disputes the official version of events.

There are many more eyewitnesses who saw a large commercial jetliner, some realizing it was a 757, hit the Pentagon. Why is your one eyewitness more credible than all those others?

mhgaffney

09-04-2006, 08:30 AM

the key aspect of the hole width is the diameter of the fuselage - the wings and tail were basically ripped off at impact.

Oh? Then where is the wreckage? From what I understand commercial airliners are made of aluminum and titanium. A very tough alloy that should survive an impact. All crashes leave debris -- but not in this case. Why not? What happened to the huge tail? The eyewitness I mentioned actually left his car and went to the site. Did you read the account? He said the military officers present ordered their men to pick up all the little pieces, which were promptly removed.

Once again, this was a crime scene. Why the immediate removal of evidence?

[/QUOTE]
There are many more eyewitnesses who saw a large commercial jetliner, some realizing it was a 757, hit the Pentagon. Why is your one eyewitness more credible than all those others?[/QUOTE]

My brother lives in Northern Virginia and a his friend was driving on the freeway near the pentagon at the time of the attack. She said the plane came in so low it clipped one of the lights in the pentagon parking lot. A piece of the material actually fell into the back seat of her open hatchback. But this woman who is not a pilot was unable to describe exactly what she saw.

The eyewitness I mentioned was a licensed pilot and he had the presence of mind to stop his car and get out and watch. He knows a 757 when he sees one. That's the difference.

W*GS

09-04-2006, 08:40 AM

Oh? Then where is the wreckage?

http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html

The eyewitness I mentioned was a licensed pilot and he had the presence of mind to stop his car and get out and watch. He knows a 757 when he sees one. That's the difference.

More eyewitness accounts about the 757 hitting the Pentagon:

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77w.htm

also:

http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/witnesses.htm

Besides, if it wasn't Flight 77, what happened to the plane and passengers? There's a huge hole right there in your theory...

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

09-04-2006, 12:09 PM

Stuck In Texas

09-04-2006, 02:38 PM

Technically speaking, Shinseki wasn't fired - he was forced into 'early retirement.'

hahahahaha.. I see the distinction. Was he though? Everything I have read said that he finished out his time as a member of the JCS. Was he hoping to get another assignment?

Spider

09-04-2006, 03:13 PM

hahahahaha.. I see the distinction. Was he though? Everything I have read said that he finished out his time as a member of the JCS. Was he hoping to get another assignment?

Richard Clarke ring a bell ?
but if you was realy that interested you would google ......

Stuck In Texas

09-04-2006, 04:37 PM

Richard Clarke ring a bell ?
but if you was realy that interested you would google ......

Ah, but you see, I have been googling and a lot of the things I find conflict with a lot of what's being said on here. I don't pretend to have all of the answers so I'm trying to get some insight from the posters on here from both sides of the political fence in order to sort things out for myself.

Speaking of Richard Clarke, it doesn't look like he was fired. Of course, I obviously have no idea what goes on behind the scenes at the WH.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0323042clarke1.html

Spider

09-04-2006, 04:45 PM

Ah, but you see, I have been googling and a lot of the things I find conflict with a lot of what's being said on here. I don't pretend to have all of the answers so I'm trying to get some insight from the posters on here from both sides of the political fence in order to sort things out for myself.
Thats the rub , you have to find the answer you like best , the one you feel is right ...... I cant help ........ Iraq has soured me on Bush big time

TheDave

09-04-2006, 06:58 PM

All it means really is every teacher that I ever had in HS was so liberal, its sickening. I have an aunt who just retired after teaching 30 years, shes probably one of the most liberal people I know. Shes only a step behind LABF.

I had one conservative teacher in HS, he was a history teacher, and a Christian. Go figure.

Good lord... This coming from the guy that believes the world is 6,000 years old and that sciences is some sort of Black Magic. Trust me DB they weren't as liberal as you think... There educational requirements just wouldn't let them teach that the world is flat ;)

Stuck In Texas

09-04-2006, 07:04 PM

Thats the rub , you have to find the answer you like best , the one you feel is right ...... I cant help ........ Iraq has soured me on Bush big time

Yeah, that makes sense. We may never get all of the facts. I can understand how Iraq has soured you. From what I've been reading that's happened to a lot of people.

DBruleU

09-04-2006, 07:20 PM

Good lord... This coming from the guy that believes the world is 6,000 years old and that sciences is some sort of Black Magic. Trust me DB they weren't as liberal as you think... There educational requirements just wouldn't let them teach that the world is flat ;)

Science isn't black magic, teach. Nor have I ever said that.

I guess I just chose not to believe that we evolved from apes somehow. And that the Earth magically came all together in perfect harmony. I have my reasons for believing they were flamming libs. The most telling sign was when my chemistry teacher said he was.

TheDave

09-04-2006, 08:03 PM

Science isn't black magic, teach. Nor have I ever said that.

I guess I just chose not to believe that we evolved from apes somehow. And that the Earth magically came all together in perfect harmony. I have my reasons for believing they were flamming libs. The most telling sign was when my chemistry teacher said he was.

Too bad that was the only thing you remember from chemistry... It would of helped show you the flaws in "Dr. Dino's" scam... just saying :thumbs:

mhgaffney

09-04-2006, 08:18 PM

More eyewitness accounts about the 757 hitting the Pentagon:

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77w.htm

http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/witnesses.htm

I read the interviews. Only a few of the eyewitnesses actually state they saw a commercial airliner. Most of them are like my brother's friend, who was close but couldn't describe the plane in detail. I would be willing to bet that careful questioning of the people who said they saw a 757 would reveal inconsistencies between what they actually saw and what they think they saw. For example, did they have a clear look at the plane? Were there trees or obstructions in the way?

It's curious that one of the witnesses confirmed the report of my brother's friend who saw the plane whack the light poles in the pentagon parking lot.

The photos of wreckage are a joke. There's no surety in most cases that we are seeing photos taken at the pentagon. They could be (and probably are) photos of other crashes.

There were credible individuals at the pentagon crash site -- firemen for example -- who noted the absence of wreckage. Later, these same firemen were ordered to keep their mouths shut.

How can it be, W*gs that the pentagon continues to withhold the crucial evidence that could resolve the controversy? Why have you not called for the government to release the video footage captured by the pentagon security cameras?

You are a mite too trusting for my taste.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

09-04-2006, 09:16 PM

More eyewitness accounts about the 757 hitting the Pentagon:

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77w.htm

http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoud.../witnesses.htm

A Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon

by George Nelson, Colonel, USAF (ret.)

Sat May 20, 2006 02:33

Considering the catastrophic incidents of September 11 2001, certain troubling but irrefutable conclusions must be drawn from the known facts. I get no personal pleasure or satisfaction from reporting my own assessment of these facts.

Re: 9/11 - Conclusions must be drawn from the known facts
http://www.physics911.net/georgenelson.htm

Impossible to Prove a Falsehood True: Aircraft Parts as a Clue to their Identity

By George Nelson, Colonel, USAF (ret.)

The precautionary principle is based on the fact it is impossible to prove a false claim. Failure to prove a claim does not automatically make it false, but caution is called for, especially in the case of a world-changing event like the alleged terror attacks of September 11, 2001. The Bush administration has provided no public evidence to support its claim that the terror attacks were the work of Muslim extremists or even that the aircraft that struck their respective targets on September 11 were as advertised. As I will show below, it would be a simple matter to confirm that they were - if they were. Until such proof is forthcoming, the opposite claim must be kept in mind as a precaution against rushing to judgment: the 911 hijackings were part of a black operation carried out with the cooperation of elements in our government.

In July 1965 I had just been commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the U. S. Air Force after taking a solemn oath that I would protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that I would bear true faith and allegiance to the same. I took that oath very seriously. It was my constant companion throughout a thirty-year military career in the field of aircraft maintenance.

As an additional duty, aircraft maintenance officers are occasionally tasked as members of aircraft accident investigation boards and my personal experience was no exception. In 1989 I graduated from the Aircraft Mishap Investigation Course at the Institute of Safety and Systems Management at the University of Southern California. In addition to my direct participation as an aircraft accident investigator, I reviewed countless aircraft accident investigation reports for thoroughness and comprehensive conclusions for the Inspector General, HQ Pacific Air Forces during the height of the Vietnam conflict.

In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft -- and in most cases the precise cause of the accident. This is because every military and civilian passenger-carrying aircraft have many parts that are identified for safety of flight. That is, if any of the parts were to fail at any time during a flight, the failure would likely result in the catastrophic loss of aircraft and passengers. Consequently, these parts are individually controlled by a distinctive serial number and tracked by a records section of the maintenance operation and by another section called plans and scheduling.

Following a certain number of flying hours or, in the case of landing gears, a certain number of takeoff-and-landing cycles, these critical parts are required to be changed, overhauled or inspected by specialist mechanics. When these parts are installed, their serial numbers are married to the aircraft registration numbers in the aircraft records and the plans and scheduling section will notify maintenance specialists when the parts must be replaced. If the parts are not replaced within specified time or cycle limits, the airplane will normally be grounded until the maintenance action is completed. Most of these time-change parts, whether hydraulic flight surface actuators , pumps, landing gears, engines or engine components, are virtually indestructible. It would be impossible for an ordinary fire resulting from an airplane crash to destroy or obliterate all of those critical time-change parts or their serial numbers. I repeat, impossible.

Considering the catastrophic incidents of September 11 2001, certain troubling but irrefutable conclusions must be drawn from the known facts. I get no personal pleasure or satisfaction from reporting my own assessment of these facts.

United Airlines Flight 93

This flight was reported by the federal government to be a Boeing 757 aircraft, registration number N591UA, carrying 45 persons, including four Arab hijackers who had taken control of the aircraft, crashing the plane in a Pennsylvania farm field.

Aerial photos of the alleged crash site were made available to the general public. They show a significant hole in the ground, but private investigators were not allowed to come anywhere near the crash site. If an aircraft crash caused the hole in the ground, there would have literally hundreds of serially-controlled time-change parts within the hole that would have proved beyond any shadow of doubt the precise tail-number or identity of the aircraft. However, the government has not produced any hard evidence that would prove beyond a doubt that the specifically alleged aircraft crashed at that site. On the contrary, it has been reported that the aircraft, registry number N591UA, is still in operation.

American Airlines Flight 11

This flight was reported by the government to be a Boeing 767, registration number N334AA, carrying 92 people, including five Arabs who had hijacked the plane. This plane was reported to have crashed into the north tower of the WTC complex of buildings.

Again, the government would have no trouble proving its case if only a few of the hundreds of serially controlled parts had been collected to positively identify the aircraft. A Boeing 767 landing gear or just one engine would have been easy to find and identify.

United Airlines Flight 175

This flight was reported to be a Boeing 767, registration number N612UA, carrying 65 people, including the crew and five hijackers. It reportedly flew into the south tower of the WTC.

Once more, the government has yet to produce one serially controlled part from the crash site that would have dispelled any questions as to the identity of the specific airplane.

American Airlines Flight 77

This was reported to be a Boeing 757, registration number N644AA, carrying 64 people, including the flight crew and five hijackers. This aircraft, with a 125-foot wingspan, was reported to have crashed into the Pentagon, leaving an entry hole no more than 65 feet wide.

Following cool-down of the resulting fire, this crash site would have been very easy to collect enough time-change equipment within 15 minutes to positively identify the aircraft registry. There was apparently some aerospace type of equipment found at the site but no attempt was made to produce serial numbers or to identify the specific parts found. Some of the equipment removed from the building was actually hidden from public view.

Conclusion

The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view. The hard evidence would have included hundreds of critical time-change aircraft items, plus security videotapes that were confiscated by the FBI immediately following each tragic episode.

With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged. Similarly, with all the evidence available at the Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged. Regarding the planes that allegedly flew into the WTC towers, it is only just possible that heavy aircraft were involved in each incident, but no evidence has been produced that would add credence to the government's theoretical version of what actually caused the total destruction of the buildings, let alone proving the identity of the aircraft. That is the problem with the government's 911 story. It is time to apply the precautionary principle.

As painful and heartbreaking as was the loss of innocent lives and the lingering health problems of thousands more, a most troublesome and nightmarish probability remains that so many Americans appear to be involved in the most heinous conspiracy in our country's history.

Footnote: It will soon be five years since the tragic events of 9/11/01 unfolded, and still the general public has seen no physical evidence that should have been collected at each of the four crash sites, (a routine requirement during mandatory investigations of each and every major aircraft crash.) The National Transportation Safety Board has announced on its website that responsibility for the investigations and reports have been assigned to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, but there is no indication that mandatory investigations were ever conducted or that the reports of any investigations have been written.
http://www.physics911.net/georgenelson.htm

S.P.I.N.E. : The Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven
http://www.physics911.net/spine.htm

911 Investigative Sites
http://www.physics911.net/resources.htm

APFN 9/11 INFO AND LINKS:
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/wtc.htm

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

09-04-2006, 09:26 PM

hahahahaha.. I see the distinction. Was he though? Everything I have read said that he finished out his time as a member of the JCS. Was he hoping to get another assignment?

Rumsfeld hoped that by making Shinseki a lame duck long before his four-year term was due to expire, he would force Shinseki to resign.

http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Galloway_042603,00.html

The Bush administration’s treatment of Shinseki had the effect of silencing others in the chain of command who agreed with him.

Smearing of Shinseki

Feb. 25, 2003: Shinseki Suggests “Several Hundred Thousand Soldiers” Needed To Secure Iraq

“Something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers, are probably, you know, a figure that would be required. We’re talking about post-hostilities control over a piece of geography that’s fairly significant with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems. And so, it takes significant ground force presence to maintain safe and secure environment to ensure that the people are fed, that water is distributed, all the normal responsibilities that go along with administering a situation like this.” [Sen. Armed Services Committee testimony, 2/25/03]

Feb. 27, 2003: Wolfowitz Blasts Shinseki

“Mr. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, opened a…war of words on Capitol Hill, calling the recent estimate by Gen. Eric K. Shinseki of the Army that several hundred thousand troops would be needed in postwar Iraq, ‘wildly off the mark.’” [NYT, 2/28/03]

March 19, 2003: Pentagon Smears Shinseki

“A senior Pentagon official dismissed General Shinseki’s comments as ‘bull**** from a Clintonite enamored of using the army for peacekeeping and nation-building and not winning wars.’” [Village Voice, 3/19/03]

March 29, 2003: Rumsfeld Turned Shinseki Into Lame Duck Over Disagreements

“For the past two years Gen Shinseki has been in total eclipse after what appears to have been the most spectacular bust-up with his civilian bosses, in particular Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary. … he had already been turned into a lame duck (‘castrated’, according to the same Pentagon source) by the apparently unprecedented Rumsfeld decision to announce his successor 18 months in advance.” [Guardian, 3/29/03]

April 10, 2004: Smear of Shinseki Silenced U.S. Commanders in Iraq

“Some officers say privately that the rebuke has intimidated commanders in Iraq.” [Washington Times, 4/10/04]

http://thinkprogress.org/smearing-of-shinseki

DBruleU

09-04-2006, 09:34 PM

Too bad that was the only thing you remember from chemistry... It would of helped show you the flaws in "Dr. Dino's" scam... just saying :thumbs:

Chemistry was definitely one of the most boring class' I've ever taken part in.

Dr. Hovan is still the man. Okay, he's sorta corny with some of his jokes, but I respect him, and enjoy his vids. You and I have different points of view is all. I can respect that. And in all honesty, I respect any teacher, it's not an easy job to have. So good luck this year. ;)

W*GS

09-05-2006, 12:07 AM

I read the interviews. Only a few of the eyewitnesses actually state they saw a commercial airliner.

At least 20 mention either a large commercial jetliner or an American Airlines jet specifically. That's more than a few.

The photos of wreckage are a joke. There's no surety in most cases that we are seeing photos taken at the pentagon. They could be (and probably are) photos of other crashes.

Provide evidence that those photos have been doctored or are otherwise deceptive in some way.

There were credible individuals at the pentagon crash site -- firemen for example -- who noted the absence of wreckage. Later, these same firemen were ordered to keep their mouths shut.

Proof?

How can it be, W*gs that the pentagon continues to withhold the crucial evidence that could resolve the controversy? Why have you not called for the government to release the video footage captured by the pentagon security cameras?

I'm satisfied that Flight 77 was hijacked and was crashed into the Pentagon.

You are a mite too trusting for my taste.

What's your theory on what hit the Pentagon, if not Flight 77? You then need to show what happened to the "real" Flight 77 and its passengers and crew.

W*GS

09-05-2006, 12:11 AM

A Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon
by George Nelson, Colonel, USAF (ret.)

Yeah, yeah, we've seen Nelson's theories before.

He's one of those "there weren't any commercial jetliners at all" loonies...

Doesn't surprise me that you've hit us with this nonsense more than once, LABF...

Rohirrim

09-05-2006, 12:44 AM

Feb. 27, 2003: Wolfowitz Blasts Shinseki

“Mr. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, opened a…war of words on Capitol Hill, calling the recent estimate by Gen. Eric K. Shinseki of the Army that several hundred thousand troops would be needed in postwar Iraq, ‘wildly off the mark.’” [NYT, 2/28/03]

March 19, 2003: Pentagon Smears Shinseki

“A senior Pentagon official dismissed General Shinseki’s comments as ‘bull**** from a Clintonite enamored of using the army for peacekeeping and nation-building and not winning wars.’” [Village Voice, 3/19/03]

March 29, 2003: Rumsfeld Turned Shinseki Into Lame Duck Over Disagreements

“For the past two years Gen Shinseki has been in total eclipse after what appears to have been the most spectacular bust-up with his civilian bosses, in particular Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary. … he had already been turned into a lame duck (‘castrated’, according to the same Pentagon source) by the apparently unprecedented Rumsfeld decision to announce his successor 18 months in advance.” [Guardian, 3/29/03]

April 10, 2004: Smear of Shinseki Silenced U.S. Commanders in Iraq

“Some officers say privately that the rebuke has intimidated commanders in Iraq.” [Washington Times, 4/10/04]

Here's your traitors for you. Somebody get a rope.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

09-05-2006, 01:31 AM

Bronco_Beerslug

09-05-2006, 05:47 AM

I read the interviews. Only a few of the eyewitnesses actually state they saw a commercial airliner. Most of them are like my brother's friend, who was close but couldn't describe the plane in detail.

You are the disinformation minster of ignorance.

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

9/11 Pentagon
Eyewitness Accounts

Ryan James video account of the Pentagon crash

RealMedia
High Bandwidth - Low Bandwidth

Mike Walter

USA Today's Mike Walter was driving near the Pentagon when he saw an American Airlines jet fly directly into the country's military nerve center. [544kB WAV download]

Steve Anderson, Director of Communications, USA TODAY
A few moments later, as I was looking down at my desk, the plane caught my eye.

It didn't register at first. I thought to myself that I couldn't believe the pilot was flying so low. Then it dawned on me what was about to happen. I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball. Then black smoke. Then white smoke.

Deb Anlauf
Anlauf was watching TV coverage of the Trade Center burning shortly before 9:30 a.m. when she decided to return to her 14th-floor room from another part of the hotel. Once in her room, she heard a "loud roar" and looked out the window to see what was going on.

"Suddenly I saw this plane right outside my window," Anlauf said during a telephone interview from her hotel room this morning. "You felt like you could touch it; it was that close. It was just incredible. "Then it shot straight across from where we are and flew right into the Pentagon. It was just this huge fireball that crashed into the wall (of the Pentagon). When it hit, the whole hotel shook."

David Battle
Battle, an office worker at the Pentagon, was standing outside the building and just about to enter when the aircraft struck. "It was coming down head first," he said. "And when the impact hit, the cars and everything were just shaking."

Omar Campo
Omar Campo, a Salvadorean, was cutting the grass on the other side of the road when the plane flew over his head.

"It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane," Mr Campo said. "I was cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact. The whole ground shook and the whole area was full of fire. I could never imagine I would see anything like that here."

Gary Bauer, former Presidential candidate
“I was going past the Pentagon, really inching a yard or so every couple of minutes. I had just passed the closest place the Pentagon is to the exit on 395 . . . when all of a sudden I heard the roar of a jet engine.

“I looked at the woman sitting in the car next to me. She had this startled look on her face. We were all thinking the same thing. We looked out the front of our windows to try to see the plane, and it wasn’t until a few seconds later that we realized the jet was coming up behind us on that major highway. And it veered to the right into the Pentagon. The blast literally rocked all of our cars. It was an incredible moment.

Mickey Bell
Bell, who had been less than 100 feet from the initial impact of the plane, was nearly struck by one of the plane´s wings as it sped by him. In shock, he got into his truck, which had been parked in the trailer compound, and sped away. He wandered around Arlington in his truck and tried to make wireless phone calls. He ended up back at Singleton´s headquarters in Gaithersburg two hours later, according to President Singleton, not remembering much.

The full impact of the closeness of the crash wasn´t realized until coworkers noticed damage to Bell´s work vehicle. He had plastic and rivets from an airplane imbedded in its sheet metal, but Bell had no idea what had happened.

Mark Bright, Defense Protective Service officer
Mark Bright, actually saw the plane hit the building. He had been manning the guard booth at the Mall Entrance to the building.

"I saw the plane at the Navy Annex area," he said. "I knew it was going to strike the building because it was very, very low -- at the height of the street lights. It knocked a couple down." The plane would have been seconds from impact -- the annex is only a few hundred yards from the Pentagon.

He said he heard the plane "power-up" just before it struck the Pentagon. "As soon as it struck the building I just called in an attack, because I knew it couldn't be accidental," Bright said. He jumped into his police cruiser and headed to the area.

James R. Cissell
''Out of my peripheral vision,'' Cissell said, ''I saw this plane coming in and it was low - and getting lower.

''If you couldn't touch it from standing on the highway, you could by standing on your car.''

In the next seconds dozens of things flashed through his mind.

''I thought, 'This isn't really happening. That is a big plane.' Then I saw the faces of some of the passengers on board,'' Cissell said.

He remembers the helipad the plane flew over before smacking into the Pentagon was close enough to him that ''I could have thrown a baseball at it and hit it.''

Dan Creed
He and two colleagues from Oracle software were stopped in a car near the Naval Annex, next to the Pentagon, when they saw the plane dive down and level off.

"It was no more than 30 feet off the ground, and it was screaming. It was just screaming. It was nothing more than a guided missile at that point," Creed said.

"I can still see the plane. I can still see it right now. It's just the most frightening thing in the world, going full speed, going full throttle, its wheels up," Creed recalls.

Don Fortunato
“Traffic was at a standstill, so I parked on the shoulder, not far from the scene and ran to the site. Next to me was a cab from D.C., its windshield smashed out by pieces of lampposts. There were pieces of the plane all over the highway, pieces of wing, I think.”

Afework Hagos
Afework Hagos, a computer programmer, was on his way to work but stuck in a traffic jam near the Pentagon when the plane flew over. "There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. Everybody was running away in different directions. It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts on the way in."

Tom Hovis
Being a former transport type (60's era) I cannot understand how that plane hit where it did giving the direction the aircraft was taking at the time.

As most know, the Pentagon lies at the bottom of two hills from the west with the east side being next to the river at 14th street bridge. One hill is at the Navy Annex and the other is Arlington Cemetery. The plane came up I-395 also known as Shirley Hwy. (most likely used as a reference point.) The plane had been seen making a lazy pattern in the no fly zone over the White House and US Cap. Why the plane did not hit incoming traffic coming down the river from the north to Reagan Nat'l. is beyond me. Strangely, no one at the Reagan Tower noticed the aircraft. Andrews AFB radar should have also picked up the aircraft I would think. Nevertheless, the aircarft went southwest near Springfield and then veered left over Arlington and then put the nose down coming over Ft Myer picking off trees and light poles near the helicopter pad next to building. It was as if he leveled out at the last minute and put it square into the building. The wings came off as if it went through an arch way leaving a hole in the side of the building it seems a little larger than the wide body of the aircraft. The entry point was so clean that the roof (shown in news photo) fell in on the wreckage.

Terrance Kean
Terrance Kean, 35, who lives in a 14-story building nearby, heard the loud jet engines and glanced out his window.

"I saw this very, very large passenger jet," said the architect, who had been packing for a move. "It just plowed right into the side of the Pentagon. The nose penetrated into the portico. And then it sort of disappeared, and there was fire and smoke everywhere. . . . It was very sort of surreal."

Charles H. Krohn
One of the aircraft's engines somehow ricocheted out of the building and arched into the Pentagon's mall parking area between the main building and the new loading dock facility, said Charles H. Krohn, the Army's deputy chief of public affairs. Those fleeing the building heard a loud secondary explosion about 10 min. after the initial impact.

Maj. Lincoln Leibner
Maj. Leibner drove in and made it as far as the south parking lot, where he got out on foot. "I heard the plane first," he said. "I thought it was a flyover Arlington cemetery."

From his vantage point, Maj. Leibner looked up and saw the plane come in. "I was about 100 yards away," he said. "You could see through the windows of the aircraft. I saw it hit."

The plane came in hard and level and was flown full throttle into the building, dead center mass, Maj. Leibner said. "The plane completely entered the building," he said. "I got a little repercussion, from the sound, the blast. I've heard artillery, and that was louder than the loudest has to offer.

Elaine McCusker
Traffic is normally slow right around the Pentagon as the road winds and we line up to cross the 14th Street bridge heading into the District of Columbia. I don’t know what made me look up, but I did and I saw a very low-flying American Airlines plane that seemed to be accelerating. My first thought was just ‘No, no, no, no,’ because it was obvious the plane was not heading to nearby Reagan National Airport. It was going to crash.

William Middleton Sr.
William Middleton Sr., was running his street sweeper through the cemetery when he heard a harsh whistling sound overhead. Middleton looked up and spotted a commercial jet whose pilot seemed to be fighting with his own craft.

Middleton said the plane was no higher than the tops of telephone poles as it lurched toward the Pentagon. The jet accelerated in the final few hundred yards before it tore into the building.

Mare Ann Owens
Looking up didn't tell me what type of plane it was because it was so close I could only see the bottom. Realising the Pentagon was its target, I didn't think the careering, full-throttled craft would get that far. Its downward angle was too sharp, its elevation of maybe 50 feet, too low. Street lights toppled as the plane barely cleared the Interstate 395 overpass.

The thought that I was about to die was immediate and certain. This plane was going to hit me along with all the other commuters trapped on Washington Boulevard.

Gripping the steering wheel of my vibrating car, I involuntarily ducked as the wobbling plane thundered over my head. Once it passed, I raised slightly and grimaced as the left wing dipped and scraped the helicopter area just before the nose crashed into the southwest wall of the Pentagon.

Christine Peterson
I was at a complete stop on the road in front of the helipad at the Pentagon; what I had thought would be a shortcut was as slow as the other routes I had taken that morning. I looked idly out my window to the left -- and saw a plane flying so low I said, “holy cow, that plane is going to hit my car” (not my actual words). The car shook as the plane flew over. It was so close that I could read the numbers under the wing.

And then the plane crashed. My mind could not comprehend what had happened. Where did the plane go? For some reason I expected it to bounce off the Pentagon wall in pieces. But there was no plane visible, only huge billows of smoke and torrents of fire.

Frank Probst
American Airlines Flight 77 approached from the west, coming in low over the nearby five-story Navy Annex on a hill overlooking the Pentagon.

"He has lights off, wheels up, nose down," Probst recalled. The plane seemed to be accelerating directly toward him. He froze.

"I knew I was dead," he said later. "The only thing I thought was, 'Damn, my wife has to go to another funeral, and I'm not going to see my two boys again.'."

He dove to his right. He recalls the engine passing on one side of him, about six feet away.

The plane's right wing went through a generator trailer "like butter," Probst said. The starboard engine hit a low cement wall and blew apart.

Clyde Ragland
Ragland described billowing black smoke and "what looked like white confetti raining down everywhere." He said it soon became apparent "that the 'confetti' was little bits of airplane, falling down after being flung high into the bright, blue sky."

Tim Timmerman
A pilot who saw the impact, Tim Timmerman, said it had been an American Airways 757. "It added power on its way in," he said. "The nose hit, and the wings came forward and it went up in a fireball."

Thomas D. Trapasso
Thomas D. Trapasso, a political appointee in the Clinton Administration who is now looking for work, was making telephone calls from his deck in Arlington Village, about 1 mi. south of the Pentagon and just west of the Interstate 395 (I-395) highway. He was startled by the large American Airlines aircraft flying about 300 ft. overhead. "The engines were just screaming, and the wheels were up," Trapasso said. "It disappeared over the trees, and I heard a boom. I knew something awful had happened--that an airplane had crashed somewhere in Washington, D.C.

Alan Wallace
About 9:40, Alan Wallace had finished fixing the foam metering valve on the back of his fire truck parked in the Pentagon fire station and walked to the front of the station. He looked up and saw a jetliner coming straight at him. It was about 25 feet off the ground, no landing wheels visible, a few hundred yards away and closing fast.

"Runnnnn!" he yelled to a pal. There was no time to look back, barely time to scramble. He made it about 30 feet, heard a terrible roar, felt the heat, and dove underneath a van, skinning his stomach as he slid along the blacktop, sailing under it as though he were riding a luge. The van protected him against burning metal that was flying around. A few seconds later he was sliding back out to check on his friend and then race back to the firetruck. He jumped in, threw it into gear, but the accelerator was dead. The entire back of the truck was destroyed, the cab on fire. He grabbed the radio headset and called the main station at Fort Myer to report the unimaginable.

The sun was still low in the sky, obscured by the Pentagon and the enormous billowing clouds of acrid smoke, making it hauntingly dark. The ground was on fire. Trees were on fire. Hot slices of aluminum were everywhere.
http://tinyurl.com/3k3qu

mhgaffney

09-05-2006, 10:35 AM

You are the disinformation minster of ignorance.

The airspace over Washington DC and the pentagon across the Potomac is the most restricted airspace in the United States -- yet for more than a hour on 911 no US Air Force fighter planes appeared to defend the capital. Are you aware of the colossal nature of this anomaly? It's the Bush administration -- not me -- who has some explaining to do!

I have merely called for the government to release the videos filmed by the pentagon security cameras. That footage will determine who is lying and and who is telling the truth. Yet you call me the disinformation minister of ignorance. What horsesh*t.

By not joining me in calling for the release of this footage you are giving Bush and company a free pass. Indeed, your gullibility makes you an unwitting accessory after the fact to the greatest dodge ever perpetrated on the American people.

W*GS

09-05-2006, 10:45 AM

Indeed, your gullibility makes you an unwitting accessory after the fact to the greatest dodge ever perpetrated on the American people.

There's no accusation you've made that hasn't been amply refuted.

The only "dodge" here is you around the truth.

Bronco_Beerslug

09-05-2006, 12:13 PM

The airspace over Washington DC and the pentagon across the Potomac is the most restricted airspace in the United States -- yet for more than a hour on 911 no US Air Force fighter planes appeared to defend the capital. Are you aware of the colossal nature of this anomaly? It's the Bush administration -- not me -- who has some explaining to do!

I have merely called for the government to release the videos filmed by the pentagon security cameras. That footage will determine who is lying and and who is telling the truth. Yet you call me the disinformation minister of ignorance. What horsesh*t.

By not joining me in calling for the release of this footage you are giving Bush and company a free pass. Indeed, your gullibility makes you an unwitting accessory after the fact to the greatest dodge ever perpetrated on the American people.

No, I called you the "minster" of ignorance and bolding your replies doesn't add any more credence to them.

mhgaffney

09-05-2006, 12:26 PM

No, I called you the "minster" of ignorance and bolding your replies doesn't add any more credence to them.

So you still will not call for the release of the pentagon video footage that would resolve the controversy.

Given the present situation in our nation that is indefensible.

Bronco_Beerslug

09-05-2006, 12:52 PM

So you still will not call for the release of the pentagon video footage that would resolve the controversy.
Given the present situation in our nation that is indefensible.
What pentagon video footage is that, the video from more blog and conspiracy sites that tell you a missile hit the Pentagon?

The Lone Bolt

09-05-2006, 01:12 PM

The airspace over Washington DC and the pentagon across the Potomac is the most restricted airspace in the United States -- yet for more than a hour on 911 no US Air Force fighter planes appeared to defend the capital. Are you aware of the colossal nature of this anomaly? It's the Bush administration -- not me -- who has some explaining to do!

I have merely called for the government to release the videos filmed by the pentagon security cameras. That footage will determine who is lying and and who is telling the truth. Yet you call me the disinformation minister of ignorance. What horsesh*t.

By not joining me in calling for the release of this footage you are giving Bush and company a free pass. Indeed, your gullibility makes you an unwitting accessory after the fact to the greatest dodge ever perpetrated on the American people.

So if the Gov't did release the video you are referring to, and it clearly showed a 757 crashing into the Pentagon, would you admit that the American Airlines commercial jetliner did indeed hit the Pentagon or would you just declare the video evidence "fake" and "part of the conspiracy?"

W*GS

09-05-2006, 01:14 PM

Stuck In Texas

09-05-2006, 04:07 PM

Rumsfeld hoped that by making Shinseki a lame duck long before his four-year term was due to expire, he would force Shinseki to resign.

http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Galloway_042603,00.html

The Bush administration’s treatment of Shinseki had the effect of silencing others in the chain of command who agreed with him.

Smearing of Shinseki

Feb. 25, 2003: Shinseki Suggests “Several Hundred Thousand Soldiers” Needed To Secure Iraq

“Something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers, are probably, you know, a figure that would be required. We’re talking about post-hostilities control over a piece of geography that’s fairly significant with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems. And so, it takes significant ground force presence to maintain safe and secure environment to ensure that the people are fed, that water is distributed, all the normal responsibilities that go along with administering a situation like this.” [Sen. Armed Services Committee testimony, 2/25/03]

Feb. 27, 2003: Wolfowitz Blasts Shinseki

“Mr. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, opened a…war of words on Capitol Hill, calling the recent estimate by Gen. Eric K. Shinseki of the Army that several hundred thousand troops would be needed in postwar Iraq, ‘wildly off the mark.’” [NYT, 2/28/03]

March 19, 2003: Pentagon Smears Shinseki

“A senior Pentagon official dismissed General Shinseki’s comments as ‘bull**** from a Clintonite enamored of using the army for peacekeeping and nation-building and not winning wars.’” [Village Voice, 3/19/03]

March 29, 2003: Rumsfeld Turned Shinseki Into Lame Duck Over Disagreements

“For the past two years Gen Shinseki has been in total eclipse after what appears to have been the most spectacular bust-up with his civilian bosses, in particular Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary. … he had already been turned into a lame duck (‘castrated’, according to the same Pentagon source) by the apparently unprecedented Rumsfeld decision to announce his successor 18 months in advance.” [Guardian, 3/29/03]

April 10, 2004: Smear of Shinseki Silenced U.S. Commanders in Iraq

“Some officers say privately that the rebuke has intimidated commanders in Iraq.” [Washington Times, 4/10/04]

http://thinkprogress.org/smearing-of-shinseki

Well, whatever happened between the two of them, it looks like Shinseki was right. We had enough troops to win the war, but it doesn't appear that we have enough to keep the peace.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

09-05-2006, 06:02 PM

So if the Gov't did release the video you are referring to, and it clearly showed a 757 crashing into the Pentagon, would you admit that the American Airlines commercial jetliner did indeed hit the Pentagon or would you just declare the video evidence "fake" and "part of the conspiracy?"

Instead of hypotheticals, let's deal with facts:

A Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon

by George Nelson, Colonel, USAF (ret.)

Sat May 20, 2006 02:33

Considering the catastrophic incidents of September 11 2001, certain troubling but irrefutable conclusions must be drawn from the known facts. I get no personal pleasure or satisfaction from reporting my own assessment of these facts.

Re: 9/11 - Conclusions must be drawn from the known facts
http://www.physics911.net/georgenelson.htm

Impossible to Prove a Falsehood True: Aircraft Parts as a Clue to their Identity

By George Nelson, Colonel, USAF (ret.)

The precautionary principle is based on the fact it is impossible to prove a false claim. Failure to prove a claim does not automatically make it false, but caution is called for, especially in the case of a world-changing event like the alleged terror attacks of September 11, 2001. The Bush administration has provided no public evidence to support its claim that the terror attacks were the work of Muslim extremists or even that the aircraft that struck their respective targets on September 11 were as advertised. As I will show below, it would be a simple matter to confirm that they were - if they were. Until such proof is forthcoming, the opposite claim must be kept in mind as a precaution against rushing to judgment: the 911 hijackings were part of a black operation carried out with the cooperation of elements in our government.

In July 1965 I had just been commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the U. S. Air Force after taking a solemn oath that I would protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that I would bear true faith and allegiance to the same. I took that oath very seriously. It was my constant companion throughout a thirty-year military career in the field of aircraft maintenance.

As an additional duty, aircraft maintenance officers are occasionally tasked as members of aircraft accident investigation boards and my personal experience was no exception. In 1989 I graduated from the Aircraft Mishap Investigation Course at the Institute of Safety and Systems Management at the University of Southern California. In addition to my direct participation as an aircraft accident investigator, I reviewed countless aircraft accident investigation reports for thoroughness and comprehensive conclusions for the Inspector General, HQ Pacific Air Forces during the height of the Vietnam conflict.

In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft -- and in most cases the precise cause of the accident. This is because every military and civilian passenger-carrying aircraft have many parts that are identified for safety of flight. That is, if any of the parts were to fail at any time during a flight, the failure would likely result in the catastrophic loss of aircraft and passengers. Consequently, these parts are individually controlled by a distinctive serial number and tracked by a records section of the maintenance operation and by another section called plans and scheduling.

Following a certain number of flying hours or, in the case of landing gears, a certain number of takeoff-and-landing cycles, these critical parts are required to be changed, overhauled or inspected by specialist mechanics. When these parts are installed, their serial numbers are married to the aircraft registration numbers in the aircraft records and the plans and scheduling section will notify maintenance specialists when the parts must be replaced. If the parts are not replaced within specified time or cycle limits, the airplane will normally be grounded until the maintenance action is completed. Most of these time-change parts, whether hydraulic flight surface actuators , pumps, landing gears, engines or engine components, are virtually indestructible. It would be impossible for an ordinary fire resulting from an airplane crash to destroy or obliterate all of those critical time-change parts or their serial numbers. I repeat, impossible.

Considering the catastrophic incidents of September 11 2001, certain troubling but irrefutable conclusions must be drawn from the known facts. I get no personal pleasure or satisfaction from reporting my own assessment of these facts.

United Airlines Flight 93

This flight was reported by the federal government to be a Boeing 757 aircraft, registration number N591UA, carrying 45 persons, including four Arab hijackers who had taken control of the aircraft, crashing the plane in a Pennsylvania farm field.

Aerial photos of the alleged crash site were made available to the general public. They show a significant hole in the ground, but private investigators were not allowed to come anywhere near the crash site. If an aircraft crash caused the hole in the ground, there would have literally hundreds of serially-controlled time-change parts within the hole that would have proved beyond any shadow of doubt the precise tail-number or identity of the aircraft. However, the government has not produced any hard evidence that would prove beyond a doubt that the specifically alleged aircraft crashed at that site. On the contrary, it has been reported that the aircraft, registry number N591UA, is still in operation.

American Airlines Flight 11

This flight was reported by the government to be a Boeing 767, registration number N334AA, carrying 92 people, including five Arabs who had hijacked the plane. This plane was reported to have crashed into the north tower of the WTC complex of buildings.

Again, the government would have no trouble proving its case if only a few of the hundreds of serially controlled parts had been collected to positively identify the aircraft. A Boeing 767 landing gear or just one engine would have been easy to find and identify.

United Airlines Flight 175

This flight was reported to be a Boeing 767, registration number N612UA, carrying 65 people, including the crew and five hijackers. It reportedly flew into the south tower of the WTC.

Once more, the government has yet to produce one serially controlled part from the crash site that would have dispelled any questions as to the identity of the specific airplane.

American Airlines Flight 77

This was reported to be a Boeing 757, registration number N644AA, carrying 64 people, including the flight crew and five hijackers. This aircraft, with a 125-foot wingspan, was reported to have crashed into the Pentagon, leaving an entry hole no more than 65 feet wide.

Following cool-down of the resulting fire, this crash site would have been very easy to collect enough time-change equipment within 15 minutes to positively identify the aircraft registry. There was apparently some aerospace type of equipment found at the site but no attempt was made to produce serial numbers or to identify the specific parts found. Some of the equipment removed from the building was actually hidden from public view.

Conclusion

The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view. The hard evidence would have included hundreds of critical time-change aircraft items, plus security videotapes that were confiscated by the FBI immediately following each tragic episode.

With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged. Similarly, with all the evidence available at the Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged. Regarding the planes that allegedly flew into the WTC towers, it is only just possible that heavy aircraft were involved in each incident, but no evidence has been produced that would add credence to the government's theoretical version of what actually caused the total destruction of the buildings, let alone proving the identity of the aircraft. That is the problem with the government's 911 story. It is time to apply the precautionary principle.

As painful and heartbreaking as was the loss of innocent lives and the lingering health problems of thousands more, a most troublesome and nightmarish probability remains that so many Americans appear to be involved in the most heinous conspiracy in our country's history.

Footnote: It will soon be five years since the tragic events of 9/11/01 unfolded, and still the general public has seen no physical evidence that should have been collected at each of the four crash sites, (a routine requirement during mandatory investigations of each and every major aircraft crash.) The National Transportation Safety Board has announced on its website that responsibility for the investigations and reports have been assigned to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, but there is no indication that mandatory investigations were ever conducted or that the reports of any investigations have been written.
http://www.physics911.net/georgenelson.htm

S.P.I.N.E. : The Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven
http://www.physics911.net/spine.htm

911 Investigative Sites
http://www.physics911.net/resources.htm

APFN 9/11 INFO AND LINKS:
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/wtc.htm

clarker

09-05-2006, 06:44 PM

So the Today and Good Morning America camera that showed big a** planes hitting the WTC were phoney. Katie Couric must have been in on it.

This guy from the Air Force and LABF and others like him should be locked up in a loony bin for trying to push this crap.

LABF how can Bush and Co. be so stupid in your opinion yet pull off the biggest scam in human history?

We all the eyed witness acounts all phoney. People on the street who filmed the planes hitting the towers. They were in on it.

Even Beerslug, a Bush hating liberal thinks you guys are nuts. He has posted link after link debunking your crazy theories. You won't even believe him.

clarker

09-05-2006, 07:16 PM

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

09-05-2006, 07:31 PM

This guy from the Air Force and LABF and others like him should be locked up in a loony bin for trying to push this crap.

This statement only shows that you either a) didn't read the artlcle by Colonel Nelson (whose area expertise, BTW, is investigating crashes) or b) didn't comprehend the points therein.

But your hysterical, reactionary mentality that anyone who doubts the official account of the 9/11 attacks should be "locked in a loony bin" is the real insanity here.

LABF how can Bush and Co. be so stupid in your opinion yet pull off the biggest scam in human history?

Who ever said Bush and those around him could have done such a thing without a lot of help?

We all the eyed witness acounts all phoney. People on the street who filmed the planes hitting the towers. They were in on it.

Even Beerslug, a Bush hating liberal thinks you guys are nuts. He has posted link after link debunking your crazy theories. You won't even believe him.

Another stupid bandwagon appeal.

If the WH or its defenders wanted to settle the matter once and for all and to silence the "conspiracy" theorists, then why couldn't they produce even one piece of physical evidence that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon?

If you read Colonel Nelson's article, you'll see how easy it would be to prove that it was a 757 - all it would take would be one aircraft part with an identifying number.

mhgaffney

09-05-2006, 07:31 PM

What pentagon video footage is that, the video from more blog and conspiracy sites that tell you a missile hit the Pentagon?

It's incredible that you don't know about this.

The pentagon is one of the most heavily surveiled buildings on the planet. There were security cameras on the roof, in the parking lot, at a nearby gas station, and also on the roof of a nearby hotel.

Some or all of these rolling cameras taped whatever hit the pentagon.

Yet, all of the video tape was confiscated within minutes of the attack by US security personnel. That's a rather rapid response, don't you think, especially considering the USAF couldn't get a fighter in the air for over an hour?

Folks, this is simple -- not rocket science. We need some common sense, here.

Whatever is on the original tapes is pristine hard evidence that should decisively reveal the truth about 911 -- at least regarding the pentagon attack. So why has the US government refused to release the video footage?

It's a fact that the Bush administration is the most secretive government we've ever had. It's also been my experience that when people hold back information it's generally because they have something to hide.

The American people have the right to know what is on those tapes.

Assuming we can get an independent analysis of the footage -- I would accept whatever the tapes reveal. I simply want to know. Thus far, IMO, we have not been told the truth.

MG

clarker

09-05-2006, 07:45 PM

This statement only shows that you either a) didn't read the artlcle by Colonel Nelson (whose area expertise, BTW, is investigating crashes) or b) didn't comprehend the points therein.

But your hysterical, reactionary mentality that anyone who doubts the official account of the 9/11 attacks should be "locked in a loony bin" is the real insanity here.

Who ever said Bush and those around him could have done such a thing without a lot of help?

Another stupid bandwagon appeal.

If the WH or its defenders wanted to settle the matter once and for all and to silence the "conspiracy" theorists, then why couldn't they produce even one piece of physical evidence that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon?

If you read Colonel Nelson's article, you'll see how easy it would be to prove that it was a 757 - all it would take would be one aircraft part with an identifying number.If they could pull off 9-11 in the way you say they did, why didn't they plant WMD's in Iraq? Seems to men that could have cured themselves of a huge political headache.

Yes I think you should be put in a loony bin if you really believe this crap. Beerslug, not exactly a Bush fan has posted link after link debunking your crazy theories.

Col. Nelson is either a loon or has a grudge against either Bush, the Air Force, the government in general or all of the above.

You should read Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts.

Cue LABF calling Popular Mechanics magazine a right wing rag. Attacking the messenger because he can't attack their findings.

BTW if you really believe they could have pulled this off then you can longer say Bush or at least the people who work for him are idiots. Which you do every day. Because if they really could pull this off they are anything but idiots.

Spider

09-05-2006, 07:47 PM

I love this part from the editorial that W*GS posted the other day.

why didn't the government officials that were so cunning and sinister arrange to have someone plant nukes or chemical weapons in Iraq and then 'find' them? If any country would have the means to do that, it would have been us. . . . But no, they instead have had to stumble around the awkward fact that they never found any."

Just so. But don't try pointing out this obvious objection to 9/11 conspiracy buffs. It will only prove your part in the sickening plot.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion_columnists/article/0,2777,DRMN_23972_4957231,00.html

I mean it would have been much easier to plant WMD's in Iraq than pull off a "hoax" the size of 9-11.

Seems to if these evil were smart enough to pull off 9-11 in the mannor nuts like LABF think they did, then planting some WMD's should have been no problem.

The fact is Bush and Co. were not smart enough to think of that and they were not smart enough to thread together the millions things it would have to took to pull of a hoax of that size.
Let me tell you what many on the left including myself believe ...... Did Bush plan 9-11 ? nope bush couldnt plan a Bar-B-Que , but here is what we struggle with , Aug 6 th Memo Bin Laden determined to attack , The previous year the G8 Summit where security planned for planes flying into the building , so we now know people did think of planes flying into buildings , we do know we was warned about an attack , What did Bush do ? went fishing .......
let me put it like this ,I am told by someone that a robbery will go down soon I see 3 armed gunmen going into a corner store , I do nothing , not even call police , the clerk gets killed , my line of thinking is , I am guilty ,I could have called the police , hollered out make a scene , do somthing besides act like a gutless coward punk .............. Just like today , I worked my ass off , got home nieghbors were fighting , and he has beat her before , I am sore, tired, hungry and thirsty , but I stood outside watching for a good 20 minutes .....
if he takes a swing , I am beating him down ..........

clarker

09-05-2006, 07:51 PM

Let me tell you what many on the left including myself believe ...... Did Bush plan 9-11 ? nope bush couldnt plan a Bar-B-Que , but here is what we struggle with , Aug 6 th Memo Bin Laden determined to attack , The previous year the G8 Summit where security planned for planes flying into the building , so we now know people did think of planes flying into buildings , we do know we was warned about an attack , What did Bush do ? went fishing .......
let me put it like this ,I am told by someone that a robbery will go down soon I see 3 armed gunmen going into a corner store , I do nothing , not even call police , the clerk gets killed , my line of thinking is , I am guilty ,I could have called the police , hollered out make a scene , do somthing besides act like a gutless coward punk .............. Just like today , I worked my ass off , got home nieghbors were fighting , and he has beat her before , I am sore, tired, hungry and thirsty , but I stood outside watching for a good 20 minutes .....
if he takes a swing , I am beating him down ..........
I am not saying that Bush didn't f.ck up when he had chances to prevent 9-11. I am just saying he didn't plan it or was in on it.

I tried to be a loyal republican, but like you I don't think Bush or 95% of the people who work for him could plan a Bar-B-Que let alone a hoax that complex.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

09-05-2006, 07:55 PM

Col. Nelson is either a loon or has a grudge against either Bush, the Air Force, the government in general or all of the above.

Another asinine, completely unfounded, reactionary claim.

I notice you keep avoiding the most important question I ask:

If the WH and/or its supporters wanted to settle the matter once and for all, then why couldn't they produce any physical evidence that a 757 hit the Pentagon?

All it would take would be a part from the plane with a serial number on it.

BTW if you really believe they could have pulled this off then you can longer say Bush or at least the people who work for him are idiots. Which you do every day. Because if they really could pull this off they are anything but idiots.

I can't help but believe you are the idiot here.

How else could you keep missing my comment that, if there was a conspiracy, Bush and those around him couldn't have pulled it off without a lot of help?

Spider

09-05-2006, 07:56 PM

I am not saying that Bush didn't f.ck up when he had chances to prevent 9-11. I am just saying he didn't plan it or was in on it.

I tried to be a loyal republican, but like you I don't think Bush or 95% of the people who work for him could plan a Bar-B-Que let alone a hoax that complex.

I know you are not Bro...... I just trying to put the majority of what the left thinks on the table ;D

clarker

09-05-2006, 07:58 PM

I know you are not Bro...... I just trying to put the majority of what the left thinks on the table ;DTo me you and Beerslug have clear heads about this. I think LABF and his lot are either trying to B.S. us or just plain nuts.

No sane person would believe this junk.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

09-05-2006, 08:04 PM

To me you and Beerslug have clear heads about this. I think LABF and his lot are either trying to B.S. us or just plain nuts.

You're the last person in the world who is qualified to assess who does or doesn't have a "clear head" about 9/11.

It's crystal clear that you are caught up in the collective hysteria that would lambast anyone who questions the offical account on any grounds as some sort of lunatic.

No sane person would believe this junk.

You have distinguished yourself as a person who chooses to believe what you want to believe in spite of the facts, so your takes have little credibility.

clarker

09-05-2006, 08:07 PM

Another asinine, completely unfounded, reactionary claim.

I notice you keep avoiding the most important question I ask:

If the WH and/or its supporters wanted to settle the matter once and for all, then why couldn't they produce any physical evidence that a 757 hit the Pentagon?

All it would take would be a part from the plane with a serial number on it.

I can't help but believe you are the idiot here.

How else could you keep missing my comment that, if there was a conspiracy, Bush and those around him couldn't have pulled it off without a lot of help?Who did they get help from? Where is the evidence that they got help from an outside source?

To be honest I don't know about the plane that hit the pentagon. But I did see the second plane hit live on TV. I saw it with my own two eyes as did millions of people. I can't tell you the exact model, but I know it was a big f.cking plane yet this crack pot Nelson, says

Regarding the planes that allegedly flew into the WTC towers, it is only just possible that heavy aircraft were involved in each incident, but no evidence has been produced that would add credence to the government's theoretical version of what actually caused the total destruction of the buildings, let alone proving the identity of the aircraft.

Allegedly flew into the WTC towers? Allegedly? Is he nuts? Did George Lucas do some CGI for Bush? Is that the outside help you talk about?

It is only "just" possible that a heavy aircraft were involved in each incident. "Just Possible" It is totally possible because I and millions of others saw it happen.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

09-05-2006, 08:15 PM

To be honest I don't know about the plane that hit the pentagon.

Thanks - that's all I really wanted to know.

But I did see the second plane hit live on TV. I saw it with my own two eyes as did millions of people. I can't tell you the exact model, but I know it was a big f.cking plane yet this crack pot Nelson, says

Nelson isn't a "crackpot" - he's a retired Air Force Colonel whose area of expertise is investigating crashes.

He's not denying that planes hit the WTC towers - he's just pointing out the FACT that the government has provided NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that these planes were the kind of planes the WH claims they were.

clarker

09-05-2006, 08:30 PM

Thanks - that's all I really wanted to know.

Nelson isn't a "crackpot" - he's a retired Air Force Colonel whose area of expertise is investigating crashes.

He's not denying that planes hit the WTC towers - he's just pointing out the FACT that the government has provided NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that these planes were the kind of planes the WH claims they were.Your nuts and if what Spider says the majority of left wingers think about 9-11 is true than the majority of your fellow left wingers think your wrong about 9-11. I suppose they are not left wing enough for you. Beerslug and Spider are helping in the cover up?

BTW you never answered, who helped Bush pull it off. I said he was too stupid to do it. You said he must have had help. Who helped and where is your evidence that Bush and Co. had help?

You act like this Nelson is the only person on planet Earth that has expertise in investigating crashes.

Read Debunking 9-11 myths for your own good before they take you away to the boobie hatch.

clarker

09-05-2006, 08:47 PM

He's not denying that planes hit the WTC towers - he's just pointing out the FACT that the government has provided NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that these planes were the kind of planes the WH claims they were-LABF

You don't need phyiscal evdence that these planes were the kinds of planes they WH "claims" they were. First the airlines themselves knew what kind of planes they were. I can't believe they didn't know what planes were missing and what kinds of planes they were. Oh my your right, the airlines were in on it. That must be the help Bush and Co. got.

There were enough close up video to tell any body with expertise in the field what models they were by looking at them.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

09-05-2006, 09:07 PM

You don't need phyiscal evdence that these planes were the kinds of planes they WH "claims" they were.

Yes you do.

Why can't the Bush WH produce even one part w/ a serial number that would prove beyond all doubt that the planes were the same ones they claim?

It would be very easy.

Take United Airlines Flight 93 for an example of how the WH claims don't wash:

This flight was reported by the federal government to be a Boeing 757 aircraft, registration number N591UA, carrying 45 persons, including four Arab hijackers who had taken control of the aircraft, crashing the plane in a Pennsylvania farm field.

Aerial photos of the alleged crash site were made available to the general public. They show a significant hole in the ground, but private investigators were not allowed to come anywhere near the crash site. If an aircraft crash caused the hole in the ground, there would have literally hundreds of serially-controlled time-change parts within the hole that would have proved beyond any shadow of doubt the precise tail-number or identity of the aircraft. However, the government has not produced any hard evidence that would prove beyond a doubt that the specifically alleged aircraft crashed at that site. On the contrary, it has been reported that the aircraft, registry number N591UA, is still in operation.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

09-05-2006, 09:16 PM

Footnote: It will soon be five years since the tragic events of 9/11/01 unfolded, and still the general public has seen no physical evidence that should have been collected at each of the four crash sites, (a routine requirement during mandatory investigations of each and every major aircraft crash.) The National Transportation Safety Board has announced on its website that responsibility for the investigations and reports have been assigned to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, but there is no indication that mandatory investigations were ever conducted or that the reports of any investigations have been written.

George Nelson
Colonel, USAF (ret.)

http://www.physics911.net/georgenelson.htm

.

clarker

09-05-2006, 09:20 PM

Yes you do.

Why can't the Bush WH produce even one part w/ a serial number that would prove beyond all doubt that the planes were the same ones they claim?

It would be very easy.

Take United Airlines Flight 93 for an example of how the WH claims don't wash:
So the airlines were in on it. They would know what planes were missing, wouldn't they? They would know what kinds of planes they were? Where is your proof the airlines were in on it.

The only way those planes could not be the kind of planes the WH house said they were is if the Airlines were either in on it or covering up for them. Where is your proof of either of those things.

What about the close up video was that was shot of the planes hitting the towers? Why couldn't some who has expertise in airplanes ID the model of the plane by site? That is impossible.

What about the people who had phone calls from familey and friends on those planes. Where is the proof that those people are lying? Where is the proof that the phone companies lied about those calls? They would have phone records that could easily be checked to see if they were indeed made. Any proof the phone companies helped in the grand plot?

You make these claims that Bush did 9-11 but have no proof of any kind.

BTW where are the people on those flights. Did they never exist? Are the family and friends of these people lying about their very existance?

It is not my job to disprove that 9-11 happened as I saw with my own two eyes live on TV. It is the job of nutcases like you to prove it. Your making the accusation. You have to prove it.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

09-05-2006, 09:24 PM

Autopsy: No Arabs on Flight 77

By Thomas R. Olmsted, M.D

I am an ex Naval line officer and a psychiatrist in private practice in New Orleans, a Christian and homeschool dad. It troubled me a great deal that we rushed off to war on the flimsiest of evidence. I considered various ways to provide a smoking gun of who and why Sept 11th happened. Astute observers noticed right away that there were no Arabic sounding names on any of the flight manifests of the planes that "crashed" on that day.

A list of names on a piece of paper is not evidence, but an autopsy by a pathologist, is. I undertook by FOIA request, to obtain that autopsy list and you are invited to view it below. Guess what? Still no Arabs on the list. In my opinion the monsters who planned this crime made a mistake by not including Arabic names on the original list to make the ruse seem more believable.

When airline disasters occur, airlines will routinely provide a manifest list for anxious families. You may have noticed that even before Sep 11th, airlines are pretty meticulous about getting an accurate headcount before takeoff. It seems very unlikely to me, that five Arabs sneaked onto a flight with weapons. This is the list provided by American of the 56 passengers. On September 27th, the FBI published photos of the "hijackers" of Flight 77.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP), does a miraculous job and identifies nearly all the bodies on November 16th 2001.

The AFIP suggest these numbers; 189 killed, 125 worked at the Pentagon and 64 were "passengers" on the plane. 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.

Now, being the trusting sort, I figured that the government would want to quickly dispel any rumors so we could get on with the chore of kicking Osama/Sadaam's butt (weren't these originally two different people?). It seemed simple to me. . .produce the names of all the bodies identified by the AFIP and compare it with the publicized list of passengers. So, I sent a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the AFIP and asked for an expedited response, because we were getting ready to send our boys to war on the pretext that Osama/Saddam had done the deed. Fourteen months later, a few US soldiers dead, many Iraqi civilians pushing up daisies, and I finally get the list. Believe me that they weren't a bit happy to give it up, and I really have no idea why they choose now to release it.

No Arabs wound up on the morgue slab; however, three ADDITIONAL people not listed by American Airlines sneaked in. I have seen no explanation for these extras. I did American the opportunity to "revise" their original list, but they have not responded. The new names are: Robert Ploger, Zandra Ploger, and Sandra Teague. The AFIP claims that the only "passenger" body that they were not able to identify is the toddler, Dana Falkenberg, whose parents and young sister are on the list of those identified. The satanic masterminds behind this caper may be feeling pretty smug about the perfect crime, but they have left a raft of clues tying these unfortunates together.

Full article with documents and links:

http://www.physics911.net/olmsted.htm

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

09-05-2006, 09:36 PM

So the airlines were in on it. They would know what planes were missing, wouldn't they? They would know what kinds of planes they were? Where is your proof the airlines were in on it.

You keep ducking the question:

Why wouldn't the Bush WH and its apologists want to settle the matter once and for all by producing physical evidence (a routine requirement during mandatory investigations of each and every major aircraft crash, BTW) that would confirm the identity of the planes?

Why was United flight 93 reported by the federal government to be a Boeing 757 aircraft, registration number N591UA when, in fact, it has been reported that the aircraft, registry number N591UA, is still in operation?

It is not my job to disprove that 9-11 happened as I saw with my own two eyes live on TV. It is the job of nutcases like you to prove it. Your making the accusation. You have to prove it.

To claim that the film footage you and everyone else saw is the only evidence of any consequence is simply more evidence willfull ignorance on your part. And your hysterical, knee-jerk dismissal of anyone who points out the problems with the offical WH account as a "nut case" is proof positive that emotion - not reason - forms the basis of your beliefs about what happened.

clarker

09-05-2006, 09:39 PM

You are the disinformation minster of ignorance.

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

9/11 Pentagon
Eyewitness Accounts

Ryan James video account of the Pentagon crash

RealMedia
High Bandwidth - Low Bandwidth

Mike Walter

USA Today's Mike Walter was driving near the Pentagon when he saw an American Airlines jet fly directly into the country's military nerve center. [544kB WAV download]

Steve Anderson, Director of Communications, USA TODAY
A few moments later, as I was looking down at my desk, the plane caught my eye.

It didn't register at first. I thought to myself that I couldn't believe the pilot was flying so low. Then it dawned on me what was about to happen. I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball. Then black smoke. Then white smoke.

Deb Anlauf
Anlauf was watching TV coverage of the Trade Center burning shortly before 9:30 a.m. when she decided to return to her 14th-floor room from another part of the hotel. Once in her room, she heard a "loud roar" and looked out the window to see what was going on.

"Suddenly I saw this plane right outside my window," Anlauf said during a telephone interview from her hotel room this morning. "You felt like you could touch it; it was that close. It was just incredible. "Then it shot straight across from where we are and flew right into the Pentagon. It was just this huge fireball that crashed into the wall (of the Pentagon). When it hit, the whole hotel shook."

David Battle
Battle, an office worker at the Pentagon, was standing outside the building and just about to enter when the aircraft struck. "It was coming down head first," he said. "And when the impact hit, the cars and everything were just shaking."

Omar Campo
Omar Campo, a Salvadorean, was cutting the grass on the other side of the road when the plane flew over his head.

"It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane," Mr Campo said. "I was cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact. The whole ground shook and the whole area was full of fire. I could never imagine I would see anything like that here."

Gary Bauer, former Presidential candidate
“I was going past the Pentagon, really inching a yard or so every couple of minutes. I had just passed the closest place the Pentagon is to the exit on 395 . . . when all of a sudden I heard the roar of a jet engine.

“I looked at the woman sitting in the car next to me. She had this startled look on her face. We were all thinking the same thing. We looked out the front of our windows to try to see the plane, and it wasn’t until a few seconds later that we realized the jet was coming up behind us on that major highway. And it veered to the right into the Pentagon. The blast literally rocked all of our cars. It was an incredible moment.

Mickey Bell
Bell, who had been less than 100 feet from the initial impact of the plane, was nearly struck by one of the plane´s wings as it sped by him. In shock, he got into his truck, which had been parked in the trailer compound, and sped away. He wandered around Arlington in his truck and tried to make wireless phone calls. He ended up back at Singleton´s headquarters in Gaithersburg two hours later, according to President Singleton, not remembering much.

The full impact of the closeness of the crash wasn´t realized until coworkers noticed damage to Bell´s work vehicle. He had plastic and rivets from an airplane imbedded in its sheet metal, but Bell had no idea what had happened.

Mark Bright, Defense Protective Service officer
Mark Bright, actually saw the plane hit the building. He had been manning the guard booth at the Mall Entrance to the building.

"I saw the plane at the Navy Annex area," he said. "I knew it was going to strike the building because it was very, very low -- at the height of the street lights. It knocked a couple down." The plane would have been seconds from impact -- the annex is only a few hundred yards from the Pentagon.

He said he heard the plane "power-up" just before it struck the Pentagon. "As soon as it struck the building I just called in an attack, because I knew it couldn't be accidental," Bright said. He jumped into his police cruiser and headed to the area.

James R. Cissell
''Out of my peripheral vision,'' Cissell said, ''I saw this plane coming in and it was low - and getting lower.

''If you couldn't touch it from standing on the highway, you could by standing on your car.''

In the next seconds dozens of things flashed through his mind.

''I thought, 'This isn't really happening. That is a big plane.' Then I saw the faces of some of the passengers on board,'' Cissell said.

He remembers the helipad the plane flew over before smacking into the Pentagon was close enough to him that ''I could have thrown a baseball at it and hit it.''

Dan Creed
He and two colleagues from Oracle software were stopped in a car near the Naval Annex, next to the Pentagon, when they saw the plane dive down and level off.

"It was no more than 30 feet off the ground, and it was screaming. It was just screaming. It was nothing more than a guided missile at that point," Creed said.

"I can still see the plane. I can still see it right now. It's just the most frightening thing in the world, going full speed, going full throttle, its wheels up," Creed recalls.

Don Fortunato
“Traffic was at a standstill, so I parked on the shoulder, not far from the scene and ran to the site. Next to me was a cab from D.C., its windshield smashed out by pieces of lampposts. There were pieces of the plane all over the highway, pieces of wing, I think.”

Afework Hagos
Afework Hagos, a computer programmer, was on his way to work but stuck in a traffic jam near the Pentagon when the plane flew over. "There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. Everybody was running away in different directions. It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts on the way in."

Tom Hovis
Being a former transport type (60's era) I cannot understand how that plane hit where it did giving the direction the aircraft was taking at the time.

As most know, the Pentagon lies at the bottom of two hills from the west with the east side being next to the river at 14th street bridge. One hill is at the Navy Annex and the other is Arlington Cemetery. The plane came up I-395 also known as Shirley Hwy. (most likely used as a reference point.) The plane had been seen making a lazy pattern in the no fly zone over the White House and US Cap. Why the plane did not hit incoming traffic coming down the river from the north to Reagan Nat'l. is beyond me. Strangely, no one at the Reagan Tower noticed the aircraft. Andrews AFB radar should have also picked up the aircraft I would think. Nevertheless, the aircarft went southwest near Springfield and then veered left over Arlington and then put the nose down coming over Ft Myer picking off trees and light poles near the helicopter pad next to building. It was as if he leveled out at the last minute and put it square into the building. The wings came off as if it went through an arch way leaving a hole in the side of the building it seems a little larger than the wide body of the aircraft. The entry point was so clean that the roof (shown in news photo) fell in on the wreckage.

Terrance Kean
Terrance Kean, 35, who lives in a 14-story building nearby, heard the loud jet engines and glanced out his window.

"I saw this very, very large passenger jet," said the architect, who had been packing for a move. "It just plowed right into the side of the Pentagon. The nose penetrated into the portico. And then it sort of disappeared, and there was fire and smoke everywhere. . . . It was very sort of surreal."

Charles H. Krohn
One of the aircraft's engines somehow ricocheted out of the building and arched into the Pentagon's mall parking area between the main building and the new loading dock facility, said Charles H. Krohn, the Army's deputy chief of public affairs. Those fleeing the building heard a loud secondary explosion about 10 min. after the initial impact.

Maj. Lincoln Leibner
Maj. Leibner drove in and made it as far as the south parking lot, where he got out on foot. "I heard the plane first," he said. "I thought it was a flyover Arlington cemetery."

From his vantage point, Maj. Leibner looked up and saw the plane come in. "I was about 100 yards away," he said. "You could see through the windows of the aircraft. I saw it hit."

The plane came in hard and level and was flown full throttle into the building, dead center mass, Maj. Leibner said. "The plane completely entered the building," he said. "I got a little repercussion, from the sound, the blast. I've heard artillery, and that was louder than the loudest has to offer.

Elaine McCusker
Traffic is normally slow right around the Pentagon as the road winds and we line up to cross the 14th Street bridge heading into the District of Columbia. I don’t know what made me look up, but I did and I saw a very low-flying American Airlines plane that seemed to be accelerating. My first thought was just ‘No, no, no, no,’ because it was obvious the plane was not heading to nearby Reagan National Airport. It was going to crash.

William Middleton Sr.
William Middleton Sr., was running his street sweeper through the cemetery when he heard a harsh whistling sound overhead. Middleton looked up and spotted a commercial jet whose pilot seemed to be fighting with his own craft.

Middleton said the plane was no higher than the tops of telephone poles as it lurched toward the Pentagon. The jet accelerated in the final few hundred yards before it tore into the building.

Mare Ann Owens
Looking up didn't tell me what type of plane it was because it was so close I could only see the bottom. Realising the Pentagon was its target, I didn't think the careering, full-throttled craft would get that far. Its downward angle was too sharp, its elevation of maybe 50 feet, too low. Street lights toppled as the plane barely cleared the Interstate 395 overpass.

The thought that I was about to die was immediate and certain. This plane was going to hit me along with all the other commuters trapped on Washington Boulevard.

Gripping the steering wheel of my vibrating car, I involuntarily ducked as the wobbling plane thundered over my head. Once it passed, I raised slightly and grimaced as the left wing dipped and scraped the helicopter area just before the nose crashed into the southwest wall of the Pentagon.

Christine Peterson
I was at a complete stop on the road in front of the helipad at the Pentagon; what I had thought would be a shortcut was as slow as the other routes I had taken that morning. I looked idly out my window to the left -- and saw a plane flying so low I said, “holy cow, that plane is going to hit my car” (not my actual words). The car shook as the plane flew over. It was so close that I could read the numbers under the wing.

And then the plane crashed. My mind could not comprehend what had happened. Where did the plane go? For some reason I expected it to bounce off the Pentagon wall in pieces. But there was no plane visible, only huge billows of smoke and torrents of fire.

Frank Probst
American Airlines Flight 77 approached from the west, coming in low over the nearby five-story Navy Annex on a hill overlooking the Pentagon.

"He has lights off, wheels up, nose down," Probst recalled. The plane seemed to be accelerating directly toward him. He froze.

"I knew I was dead," he said later. "The only thing I thought was, 'Damn, my wife has to go to another funeral, and I'm not going to see my two boys again.'."

He dove to his right. He recalls the engine passing on one side of him, about six feet away.

The plane's right wing went through a generator trailer "like butter," Probst said. The starboard engine hit a low cement wall and blew apart.

Clyde Ragland
Ragland described billowing black smoke and "what looked like white confetti raining down everywhere." He said it soon became apparent "that the 'confetti' was little bits of airplane, falling down after being flung high into the bright, blue sky."

Tim Timmerman
A pilot who saw the impact, Tim Timmerman, said it had been an American Airways 757. "It added power on its way in," he said. "The nose hit, and the wings came forward and it went up in a fireball."

Thomas D. Trapasso
Thomas D. Trapasso, a political appointee in the Clinton Administration who is now looking for work, was making telephone calls from his deck in Arlington Village, about 1 mi. south of the Pentagon and just west of the Interstate 395 (I-395) highway. He was startled by the large American Airlines aircraft flying about 300 ft. overhead. "The engines were just screaming, and the wheels were up," Trapasso said. "It disappeared over the trees, and I heard a boom. I knew something awful had happened--that an airplane had crashed somewhere in Washington, D.C.

Alan Wallace
About 9:40, Alan Wallace had finished fixing the foam metering valve on the back of his fire truck parked in the Pentagon fire station and walked to the front of the station. He looked up and saw a jetliner coming straight at him. It was about 25 feet off the ground, no landing wheels visible, a few hundred yards away and closing fast.

"Runnnnn!" he yelled to a pal. There was no time to look back, barely time to scramble. He made it about 30 feet, heard a terrible roar, felt the heat, and dove underneath a van, skinning his stomach as he slid along the blacktop, sailing under it as though he were riding a luge. The van protected him against burning metal that was flying around. A few seconds later he was sliding back out to check on his friend and then race back to the firetruck. He jumped in, threw it into gear, but the accelerator was dead. The entire back of the truck was destroyed, the cab on fire. He grabbed the radio headset and called the main station at Fort Myer to report the unimaginable.

The sun was still low in the sky, obscured by the Pentagon and the enormous billowing clouds of acrid smoke, making it hauntingly dark. The ground was on fire. Trees were on fire. Hot slices of aluminum were everywhere.
http://tinyurl.com/3k3quI quote this for truth as LABF would say.

What happened to flight 77 if it didn't hit the pentagon? Where is the proof where you claim it is?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
First I posted this.

clarker

09-05-2006, 09:41 PM

Why wouldn't the Bush WH and its apologists want to settle the matter once and for all by producing physical evidence (a routine requirement during mandatory investigations of each and every major aircraft crash, BTW) that would confirm the identity of the planes-LABF

Beerslug thinks your wrong as well. Is he a Bush apologist?

clarker

09-05-2006, 09:46 PM

To claim that the film footage you and everyone else saw is the only evidence of any consequence is simply more evidence willfull ignorance on your part. And your hysterical, knee-jerk dismissal of anyone who points out the problems with the offical WH account as a "nut case" is proof positive that emotion - not reason - forms the basis of your beliefs about what happened.-LABF

I assure you as I type the only thing hysterical about my mind set right now is my laughter at you.

Now Beerslug and Spider don't believe you. Neither does "The Dave". Are they just knee-jerk reactionary right wingers too?

Look at this site. Look at the experts that debunk your insane theories.

http://www.debunking911.com/

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

09-05-2006, 09:46 PM

I quote this for truth as LABF would say.

"Truth?"

You gotta be sh*ttin' me. :laugh:

Yep - these accounts are about as "true" as John Karr's account that he killed JonBenet Ramsey.

There are a lot of people out there who would testify that they saw little green men climb out of a UFO and whiz on the WH lawn if they thought it would help Bush.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

09-05-2006, 09:50 PM

Now Beerslug and Spider don't believe you. Neither does "The Dave". Are they just knee-jerk reactionary right wingers too?

Another lame bandwagon appeal.

Just more evidence that you're incapable of debating the facts at hand.

Look at this site. Look at the experts that debunk your insane theories.

You have a very poor track record when it comes to distinguishing theory from fact, so I take anything you post with several grains of salt.

clarker

09-05-2006, 09:52 PM

"Truth?"

You gotta be sh*ttin' me. :laugh:

Yep - these accounts are about as "true" as John Karr's account that he killed JonBenet Ramsey.

There are a lot of people out there who would testify that they saw little green men climb out of a UFO and whiz on the WH lawn if they thought it would help Bush.Boy that is solid proof that they are lying. That they support Bush. You must have tracked down and investigated every one of them? I hope you got FISA's permission first.

Beerslug is nothing but a dirty repubican oppertaive for posting them. You better look into his back ground could be a mole for the right-wingers.

ak1971

09-05-2006, 09:54 PM

one more time..36000 gal+ of fuel in #7

clarker

09-05-2006, 09:54 PM

Another lame bandwagon appeal.

Just more evidence that you're incapable of debating the facts at hand.

You have a very poor track record when it comes to distinguishing theory from fact, so I take anything you post with several grains of salt.
Attack the messenger. Isn't that what you say about the dirty Repubs.

And you can't answer why Beerslug, Spider and The Dave, all left wingers, all think your wrong. Big shock.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

09-05-2006, 10:02 PM

Boy that is solid proof that they are lying. That they support Bush.

There is no way to prove that they are telling the truth.

I hope, for your sake, you don't make your living in the legal profession.

If you were a prosecutor trying to convict a murderer, which type of evidence do you think would be more important - eyewitness accounts or DNA matching?

Beerslug is nothing but a dirty repubican oppertaive for posting them. You better look into his back ground could be a mole for the right-wingers.

How pathetic that you keep trying to argue that the truth or falsehood of a claim is simply a matter of who believes it.

But what more can we expect from someone as intellectually dishonest and reactionary as you?

Attack the messenger. Isn't that what you say about the dirty Repubs.

Pointing out the fact that you avoid debating the facts isn't an example of "attack the messenger."

That you would attempt such a lame comparison only underscores your ignorance.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

09-05-2006, 10:05 PM

Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center

by Dave Heller

While it may be difficult to awaken everyone from their state-induced fog of fear, we are at a critical point in history which requires us to try. We truly must take an objective look at the facts and evidence surrounding 9-11.

While none of the many 9-11 researchers knows exactly what happened on that fateful day in September almost 3 years ago, any sensible person can easily spot dozens of inconsistencies in the official story that is being forced upon us.

And these inconsistencies are huge. They range from the apparent stand-down of our immense military arsenal (for over an hour and a half) to the small hole and lack of debris at the Pentagon. There was Bush's bizarre, uninterrupted photo op in a Florida elementary school, and then there is the matter of the remains of Flight 93 being scattered over eight miles of Pennsylvania farmland, a fact which suggests the plane may have been shot down. The official story seems wrong on all of these points.

But the focus of this article is on just one point: the odd collapse of the three buildings in the World Trade Center complex.
How I First Began to Question: WTC7

The World Trade Center (WTC) contained seven buildings. The Twin Towers were called buildings One (WTC1) and Two (WTC2). They collapsed in truly astounding fashion, but the event that caused me first to question the official story about the events of 9-11 was viewing videos of the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC7).

If you've forgotten, WTC7 was a 47-story building that was not hit by an airplane or by any significant debris from either WTC1 or WTC2. Buildings 3, 4, 5, and 6 were struck by massive amounts of debris from the collapsing Twin Towers, yet none collapsed, despite their thin-gauge steel supports.
World Trade Center Buildling 7 implodes
Viewing the Collapse of WTC7
The 9-11 commemorative videos produced by PBS and CNN are best. Both clearly show WTC7's implosion.

Lower resolution Internet movies are also available.
WTC7, which was situated on the next block over, was the farthest of the buildings from WTC1 and WTC2. WTC7 happened to contain the New York City Office of Emergency Management (OEM), a facility that was, according to testimony to the 9-11 Commission, one of the most sophisticated Emergency Command Centers on the planet. But shortly after 5:20 pm on Sept. 11, as the horrific day was coming to a close, WTC7 mysteriously imploded and fell to the ground in an astounding 6.5 seconds.

6.5 seconds. This is a mere 0.5 seconds more than freefall in a vacuum. To restate this, a rock dropped from the 47th floor would have taken at least 6 seconds to hit the ground. WTC7, in its entirety, fell to the earth in 6.5 seconds. Now, recall, we're supposed to believe that each floor of the building "pancaked" on the one below. Each of the 47 floors supposedly pancaked and collapsed, individually. Yet WTC7 reached the ground in 0.5 seconds longer than freefall. Is this really possible?

Judge for yourself. Watch WTC7 go down. It takes 6.5 seconds. Take out your stopwatch.

What About Towers One and Two?

The odd, swift collapse of WTC7 made me reconsider the Twin Towers and how they fell. As I had with WTC7, I first studied video footage available on the web. Then I acquired and watched a DVD of the collapses, frame by frame.

What struck me first was the way the second plane hit WTC2, the South Tower. I noticed that this plane, United Airlines Flight 175, which weighed over 160,000 pounds and was traveling at 350 mph, did not even visibly move the building when it slammed into it. How, I wondered, could a building that did not visibly move from a heavy high speed projectile collapse at near freefall speed less than an hour later?

WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 are the buildings in gray.

Next, I turned my attention to steel beams that fell in freefall next to the building as it collapsed. The beams were falling at the same rate that the towers themselves were descending. Familiar with elementary physics, including principles of conservation of energy and momentum, this seemed quite impossible if the towers were indeed "pancaking," which is the official theory.

The height of the South Tower is 1362 feet. I calculated that from that height, freefall in a vacuum (read, absolutely no resistance on earth) is 9.2 seconds. According to testimony provided to the 9-11 Commission, the tower fell in 10 seconds. Other data shows it took closer to 14 seconds. So the towers fell within 0.8-4.8 seconds of freefall in a vacuum. Just like WTC7, this speed seemed impossible if each of the 110 floors had to fail individually.

As I was considering this, another problem arose. There is a principle in physics called the Law of Conservation of Energy. There is also the Law of Conservation of Momentum. I'll briefly explain how these principles work. Let's assume there are two identical Honda Civics on the freeway. One is sitting in neutral at a standstill (0 mph). The other is coasting at 60 mph. The second Honda slams into the back of the first one. The first Honda will then instantaneously be going much faster than it was, and the second will instantaneously be going much slower than it was.

This is how the principle works in the horizontal direction, and it works the same in the vertical direction, with the added constant force of gravity added to it. Jim Hoffman, a professional scientist published in several peer-reviewed scientific journals, took a long look at all of this. He calculated that even if the structure itself offered no resistance, that is to say, even if the 110 floors of each tower were hovering in mid-air, the "pancake" theory would still have taken a minimum of 15.5 seconds to reach the ground. So, even if the building essentially didn't exist, if it provided no resistance at all to the collapse, just the floors hitting each other and causing each other to decelerate would've taken 15.5 seconds to reach the ground.

But of course the buildings did exist. They had stood for over 30 years. The floors weren't hovering in mid-air. So how did the building provide no resistance?

Yet another observation one makes in watching the collapsing towers is the huge dust clouds and debris, including steel beams, that were thrown hundreds of feet out horizontally from the towers as they fell. If we are to believe the pancake theory, this amount of scattering debris, fine pulverized concrete dust, and sheetrock powder would clearly indicate massive resistance to the vertical collapse. So there is an impossible conflict. You either have a miraculous, historical, instantaneous, catastrophic failure that occurs within a fraction of a second of freefall and that kicks out little dust, or you have a solid, hefty building that remains virtually unaffected after a massive, speeding projectile hits it. You either have a house of cards or a house of bricks. The building either resists its collapse or it doesn't.

And we know the WTC Towers were made of reinforced steel and concrete that would act much more like bricks than cards.

Thus, put simply, the floors could not have been pancaking. The buildings fell too quickly. The floors must all have been falling simultaneously to reach the ground in such a short amount of time. But how?
What About the Fires?

The official story maintains that fires weakened the buildings. Jet fuel supposedly burned so hot it began to melt the steel columns supporting the towers. But steel-framed skyscrapers have never collapsed from fire, since they're built from steel that doesn't melt below 2750 degrees Fahrenheit. No fuel, not even jet fuel, which is really just refined kerosene, will burn hotter than 1500 degrees Fahrenheit.

Steel-framed skyscrapers have never collapsed from fire.
It's also odd that WTC7, which wasn't hit by an airplane or by any significant debris, collapsed in strikingly similar fashion to the Twin Towers. There wasn't even any jet fuel or kerosene burning in WTC7.

According to the 9-11 report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), "the specifics of the fires in WTC7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this tim."

Aside from its startling nonchalance, this statement makes a rather profound assumption. Again, no building prior to 9-11, in the 100-plus year history of steel frame buildings, had ever collapsed from fire.

Satellite shot of WTC ruins
The flattened ruins are WTC1 and WTC2 (in the middle), and WTC7 (at the bottom)
This fact was known to firemen. Hence their unflinching rush up into the skyscrapers to put out the fire. Partly it was bravery, to be sure, but partly it was concrete knowledge that skyscrapers do not collapse due to fire. Yet after 100 years, three collapsed in one day.

Did the FEMA investigators not think to ask the New York City Fire Department how they thought the fire started, or how the fires could have caused the astounding, historical collapse? This would seem to be an elementary step in any investigation about a fire. Instead, they chose to leave the cause of the collapse "unknown."
Conclusion

So if the science in this article is correct (none of it goes beyond the tenth grade level), then we know that the floors of the three WTC buildings were not pancaking but were falling simultaneously. We also know that fire is an insufficient explanation for the initiation of the collapse of the buildings.

Why, then, did the three WTC buildings fall?

There is a method that has been able to consistently get skyscrapers to fall as fast as the three buildings of the World Trade Center fell on 9-11. In this method, each floor of a building is destroyed at just the moment the floor above is about to strike it. Thus, the floors fall simultaneously ? and in virtual freefall. This method, when precisely used, has indeed given near-freefall speed to demolitions of buildings all over the world in the past few decades. This method could have brought down WTC7 in 6.5 seconds. This method is called controlled demolition.

A controlled demolition would have exploded debris horizontally at a rapid rate. A controlled demolition would also explain the fine, pulverized concrete powder, whereas pancaking floors would leave chunks of concrete. Controlled demolition would also explain the seismic evidence recorded nearby of two small earthquakes, each just before one of the Twin Towers collapsed. And finally, controlled demolition would explain why three steel skyscrapers, two of which were struck by planes and one of which wasn't, all collapsed in essentially the same way.

WTC collapses with huge explosions
The massive energy required to pulverize concrete into microscopic dust
suggests the use of explosives
Ongoing Questions

But having established that all three WTC towers had to have been assisted in their failures, I asked myself, Who could have planted the explosives to blow up the buildings in a controlled demolition? Could fundamentalist Muslim fanatics have gotten the plans for those buildings, engineered the demolition, and then gotten into them to plant the explosives?

This seemed improbable. And after learning that WTC7 housed the FBI, CIA, and the OEM, it seemed impossible. Then I thought, Why would terrorists engineer a building to implode? Wouldn't they want to cause even more damage to the surrounding buildings and possibly create more havoc and destruction from debris exploding away from the building? And if they'd planted explosives in the buildings, why would they have bothered hijacking and flying planes into them? Perhaps WTC7 was demolished to destroy evidence that would answer these questions. To this day, I don't know. But this is how I began to question the official story about 9-11.

Recently I learned that President Bush's brother, Marvin Bush, is a part owner of the company that not only provided security for both United and American Airlines, but also for the World Trade Center complex itself. I also discovered that Larry Silverstein, who had bought the leasing rights for the WTC complex from the NY/NJ Port Authority in May of 2001 for $200 million, had received a $3.55 billion insurance settlement right after 9-11 - yet he was suing for an additional $3.55 billion by claiming the two hits on the towers constituted two separate terrorist attacks! He stood to make $7 billion dollars on a four month investment. Talk about motive.

In conclusion, I'll repeat myself. None of the many 9-11 researchers can definitively say exactly what happened on that fateful day in September almost 3 years ago. But any sensible person can easily spot dozens of inconsistencies in the official story that is being forced upon us. And the fact is, most of the available 9-11 evidence points to at least some level of government complicity or foreknowledge.

Please, read more for yourself. Don't take my word for it. Most of all, do not buy the double-speak that visible politicians and the media use to discount any question about 9-11. Clearly, there are no "conspiracy theories" surrounding 9-11. The official story itself affirms that there was obviously some kind of conspiracy. It's just a question of which conspiracy occurred. We know it wasn't mere coincidence that several hijackers happened to be on several different airplanes and happened to hijack them at the exact same time and happened to pick the World Trade Center as a target. The real question is, "Who was involved in the conspiracy?"

http://www.physics911.net/closerlook.htm

ak1971

09-05-2006, 10:07 PM

Here we go...

My home burnt down in June. I Im down signifcantly since then playing cards. My books and records were destroyed in the fire..... I pretty sure Steve Wynn did this...prove that hes not.....

clarker

09-05-2006, 10:13 PM

Is Beerslug as "intellectually dishonest and reactionary" as I am. On this issue he sides with me. He posts link after link proving his view. I am not going to repost his links.

Perhaps I shouldn't go into the legal Profession. But I do know that the one makes tha accusations has to prove their case and not the other way around. You can't even do that with some of the most Bush hating liberals on this board.

Now if you were to say Bush covered up his screw ups that let 9-11 take place and therefore he has blood on his hands. I could buy that. But to say he planned and carried it out? No.

ak1971

09-05-2006, 10:18 PM

If you were a prosecutor trying to convict a murderer, which type of evidence do you think would be more important - eyewitness accounts or DNA matching?

You live in 'LA' so ask OJ about this.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

09-05-2006, 10:22 PM

You live in 'LA' so ask OJ about this.

How would you know where I live, Ricky Bobby?

Oh, that's right - you're good pals with one of the mods here, and said mod thinks he has my actual IP (never heard of proxies, apparently.)

:rofl:

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

09-05-2006, 10:31 PM

Is Beerslug as "intellectually dishonest and reactionary" as I am. On this issue he sides with me.

Still trying to argue that the truth is just a matter of who believes, eh?

Bandwagon appeal #5 tonight.

He posts link after link proving his view. I am not going to repost his links.

He posts articles in an attempt to support his conclusions about what really happened. Not exactly the same thing as "proof."

Perhaps I shouldn't go into the legal Profession. But I do know that the one makes tha accusations has to prove their case and not the other way around.

Now you're getting somewhere.

The burden to prove Bush's claims about who attacked us on 9/11 is on Bush.

BTW, nice dodging of my question about eyewitness accounts vs. DNA evidence.

Now if you were to say Bush covered up his screw ups that let 9-11 take place and therefore he has blood on his hands. I could buy that.

Then I guess we can agree on that much.

But to say he planned and carried it out? No.

I've never said any such thing. (Not that trifling facts like these have ever stopped you from trying to smear me.)

In fact, I've maintained that, if there was a conspiracy, Bush was probably just along for the ride (just like he was along for the ride with the rest of the PNAC agenda.)

ak1971

09-05-2006, 10:43 PM

How would you know where I live, Ricky Bobby?

Oh, that's right - you're good pals with one of the mods here, and said mod thinks he has my actual IP (never heard of proxies, apparently.)

:rofl:

which mod is that that I'm good pals with??

sorry, lets get this back on track...we need to call a spade a spade..no conspiracy here move along

clarker

09-05-2006, 10:45 PM

Still trying to argue that the truth is just a matter of who believes, eh?-LABF

No what I am saying that what I say is true is true because Beerslug believes it. I am asking you tell me since you say I am "intellectually dishonest" for ignoring the evidence that 9-11 was some conspiracy does that make Beerslug "intellectually dishonest" as well.

I am not saying that proves anything, BTW. I just want to know if you think Slug is intellectually dishonest for not buying into 9-11 conspiracy theories.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

09-05-2006, 10:52 PM

ak1971

09-05-2006, 10:54 PM

, I was speaking about your debate tactics in general, .
:rofl:

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

09-05-2006, 11:01 PM

which mod is that that I'm good pals with??

ROFL!

You think the mod who discloses other people's IP addresses to his friends on here is going to stand up and say "I did it?"

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

09-05-2006, 11:03 PM

:rofl:

This from the same mental giant whose main debate tactic is to jack threads and post a bunch of silly, totally unrelated news stories on them?

That's a hoot. :laugh:

clarker

09-05-2006, 11:04 PM

When I said you were intellectually dishonest, I was speaking about your debate tactics in general, not just your takes on 9/11.Nice dodge.

You don't like my debate tactics. I don't care. You chant "don't attack the messenger, but that is what you did when I posted my link on 9-11.

You say I dodged your eye witness vs DNA. Yeah I did but then again you dodged most of this post this post (#129)

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1258655&postcount=129

You wine about people trying to "smear" you, but all you do is insult people who don't agree with you.

BTW when people say "I saw a plane fly right into that building, you don't have to go to DNA." When Beerslug posted a whole bunch of accounts of people saying just that. You dismissed them as people who would say anything to help Bush. You offer no proof on how you know what is in their hearts and minds. None.

ClevelandBronco

09-05-2006, 11:07 PM

clarker

09-05-2006, 11:15 PM

All the people needed to pull off this "hoax".

http://www.debunking911.com/massivect.htm

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

09-05-2006, 11:24 PM

You chant "don't attack the messenger, but that is what you did when I posted my link on 9-11.

Wrong.

Pointing out your refusal to debate certain facts isn't attacking the messenger.

You say I dodged your eye witness vs DNA. Yeah I did but then again you dodged most of this post this post (#129)

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1258655&postcount=129

Are you sure you didn't overlook my response?

You wine about people trying to "smear" you, but all you do is insult people who don't agree with you.

You whine when people present facts that challenge your foregone conclusions. Then you smear those people and claim your imaginary victory - just like all republicans nowadays.

And when are you ever going to comprehend that the issues we discuss here aren't simply a matter of "agreement?" Facts, truth, and validity are involved too.

BTW when people say "I saw a plane fly right into that building, you don't have to go to DNA."

Yes, you do.

You need physical evidence to prove your claims as to the identity of the planes.

This is required for ALL plane crashes, BTW.

When Beerslug posted a whole bunch of accounts of people saying just that. You dismissed them as people who would say anything to help Bush.

And you refuse to admit that this is a distinct possibility.

Just like you refuse to admit that these accounts are not as significant or important as physical evidence.

You offer no proof on how you know what is in their hearts and minds. None.

Neither do you.

clarker

09-05-2006, 11:30 PM

When someone says I saw a plane hitting a building, unless you can prove that they are lying it is pretty significant and important.

clarker

09-05-2006, 11:31 PM

Are you sure you didn't overlook my response?-LABF

No I didn't, because I asked alot of questions in that post and you dodged them.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

09-05-2006, 11:32 PM

When someone says I saw a plane hitting a building, unless you can prove that they are lying it is pretty significant and important.

Good God, are you drunk or stoned right now or something?

I already said no one disputes that planes hit the towers.

The issue here is the identity of those planes and the proof (or lack of proof) thereof.

clarker

09-05-2006, 11:33 PM

To prove that they debunking 9-11 site I posted is not a right wing site here is what they think the real conspiracy is.

What a real conspiracy looks like. Real conspiracies have very little players and even then they are usually exposed. Enron, Watergate, Iran/Contra and the rest have few people involved and someone always comes out to blow the whistle.

The evidence for a conspiracy to use 9/11 to invade Iraq is long. While there is not one shred of evidence the government blew up the World Trade Center, there is evidence they used the tragedy to remove Saddam Hussein using poor WMD evidence

http://www.debunking911.com/conspiracy.htm

clarker

09-05-2006, 11:34 PM

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

09-05-2006, 11:36 PM

No I didn't, because I asked alot of questions in that post and you dodged them.

I didn't "dodge" them - if I didn't respond to them it was because I had no dispute with them. (Or, in some cases, because they were simply restatements of other comments I already responded to.)

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

09-05-2006, 11:38 PM

Those quotes were of people saying a plane hit the pentagon not the towers. You say I can't comprehend what I am reading.

But you didn't say you were talking about the Pentagon.

This is what you said:

When someone says I saw a plane hitting a building, unless you can prove that they are lying it is pretty significant and important.

clarker

09-05-2006, 11:41 PM

Good God, are you drunk or stoned right now or something?

I already said no one disputes that planes hit the towers.

The issue here is the identity of those planes and the proof (or lack of proof) thereof.There is no issue to the identity of the planes. If you don't believe the WH then ask the airlines. They will tell you what kind of planes they were. Are you really telling me that they don't know what kinds of planes were highjacked. Why would they lie for Bush. We all know what 9-11 did to airline buisness.

clarker

09-05-2006, 11:44 PM

But you didn't say you were talking about the Pentagon.

This is what you said:I was responding to your "no Arabic DNA" story. How you said that trumps eye witness accounts.

I said unless you can prove they are lying then "eye witness acounts" are pretty important to me.

I didn't say people saying I saw a plane fly into a tower. I said buildings. Last I knew the pentagon was in fact a building. Or is Bush lying about that as well.

clarker

09-05-2006, 11:54 PM

Originally Posted by clarker
When Beerslug posted a whole bunch of accounts of people saying just that. You dismissed them as people who would say anything to help Bush.

And you refuse to admit that this is a distinct possibility-LABF

Yes, I refuse to admit that ALL of them would do and say anything to help Bush. A few perhaps, but all of them?

You said they are were all as true as John Karr being guilty. Is that not what you said? So you believe that all those people quoted in Beerslugs post are what you would call a Bushbot? Really?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

09-05-2006, 11:59 PM

There is no issue to the identity of the planes.

Then you should be able to point me to the source that positively IDs the aircraft according to their serial numbers (a required procedure for any plane crash.)

I said unless you can prove they are lying then "eye witness acounts" are pretty important to me.

The burden of proof, i.e., to prove these witnesses are telling the truth, or that their accounts are reliable, is on you.

And to say the accounts are "important to me" is meaningless. What matters is actual proof.

I was responding to your "no Arabic DNA" story. How you said that trumps eye witness accounts.

That's a lie.

I didn't say any such thing.

Two different topics. (The identity of the planes vs. the identity of the passengers.)

This is what I mean when I say you are intellectually dishonest.

I didn't say people saying I saw a plane fly into a tower. I said buildings.

Exactly. You didn't specify the Pentagon - you just said "buildings." Am I supposed to guess what you mean specifically?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

09-06-2006, 12:03 AM

Anyway, I'm out.

I'll give you credit for one thing:

You are a loyal and steadfast soldier for the bush crime family.

If covering Bush's flank were a paying gig, you'd be Bill Gates by now.

clarker

09-06-2006, 12:05 AM

clarker

09-06-2006, 12:06 AM

Anyway, I'm out.

I'll give you credit for one thing:

You are a loyal and steadfast soldier for the bush crime family.

If covering Bush's flank were a paying gig, you'd be Bill Gates by now.And if being a crazy fool were a paying gig, you would be two Bill Gates.

BTW, How much would Beerslug, Spider, and The Dave get for not believing your B.S. on 9-11? They must have sold out the country for not buying into your 9-11 theories.

clarker

09-06-2006, 12:09 AM

Then you should be able to point me to the source that positively IDs the aircraft according to their serial numbers (a required procedure for any plane crash.)-LABF

As I said many times before, I don't have to. Ask the Airlines themselves what the serial numbers were on the planes they said were highjacked . If you don't believe them, prove they lied.

Spider

09-06-2006, 05:34 AM

Meanwhile , Back at the Ranch , Blanch the polled Herford is ......

clarker

09-06-2006, 05:50 AM

Meanwhile , Back at the Ranch , Blanch the polled Herford is ......ROFL!

Bronco_Beerslug

09-06-2006, 06:14 AM

It's incredible that you don't know about this.

The pentagon is one of the most heavily surveiled buildings on the planet. There were security cameras on the roof, in the parking lot, at a nearby gas station, and also on the roof of a nearby hotel.

Some or all of these rolling cameras taped whatever hit the pentagon.

Yet, all of the video tape was confiscated within minutes of the attack by US security personnel. That's a rather rapid response, don't you think, especially considering the USAF couldn't get a fighter in the air for over an hour?

Know about what? What camera or cameras captured the impact? How is the video quality? Were any cameras pointed in the sky or all pointed at the grounds? Were any cameras designed to capture anything in flight traveling 500 MPH?

I've seen both video and photos of the impact. How many missiles are designed to make a fuel explosion at impact like the 757 did?

And I see you're continuing your "minster of disinformation" agenda regarding when our fighters were scrambled. Like I said, you really ought to inform and educate yourself on this entire issue, you continue to look foolish.

Bronco_Beerslug

09-06-2006, 06:52 AM

911 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77

You Tube | July 1 2006

A short animation with video and photos illustrating the final moments of Flight 77 on September 11, 2001.

This SUPPORTS the notion that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YVDdjLQkUV8"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YVDdjLQkUV8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

.

W*GS

09-06-2006, 07:57 AM

If the WH or its defenders wanted to settle the matter once and for all and to silence the "conspiracy" theorists, then why couldn't they produce even one piece of physical evidence that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon?

That sort of evidence wouldn't satisfy you at all (it would just be part of the conspiracy) so quit demanding it.

You're so wrong on so many levels...

alkemical

09-06-2006, 08:00 AM

snarf

mhgaffney

09-06-2006, 09:51 AM

Know about what? What camera or cameras captured the impact? How is the video quality? Were any cameras pointed in the sky or all pointed at the grounds?

I've seen both video and photos of the impact.

You still don't get it. The point is: whatever hit the pentagon was captured on film. The "photos" and "video" you mention were actually stills and a short fragment from one of the pentagon security camera videos. But what they released shows only the explosion -- no plane.

Now why do you think the US released only a few stills and video fragments -- not the full video that would prove their case beyond the shadow of a doubt? Obviously because they know that what's on the footage is NOT a 757. Rather then prove their theory -- it would incriminate them.

It could not be more clear.

Why are you wandering in circles in willful ignorance -- instead of demanding the release of the original video -- pristine evidence that would resolve the controversy?

Of course, in my humble opinion the neo cons destroyed all of the incriminating evidence long ago -- probably on the afternoon of 911 -- so we will never know.
MG

alkemical

09-06-2006, 09:54 AM

It is true there are about 88 CCTV's that would have been on the 'flight path'. It is true that only very very small amounts of film are made avail. to general public to view.

Sinister plot or not - this is a true fact.

mhgaffney

09-06-2006, 10:04 AM

W*GS

09-06-2006, 10:34 AM

Now why do you think the US released only a few stills and video fragments -- not the full video that would prove their case beyond the shadow of a doubt? Obviously because they know that what's on the footage is NOT a 757. Rather then prove their theory -- it would incriminate them.

Why would a Pentagon video show something other than an American Airlines 757 when so many eyewitnesses saw just that?

alkemical

09-06-2006, 10:50 AM

Why would a Pentagon video show something other than an American Airlines 757 when so many eyewitnesses saw just that?

Well if it's nothing new or incriminating, then why not release the close to 88 CCTV camera's & Film for public record. I mean WTC events are available.

alkemical

09-06-2006, 12:04 PM

Also:

maybe the string of randomness did happen exactly as we saw it happen. If the US 1 dollar bill is really a talisman - then a talisman carries or absorbs the charge of everyone who carries it. If enough people world wide who had US $1 bills hated the US enough - maybe the possible 'bad mojo' allowed this event to happen by the rules and laws outside of what we deem 'reality'.

There for the 'random' events would have been allowed to happen due to the relationship of energy & action.

mhgaffney

09-06-2006, 12:13 PM

Some have expressed disbelief that bombs could have been serreptitiously planted in the WTC. At first blush it does seem far fetched.

However, last year Scott Forbes, a Fiduciary Trust employee who was based in the south tower revealed that a power down occured on Sept 8-9. For a period of 36 hours the south tower had no electricity -- hence no security cameras. There was a breach of security in which almost anything could have happened. Forbes explains that many workmen wearing coveralls were seen moving around the building.

Forbes informed the 911 commission of the power down -- but never heard back. The panel failed to investigate the breach of security.

Here's the interview with Forbes

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/11/interview-with-scott-forbes.html

Bronco_Beerslug

09-06-2006, 12:35 PM

You still don't get it. The point is: whatever hit the pentagon was captured on film.
i get it just fine, you formulate ideas based on rumor, conjecture and fantasy. You require no facts to promote those fantasies.

Explain right now where that aircraft is that "didn't" hit the Pentagon.

Also show me how many monster missiles we have that are filled with aircraft fuel and where these "missiles" are located.

alkemical

09-06-2006, 01:25 PM

I love how everyone dodges my point that there were/are about 88 CCTV systems in the flight path of the plane - and when i ask why it isn't released - i hear crickets.

I love it when others want me to buy their reality, but refuse to hear questions about it.

W*GS

09-06-2006, 01:26 PM

Some have expressed disbelief that bombs could have been serreptitiously planted in the WTC. At first blush it does seem far fetched.

Impossibly far-fetched, as a matter of truth.

However, last year Scott Forbes, a Fiduciary Trust employee who was based in the south tower revealed that a power down occured on Sept 8-9. For a period of 36 hours the south tower had no electricity -- hence no security cameras. There was a breach of security in which almost anything could have happened. Forbes explains that many workmen wearing coveralls were seen moving around the building.

So, in 36 hours, WTC2 (the south tower) was rigged with explosives, detonator cords, and so on, all the incredible amount of stuff that's required to demolish a building.

What happened on 9/10 and 9/11 that no-one noticed all this stuff?

Besides, as I pointed out in

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1250071&postcount=2

One of the "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" did write me a long, patient letter in which he urged me to investigate the collapse of Building 7 with a view to discovering "the culprits responsible for setting up the explosive charges. It was obviously done well in advance of 9/11 - it's impossible to configure and set up a building of this size in a day; the job would take a professional company several months to accomplish."

Why does one of your very own skeptics state "several months", when you claim 36 hours would be sufficient? Granted, WTC7 isn't the same as WTC2, but to rig WTC2 for demolition would take at least as long.

W*GS

09-06-2006, 01:28 PM

Well if it's nothing new or incriminating, then why not release the close to 88 CCTV camera's & Film for public record. I mean WTC events are available.

Open an FOI request, if there's not one already open.

The Lone Bolt

09-06-2006, 01:37 PM

You still don't get it. The point is: whatever hit the pentagon was captured on film. The "photos" and "video" you mention were actually stills and a short fragment from one of the pentagon security camera videos. But what they released shows only the explosion -- no plane.

Now why do you think the US released only a few stills and video fragments -- not the full video that would prove their case beyond the shadow of a doubt? Obviously because they know that what's on the footage is NOT a 757. Rather then prove their theory -- it would incriminate them.

It could not be more clear.

Why are you wandering in circles in willful ignorance -- instead of demanding the release of the original video -- pristine evidence that would resolve the controversy?

Of course, in my humble opinion the neo cons destroyed all of the incriminating evidence long ago -- probably on the afternoon of 911 -- so we will never know.
MG

I still wonder why the "neocon conspirators" would try to fly a drone or missile into the Pentagon in broad daylight in the heart of a heavily populated urban area and assume that no one would see it. There could potentially have been thousands of witnesses (only one seems to have been produced on this board). This doesn't seem like a very smart plan. Wouldn't they have benefitted more by pulling it off at night?

And why bother with a drone or missile at all? They were able to fly real jetliners into the WTC towers, why not fly one into the Pentagon too? That would certainly do the required damage and leave no doubt of what was responsible for it.

And why is it that when one eyewitness claims it wasn't a jetliner that hit the pentagon, his word is the absolute truth, but when 30 or so eyewitness accounts are posted on this board reporting that it was indeed a jetliner those accounts are dismissed as the fabrications of Bush suporters? Isn't it also possible that the one eyewitness that claims to have seen a drone may be fabricating his account because he hates Bush?

???

alkemical

09-06-2006, 01:38 PM

Open an FOI request, if there's not one already open.

One has been opened, and the footage released is the only ones we get to see wags

W*GS

09-06-2006, 01:46 PM

One has been opened, and the footage released is the only ones we get to see wags

So ask for the other 87, or whatever number you've said is available.

alkemical

09-06-2006, 01:53 PM

So ask for the other 87, or whatever number you've said is available.

ahso

alkemical

09-06-2006, 02:31 PM

Wags:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/5772.shtml

Judicial Watch Obtains September 11 Pentagon Video

Judicial Watch originally filed a Freedom of Information Act request on December 15, 2004, seeking all records pertaining to September 11, 2001 camera recordings of the Pentagon attack from the Sheraton National Hotel, the Nexcomm/Citgo gas station, Pentagon security cameras and the Virginia Department of Transportation. The Department of Defense admitted in a January 26, 2005 letter that it possessed a videotape responsive to Judicial Watch’s request. However, the Pentagon refused to release the videotape because it was, “part of an ongoing investigation involving Zacarias Moussaoui.” Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit on February 22, 2006 arguing that there was “no legal basis” for the Defense Department’s refusal to release the tape.

W*GS

09-06-2006, 02:35 PM

[...]However, the Pentagon refused to release the videotape because it was, “part of an ongoing investigation involving Zacarias Moussaoui.” Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit on February 22, 2006 arguing that there was “no legal basis” for the Defense Department’s refusal to release the tape.

What's the latest?

alkemical

09-06-2006, 02:49 PM

What's the latest?

I've been looking and haven't been able to find any updates. I was thinking on hitting up the webmaster.

Taco John

09-06-2006, 02:49 PM

Did anybody ever see an explanation of what this thing was?

http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/WTC_UFO/IMAG0005.GIF

alkemical

09-06-2006, 02:53 PM

That has to be a fault in the film TJ.

I mean it was caught on a fox news camera if i remember the 911 lore correctly....

The Lone Bolt

09-06-2006, 02:56 PM

One of the problems on this board is that too many people in here cannot or will not see the big picture. There are many lines of evidence -- and putting it all together is a challenge.

Here is the MSNBC report confirming what I said: that Bush/Cheney made the decision to oust the Taliban even before 911.

911 was plan "B" the back-up plan to be implemented should the Taliban prove uncooperative

U.S. OK’d plan
to topple Taliban
a day before 9/11

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4585010/

Interesting, but did you miss this quote?

But before the plan could be submitted to the president, bin Laden’s terrorists struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, killing nearly 3,000 people.

The commission faulted both the Bush and Clinton administrations for ignoring warning signs and failing to pursue significant military action that could have disrupted al-Qaida and its Taliban sponsors, who were becoming increasingly dangerous.

Looks like this article does not comfirm your contention that Bush/Cheney "made the decision to oust the Taliban even before 911", as the article states that Bush at least didn't even know about the plan before 9/11.

And the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
is criticizing Bush not for attacking Afghanistan, but for not attacking sooner.

The problem with your "many lines of evidence" is that those lines are very thin. 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 0.

ak1971

09-06-2006, 02:57 PM

Did anybody ever see an explanation of what this thing was?

http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/WTC_UFO/IMAG0005.GIF

I think it was Alien v Predator.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

09-06-2006, 03:12 PM

You posted this. It is infact a story written by a Doctor who says therewas no arabic DNA on Flight 77.

Are you now saying you don't believe the very story you posted? You talk about being dishonest. You don't even believe the posts you make.

God, you can't be this dense - you just can't!

I didn't say I didn't post the article - I said I didn't post it in response to one of your posts. I posted it on this thread because it seemed like the appropriate place to put it.

You say that people who say they saw a plane hit the pentagon are all lying to help Bush.

I said this was a possibility. There are a lot of people out there who just want to prop up Bush, and a lot of people like John Karr looking for their 15 minutes. I also said the burden to prove these accounts are reliable or truthful was on you and your fellow 9/11 coincidence theorists.

alkemical

09-06-2006, 03:17 PM

I think my magical explanation might make the most sense IMO... ;)

I mean if anyone really knows the power of talismans, sedjuals, etc - then the people that control the 'anti-us' press are doing a good job. The thing that is hurting the 'pro-us' people is that no one believes it because of a pretty poor record of honesty. Thus the resentment and distrust that can come from seeing "state propoganda" would then be indicitive of a negative response... so then if those people also have the talismans, then they collect the negative energy.

I know it sounds crazy - but crazy is what this world runs on.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

09-06-2006, 03:23 PM

We(sic) all the eyed(sic) witness acounts(sic) all phoney.(sic)(hic?)

I can probably provide you with a list of "eyewitnesses" who claim they've seen flying saucers and little green men or the miracle at Fatima too.

Do these accounts "prove" anything?

Not exactly.

W*GS

09-06-2006, 03:32 PM

I can probably provide you with a list of "eyewitnesses" who claim they've seen flying saucers and little green men or the miracle at Fatima too.

Every eyewitness account is suspect because some eyewitness accounts are suspect?

Logical fallacy, LABF.

W*GS

09-06-2006, 03:34 PM

I said this was a possibility. There are a lot of people out there who just want to prop up Bush,[...]

Now you're really out there...

I also said the burden to prove these accounts are reliable or truthful was on you and your fellow 9/11 coincidence theorists.

Actually, you need to prove that all these eyewitnesses saw something else. What else was it that they saw?

Also, what happened to the "real" Flight 77, its crew and its passengers? And what about the plane - or are those people who saw "Flight 77" take off in on it too?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

09-06-2006, 04:05 PM

“If a significant portion of the evidence summarized here holds up, the conclusion that the attacks of 9/11 succeeded because of official complicity would become virtually inescapable.” – David Ray Griffin, author of The New Pearl Harbor

* WTC 7 Collapsed at Near Free-Fall Speed at 5:20 p.m. 9/11
* Standard Operating Procedures Were Not Followed by NORAD on 9/11
* Otis Fighter Jets Were Put into a Delaying Holding Pattern over the Atlantic
* Langley Fighter Jets Were Ordered Out Over the Atlantic
* Fighters at Andrews AFB Did Not Protect Nation’s Capital or Pentagon
* NORAD Has Been Well-Prepared for Major Emergencies Since 1961
* War Games on 9/11 Helped Paralyze the US Air Force
* WTC Collapses Reveal 11 Features of Controlled Demolitions
* WTC Twin Towers Were Designed To Withstand Impact of a Boeing 707
* Proof Steel-Framed High Rise Towers Don’t Collapse Due to Fires
* Oral Evidence From Firefighters: the WTC Towers Were “Demolished”
* Federal Government Broke the Law by Rapid Removal of Steel Debris
* Bush Remaining in Florida Classroom Inconsistent With All Protocols
* Lies in the Pentagon’s Alleged Ignorance About Flight 77
* Anomalies in the Official Story of What Struck the Pentagon
* Flight 93 Was Shot Down: Debris Covers 5 Square Miles
* Cell Phones Don’t Work Above 8,000 feet or Over Areas Without Cell Relay Transmitters
* 9/11 Commission Delays and Obstructions = Bush Administration Cover-Up
* Executive Director of 9/11 Commission Closely Tied to the Bush White House
* The 9/11 Commission Report: “A 571 Page Lie” – Evidence of a Cover-Up
* CIA Creates, Trains and Runs Terrorists Around the World Including 9/11 Patsies
* FBI Involved in Protecting Persons Connected to Terrorism and 9/11
* CIA-Linked Pakistan ISI Financed “Lead Hijacker” Mohammed Atta
* 9/11 “Put” Options Prior to 9/11 Showed Advance Knowledge by Insiders
* Osama bin Laden Has Long and Close Ties to CIA
* Leading Neo-Con Organization called for “A New Pearl Harbor”

clarker

09-06-2006, 05:23 PM

clarker

09-06-2006, 05:28 PM

God, you can't be this dense - you just can't!

I didn't say I didn't post the article - I said I didn't post it in response to one of your posts. I posted it on this thread because it seemed like the appropriate place to put it.

I said this was a possibility. There are a lot of people out there who just want to prop up Bush, and a lot of people like John Karr looking for their 15 minutes. I also said the burden to prove these accounts are reliable or truthful was on you and your fellow 9/11 coincidence theorists.Your the one is making that accusation that their was a conspiracy to murder 3,000 people. In the court of law when some accuse someone of a crime it is up to the accuser to prove the case.

You contend that there was a conspiracy to murder 3,000+ people. You are the one who has to prove your case.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

09-06-2006, 06:46 PM

Your the one is making that accusation that their was a conspiracy to murder 3,000 people. In the court of law when some accuse someone of a crime it is up to the accuser to prove the case.

You contend that there was a conspiracy to murder 3,000+ people. You are the one who has to prove your case.

And various individuals, groups, and panels of experts have provided just such evidence. You simply choose not to examine such evidence and to dismiss it as "crazy" without even reading it.

BTW, it's the government's burden to prove its account of what happened on 9/11. So far, the Bush WH has come up short on that account.

Careful Beerslug, your going to be labled a Bush Mole sent to spy on liberals on the Mane by Captain Loon himself LABF.

There you go with another pathetic attempt to smear anyone who points out problems with the official BushCo account as a "loon" again.

This sort of hysterical, irrational mindset is an indicator that you can't be trusted to engage in a dispassionate, objective analysis of the facts.

clarker

09-06-2006, 07:30 PM

Originally Posted by clarker
Careful Beerslug, your going to be labled a Bush Mole sent to spy on liberals on the Mane by Captain Loon himself LABF.

There you go with another pathetic attempt to smear anyone who points out problems with the official BushCo account as a "loon" again.

This sort of hysterical, irrational mindset is an indicator that you can't be trusted to engage in a dispassionate, objective analysis of the facts.
__________________

Yeah, your the king of dispassionate objective analysis.Hilarious! Hilarious!

You never see me call Spider, Beerslug, The Dave and other liberals on this board loons when I don't agree with them. Just you and your counter part Errand. W*GS seems lind of on the edge as well.

mhgaffney

09-06-2006, 07:38 PM

Interesting, but did you miss this quote?

"But before the plan could be submitted to the president, bin Laden’s terrorists struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, killing nearly 3,000 people."

Looks like this article does not comfirm your contention that Bush/Cheney "made the decision to oust the Taliban even before 911", as the article states that Bush at least didn't even know about the plan before 9/11.

If the plan in the form of a presidential directive authorizing a US attack on Afghanistan was on Bush's desk awaiting his signature BEFORE 911 then obviously the president knew what was happening. Right? Obviously he had already OK'd the decision and was merely awaiting the document authorizing the war.

The people who wrote this story framed it consistent with their own limited knowledge of the events.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

09-06-2006, 07:46 PM

Yeah, your the king of dispassionate objective analysis.

This from a hysteric who rarely, if ever, provides facts, sources, or links to back his assertions?

This from a guy who believes whatever he wants to believe in spite of the facts?

That's too funny.

Just you and your counter part Errand.

Another example of your skewed perspective.

Errand is more like you inasmuch as he never provides facts or sources to support his warmed-over Oxycontin Boy takes.

mhgaffney

09-06-2006, 07:48 PM

Careful Beerslug, your going to be labled a Bush Mole sent to spy on liberals on the Mane by Captain Loon himself LABF.

The animation is interesting and helps reconstruct the event -- but with regard to the issue of whether a 757 hit the building it is useless.

Better luck next time.

Tom H.

09-06-2006, 07:49 PM

Here's some good reading. (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm)

clarker

09-06-2006, 07:51 PM

This from a hysteric who rarely, if ever, provides facts, sources, or links to back his assertions?

This from a guy who believes whatever he wants to believe in spite of the facts?

That's too funny.

Another example of your skewed perspective.

Errand is more like you inasmuch as he never provides facts or sources to support his warmed-over Oxycontin Boy takes.You post a bunch of links to ultra left-wing web sites is not what I would call objective sources to back your assertions. Why would I waste my time digging up links on 9-11 when Beerslug has posted a ton of them and you ignore him. A liberal.

Are you really trying to convince me that your a disspassionate observer. That you down lean way, way, way to the left. I doubt even those who are left leaning on this board themselves would believe that. Unless they are either drunk, stoned, stupid or all of the above.

Now go take your meds, loon.

clarker

09-06-2006, 07:54 PM

The animation is interesting and helps reconstruct the event -- but with regard to the issue of whether a 757 hit the building it is useless.

Better luck next time. It proves a plane of some kind hit. All pictures of airplane parts. Plus the light poles knocked down far away from the building. You can rule out it being hit by a rocket.

mhgaffney

09-06-2006, 07:57 PM

Here's some good reading. (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm)

While you're at it, check this out as well.

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/nist/WTC_FAQ_reply.html

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

09-06-2006, 08:05 PM

You post a bunch of links to ultra left-wing web sites is not what I would call objective sources to back your assertions.

Another lie.

Only 1/3 of Americans still support the con man in the WH. 60% oppose his illegal war in Iraq. In other words, these are mainstream and majority positions in America. Thus, you don't have to look to "ultra left-wing websites" to verify this fact, or to provide proof of BushCo's incompetence, corruption, and criminality.

Are you really trying to convince me that your a disspassionate observer. That you down lean way, way, way to the left.

If we are to believe bullsh_t artists like you, then 2/3 of Americans are "way, way, way to the left."

Now go take your meds, loon.

Keep sucking back the BushCo Kool-Aid, ostrich.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

09-06-2006, 08:11 PM

The animation is interesting and helps reconstruct the event -- but with regard to the issue of whether a 757 hit the building it is useless.

Exactly.

And Bush apologists and 9/11 coincidence theorists like clarker still won't answer the following:

If the government wanted to resolve the matter once and for all and to end the debate, then why not produce just one aircraft part whose serial number would confirm the identity of the plane that was alleged to have hit the Pentagon?

ak1971

09-06-2006, 09:08 PM

just curious..if the guy in the cab which got hit by a telephone pole said he saw the plane over head...I suppose that would be bull**** too.

clarker

09-06-2006, 09:18 PM

just curious..if the guy in the cab which got hit by a telephone pole said he saw the plane over head...I suppose that would be bull**** too.He is just another right-wing Bush sheep.;D

mhgaffney

09-06-2006, 10:59 PM

September 5, 2006 by CommonDreams.org

The 9/11 Commission: A Play on Nothing in Three Acts
by Sibel Edmonds & Bill Weaver

A wag once famously said that Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot was a play where nothing happened . . . twice. The two former co-chairmen of the 9-11 commission report, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, have released a new book, "Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9-11 Commission." This book goes Beckett one better – it is the third act of veneer over substance, self-aggrandizement over serious analysis, and cliché over perspicacity. It is another calculated attempt by the former commissioners to place themselves in the media spotlight, and to overcome the humiliation of their widely criticized and mostly debunked report. It is a vapid and substanceless attempt to claim moral high ground and present the co-chairmen as heroes of honesty. It would be a farce, except that it has no story line, save the aggrandizement of the authors. At least they are consistent in doing nothing and proclaiming that to be a sign of their devotion to the country and the government. Beckett once said that “habit is the ballast that chains the dog to its vomit,” and by this measure the chain restraining Kean and Hamilton is a short one indeed.

As you recall, Act One, “The Dirty Ten Digging on 9/11,” consisted of extraordinary performances by every single member of the commission to convince us, the audience -- the gullible public -- of commission independence, and its intent to provide our nation with the truth, nothing but the whole truth; their pledge to hold the ‘culprits’ accountable, no matter how high or low on the ladder of the bureaucracy; their commitment to provide “meaningful fixes and remedies,” regardless of any resistance they may have to face.

During Act Two, the commissioners, led by their stars, Kean and Hamilton, put on the performance of their lives. They delivered a document that promised to be more than the mere sum of mortal intelligence; they promised a report that drew on the nation’s soul and would lay bare the necessity and nature of change.

Initially, this play, scripted by the very powers the commission was to investigate, was to have only two acts. However, due to gradually increasing critiques by some in the media, even some of those who originally attended the serenade chorus, and fairly loud boos from some of the previously cheering audience, the producers have now decided to add additional act(s). Act Three, the Finger-Pointing and Blame Game, stars Kean and Hamilton as two comrades holding hands during the act and directing blame at the other eight commission members, who are now cast as traitors and deceivers. The audience is led to assume that the other eight members were responsible for the now untenable report; decided to pursue practical failure but achieve popular success; traded the public welfare for personal gain.

The Commission was created and put in place due to the relentless pressure and outcry by the 9/11 family members and their public supporters who had three objectives in mind: 1) Getting all the facts; 2) Establishing Accountability for those who failed us due to their intentional or unintentional acts; 3) Provide recommendation for real fixes and meaningful remedies.

The Commission fulfilled none of those three objectives. In their responsibility to report all the facts: They either refused to interview all relevant experts and witnesses, or, they censored the reports provided to them by those with direct and first-hand information. Both these acts were selective and intentional. Contrary to their pledge to establish accountability: They refused to hold anyone accountable and lamely justified it by saying, “We don’t want to point a finger at anyone.” All those responsible individuals remained in their positions or were even promoted. And as far as meaningful remedies and reforms are concerned, the commission threw in senseless, and in some cases, detrimental cosmetic and bureaucratic “solutions” that ended up making our government even more cumbersome and unable to respond to threats to national security. In the name of solutions and reforms, they forced down our throats exactly what led to the failure to protect our nation on 9/11: A highly bureaucratic, complicated, inefficient mammoth of a malfunctioning machine.

On the Fifth anniversary of the September Eleven Terror Attacks, we, the National Security Whistleblowers, want to go on record one more time to reiterate the significant issues and cases that were duly reported to the 9/11 commission by those of us from the Intelligence, Aviation, and Law Enforcement communities, but ended up being censored and omitted. The failure to address such serious and relevant issues, witnesses, and information renders the report flawed and the commissioners parties to a fraud on the nation.

The following Veteran National Security experts were turned away, ignored, or censored by the 9/11 Commission, even though they had direct and relevant information related to the Commission’s investigation:

John M. Cole, Former Veteran Intelligence Operations Specialist; FBI - Mr. Cole worked for 18 years in the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division as an Intelligence Operations specialist, and was in charge of FBI’s foreign intelligence investigations covering India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Mr. Cole had knowledge of certain activities that directly related to the terror attacks on September 11, 2001. He notified the 9/11 Commission during its investigation, but never received a response. His name and contact information was provided to the Commission as a key witness by other witnesses, but he was never contacted or interviewed.

John Vincent, Retired Special Agent, Counterterrorism; FBI - Mr. Vincent worked for the FBI for 27 1/2 years before retiring in 2002. He worked his last 8 years in counterterrorism in the FBI’s Chicago Field Office. Mr. Vincent, along with Robert Wright, exposed inefficiencies within the FBI in working counterterrorism cases, and certain warnings they had tried to pursue prior to the 9/11 attack that were directly related to Al-Qaeda’s financial network and money laundering activities. Although he was granted an interview, the commissioners’ investigators refused to let him provide them with information related to his case and the 9/11 terrorists network; they insisted on limiting the interview to only administrative and irrelevant questions and issues.

Robert Wright, Veteran Special Agent, Counterterrorism; FBI - Mr. Wright is a veteran special agent in the FBI Chicago Field Office Counterterrorism Unit. He had been investigating a suspected terrorist cell for three years, when he was informed in January 2001 that the case was being closed. Agent Wright, along with Mr. Vincent, exposed inefficiencies within the FBI in working counterterrorism cases and certain warnings they’d tried to pursue prior to the 9/11 attack that were directly related to Al-Qaeda’s financial network and money laundering activities. Three months before September 11, Wright wrote a stinging internal memo charging that the FBI was not interested in thwarting a terrorist attack, but rather "was merely gathering intelligence so they would know who to arrest when a terrorist attack occurred." The FBI refused to allow Wright to testify before the 9/11 Commission, however, the Commission did not insist or attempt to subpoena Wright; despite the fact that it had subpoena power.

Sibel Edmonds, Former Language Specialist; FBI - Ms. Edmonds worked for the FBI’s Washington Field Office as a language specialist with Top Secret Clearance performing translations for counterterrorism and counterintelligence operations dealing with Turkey, Iran, and Turkic speaking Central Asian countries. She contacted the 9/11 Commission in May 2003 and requested a meeting to provide them with information directly related to the terrorist attack. The Commission investigators refused to meet with Edmonds and informed her that due to their limited resources and time they were not going to interview all witnesses. She was able to provide the commission with information and documents only after certain 9/11 family members intervened directly. Ms. Edmonds’ testimony was completely censored by the Commission.

Behrooz Sarshar, Former Language Specialist; FBI - Mr. Sarshar worked for the FBI’s Washington Field Office as a language specialist with Top Secret Clearance performing Farsi translations for counterterrorism and counterintelligence operations dealing with Iran and Afghanistan. He had first-hand information of prior specific warning obtained from a reliable informant in April 2001 on the terrorist attacks of September 11. Mr. Sarshar contacted the Commission directly but was refused. He was given an interview with the Commission investigators only after 9/11 family members intervened directly. Mr. Sarshar’s documented testimony was completely omitted from the commission’s final report, despite his case being publicly confirmed by Director Mueller’s Office.

Mike German, Special Agent, Counterterrorism; FBI - Mr. German served sixteen years as an FBI Special Agent and is one of the rare agents credited with actually having prevented acts of terrorism before it became the FBI's number one priority. He contacted the Commission in the spring of 2004, but did not receive a response. In 2002 he reported gross mismanagement in a post 9/11-counterterrorism investigation, which included serious violations of FBI policy and federal law. Mr. German contacted the 9/11 Commission during its investigation and requested that he be given an interview session in order to provide them with certain domestic counterterrorism investigations that he’d pursued. According to Mr. German there were links between certain domestic and international counterterrorism related to the September 11 attacks. The 9/11 Commissioners refused to acknowledge his request and never interviewed him.

Gilbert Graham, Retired Special Agent, Counterintelligence; FBI - Mr. Graham worked for the FBI’s Washington Field Office Counterintelligence Division until 2002. In February 2004 his name and contact information were provided to the Commission as a key witness with information pertinent to the Commission’s investigation. The 9/11 Commission refused to follow up and never contacted Mr. Graham.

Coleen Rowley, Retired Division Counsel; FBI - In May 2002, Coleen Rowley, as the Division Counsel at the FBI Minneapolis Office, blew the whistle on the FBI’s failure to pursue Zacarias Moussaoui’s case prior to 9/11, despite all attempts made by the Minneapolis division counterterrorism agents. She reported that FBI HQ personnel in Washington, D.C., had mishandled and neglected to take action on information provided by her division. Despite her high-profile case the commission chose not to interview Ms. Rowley. According to Ms. Rowley, no one from the FBI Minneapolis Office (several Agents had direct information) was ever asked to provide testimony, information, to the 9/11 Commission.

Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer, DIA - Colonel Shaffer provided the Commission with detailed information on intelligence and pre warning information obtained by his unit’s data mining project, Able Danger. The 9/11 commission staff received not one but two briefings on Able Danger from Mr. Shaffer and his former team members, yet did not pursue the case, did not follow up on this documented report and refused to subpoena the relevant files. Mr. Shaffer’s testimony, together with other witnesses who corroborated his testimony and information, were censored by the 9/11 Commissioners and never made it to its final report.

Dick Stoltz, Retired Special Agent; ATF- Mr. Stoltz, a veteran undercover agent with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, had played an important role in Operation Diamondback between 1998 and 2001. The sting operation involved a group of Middle Eastern men living in New Jersey who were caught on tape in an ATF weapons sting conspiring to buy millions of dollars of weapons including components for nuclear bombs. The case came to a screeching halt with the arrest of only a handful of suspects in June of 2001 even though there was ample evidence that some of the people who were attempting to buy these weapons had connections with the Taliban, Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden himself. The 9/11 Commission refused to contact Agent Stoltz despite all attempts made by several witnesses from the intelligence & Law Enforcement Communities, and the 9/11 Family group, Jersey Moms.

Bogdan Dzakovic, Former Red Team Leader; FAA - Mr. Dzakovic had worked for the Security Division of the Federal Aviation Administration since 1987 as a Special Agent, as a Team Leader in the Federal Air Marshals, and from 1995 until September 11, 2001 was a Team Leader of the Red Team (terrorist team). Mr. Dzakovic had tried for several years prior to the 9-11 attacks to improve aviation security in the face of the ever-increasing terrorist threat. He provided the 9/11 Commission with his testimony and documented reports. His testimony and report to the Commission was completely omitted from the final report.

Linda Lewis, Retired Emergency Programs Specialist; USDA - Ms. Lewis worked for 13 years evaluating and coordinating federal, state and local preparedness for nuclear, radiological and chemical weapons emergencies. Prior to September 11, 2001, she had reported numerous inadequacies and dysfunctions in emergency preparedness, including a culture of intimidation that discouraged federal evaluators from reporting inadequacies in state and local plans and preparedness. USDA officials had thwarted her efforts to bring in terrorism experts to help the agency prepare for attacks on federal buildings, including bio-weapons attacks such as the anthrax attacks of 2001. In vain, she had urged FEMA officials to develop a national emergency communications plan and require interoperability of federally funded emergency communications equipment. In the absence of these preparations, New York City firefighters and police officers were unable to communicate critical information on September 11 at the World Trade Center. Ms. Lewis contacted the Commission and offered to provide information regarding dysfunctional government preparedness, but the Commission never responded.

Mark Burton, Senior Analyst; NSA – Mr. Burton served as an all-source threat analyst in NSA’s Information Assurance Directorate (IAD) for most of his 16-year career. He was the editor of IAD’s premier threat document; the 300+ page ISSO Global Threat Summary, and was an adjunct faculty member at NSA’s National Cryptologic School. He provided dozens of pages of relevant information to the 9/11 Commission, but was completely ignored and never asked to testify.

The above list does not include many others from the intelligence and law enforcement communities who had similarly contacted or reported to the commission but had been either turned away or censored, and of course many others’ who are still working within these agencies and are fearful of making their identities known, due to the relentless pursuit of and retaliation against whistleblowers by government agencies.

About National Security Whistleblowers Coalition

National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC), founded in August 2004, is an independent and nonpartisan alliance of whistleblowers who have come forward to address our nation’s security weaknesses; to inform authorities of security vulnerabilities in our intelligence agencies, at nuclear power plants and weapon facilities, in airports, and at our nation’s borders and ports; to uncover government waste, fraud, abuse, and in some cases criminal conduct. The NSWBC is dedicated to aiding national security whistleblowers through a variety of methods, including advocacy of governmental and legal reform, educating the public concerning whistleblowing activity, provision of comfort and fellowship to national security whistleblowers suffering retaliation and other harms, and working with other public interest organizations to affect goals defined in the NSWBC mission statement. For more on NSWBC visit www.nswbc.org

© Copyright 2006 National Security Whistleblowers Coalition

W*GS

09-07-2006, 08:11 AM

If the government wanted to resolve the matter once and for all and to end the debate, then why not produce just one aircraft part whose serial number would confirm the identity of the plane that was alleged to have hit the Pentagon?

If Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, where is it and what happened to its crew and passengers?

Bronco_Beerslug

09-07-2006, 08:52 AM

If Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, where is it and what happened to its crew and passengers?
Uh, how in the hell are we suppose to know that? We don't make this sh*t up we just propagate it.

Besides, that has nothing to do with what we're talking about (how the government hijacked 4 jetliners and got away with it).

Rohirrim

09-07-2006, 09:14 AM

Ya know, in the Muslim world, the majority are convinced that Mossad hijacked those planes and flew them into the WTC and Pentagon. It was a Zionist conspiracy to suck the U.S. into the ME to destroy Saddam. I guess they're suffering from some form of self-hate. They can't imagine that Arabs could have pulled off 9/11. It seems there are a lot of Americans who agree with them.

Isn't it ironic that OBL's very success is working against his much deserved credit? ;D

alkemical

09-07-2006, 09:29 AM

I've heard that before Ro~

Rohirrim

09-07-2006, 09:48 AM

I've heard that before Ro~

There's actually some good news in that idea. The majority of Muslims in the world consider what happened on 9/11 to be so heinous, they can't allow themselves to believe that a Muslim could carry out such an act.

alkemical

09-07-2006, 10:13 AM

There's actually some good news in that idea. The majority of Muslims in the world consider what happened on 9/11 to be so heinous, they can't allow themselves to believe that a Muslim could carry out such an act.

Oh i agree -

The Lone Bolt

09-07-2006, 10:26 AM

If the plan in the form of a presidential directive authorizing a US attack on Afghanistan was on Bush's desk awaiting his signature BEFORE 911 then obviously the president knew what was happening. Right? Obviously he had already OK'd the decision and was merely awaiting the document authorizing the war.

The people who wrote this story framed it consistent with their own limited knowledge of the events.

Actually it's only obvious to you. Aren't you making a lot of assumptions here that fit your own beliefs? Do you have evidence that the plan was "already OK'd" and the plan was actually "on Bush's desk"? You're assuming a lot here.

If you were ever to look at all of your lines of "evidence" objectively, you would also realize that almost all of them serve as proof to you only because you are drawing inferences from them that fit your own beliefs, not because they are conclusive.

mhgaffney

09-07-2006, 10:26 AM

If Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, where is it and what happened to its crew and passengers?

That's an excellent question.

A review of the timeline of flight 77 shows that the plane's transponder was turned off somewhere out in West Virginia. At that moment it was flying west. The plane disappeared from radar for about 8 minutes. Then it reappeared on an eastbound heading.

This break in the radar record has been explained as due to poor radar coverage of that region. Is this credible?

Planes go off radar when they land -- or crash. The discontinuity raises the possibility that we might be talking about 2 separate planes. We have to ask: Did Flight 77 land at an undisclosed location in West Virginia?

It is a fact that the air traffic controller at Dulles Airport believed the eastbound Flight 77 was a military plane -- due to its speed and its behavior.

W*GS

09-07-2006, 10:34 AM

A review of the timeline of flight 77 shows that the plane's transponder was turned off somewhere out in West Virginia. At that moment it was flying west. The plane disappeared from radar for about 8 minutes.

Turning off the transponder doesn't mean a plane disappears off radar.

This break in the radar record has been explained as due to poor radar coverage of that region. Is this credible?

Why isn't it?

Planes go off radar when they land -- or crash.

So where did the "real" Flight 77 land? What airports in the general vicinity of the area of this 8-minute disappearance can handle a 757? Who are the people at the airport at which it did land (assuming it landed) and why aren't they talking? If the "real" Flight 77 crashed, where did it crash, and where are the people who witnessed it?

Crashing or landing still doesn't explain what happened to the crew and passengers.

The discontinuity raises the possibility that we might be talking about 2 separate planes. We have to ask: Did Flight 77 land at an undisclosed location in West Virginia?

Where? And why bother with an additional, apparently an exact duplicate of the "real" Flight 77, to crash into the Pentagon if you're still left with the problem of what to do with the "real" Flight 77, it's crew and passengers?

It is a fact that the air traffic controller at Dulles Airport believed the eastbound Flight 77 was a military plane -- due to its speed and its behavior.

That's irrelevant to what happened to the "real" Flight 77. Where's the plane hiding?

Rohirrim

09-07-2006, 10:52 AM

That's an excellent question.

A review of the timeline of flight 77 shows that the plane's transponder was turned off somewhere out in West Virginia. At that moment it was flying west. The plane disappeared from radar for about 8 minutes. Then it reappeared on an eastbound heading.

This break in the radar record has been explained as due to poor radar coverage of that region. Is this credible?

Planes go off radar when they land -- or crash. The discontinuity raises the possibility that we might be talking about 2 separate planes. We have to ask: Did Flight 77 land at an undisclosed location in West Virginia?

It is a fact that the air traffic controller at Dulles Airport believed the eastbound Flight 77 was a military plane -- due to its speed and its behavior.

This is so preposterous that now I'm beginning to suspect that you are pulling one of those Andy Kaufman jokes. Right? ;D

W*GS

09-07-2006, 11:05 AM

MG and LABF are twisting themselves into knots the further they go...

Kinda reminds me of the conspiracy involving the sinking of the Titanic (I kind you not!) - the Titanic didn't actually sink, but her sister ship, the Olympic, did. The passengers and crew from the Titanic were transferred in mid-ocean, BTW - all 2,200 of them. And no-one ever said anything...

Yeah, right.

The Lone Bolt

09-07-2006, 11:16 AM

This is so preposterous that now I'm beginning to suspect that you are pulling one of those Andy Kaufman jokes. Right? ;D

Er . . . no I think he's serious.:saywhat:

mhgaffney

09-07-2006, 12:07 PM

This is so preposterous that now I'm beginning to suspect that you are pulling one of those Andy Kaufman jokes. Right? ;D

I knew my post would send you knee jerks into a fit of rage. But the fact remains that we have to ask the questions. I mean if the US government could produce a scintilla of hard evidence -- a black box, or even a piece of 757 wreckage (not just a photo of same) or a video showing a 757 it would be different. But they haven't.

I can't understand why you patriots are satisfied with a mere byte of pentagon video footage -- one that shows nothing but an explosion -- when we know the government has (or had) in its possession numerous tapes from different cameras -- and you birds won't even demand their release. To me that's so lame it's off the radar screen.

All of those tapes should have been turned over to the 911 commission -- which then should have appointed an independent panel to analyze them. The crumb we actually got stinks to heaven.

Maybe you lemmings prefer crumbs. If so, that's your problem.

So we have to ask logical questions -- however inconvenient -- and continue doing so until we get some real answers.

mosca

09-07-2006, 12:18 PM

Turning off the transponder doesn't mean a plane disappears off radar.

The funny thing is that Flight 77 effectively did disappear from radar from 8:56am - 9:05am. For some reason or another it was not on traffic controller's screens during that time.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a856flight77lost

According to the 9/11 Commission, “Radar reconstructions performed after 9/11 reveal that FAA radar equipment tracked [Flight 77] from the moment its transponder was turned off at 8:56 [am.].” However, for eight minutes and 13 seconds, this primary radar data is not displayed to Indianapolis flight controllers. “The reasons are technical, arising from the way the software processed radar information, as well as from poor primary radar coverage where American 77 was flying.” [9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004] Apparently, a radar tower in West Virginia doesn’t have primary radar. [Washington Post, 11/3/2001] But the 9/11 Commission notes that other centers had primary radars that covered the missing areas, yet they weren’t asked to do a primary radar search.

W*GS

09-07-2006, 01:19 PM

I mean if the US government could produce a scintilla of hard evidence -- a black box, or even a piece of 757 wreckage (not just a photo of same) or a video showing a 757 it would be different. But they haven't.

None of those things would make any difference to you. Do you know why?

Maybe you lemmings prefer crumbs. If so, that's your problem.

Speaking of our problems when yours are magnitudes larger...

Thanks for the laugh.

So we have to ask logical questions -- however inconvenient -- and continue doing so until we get some real answers.

"[R]eal answers" are things you're woefully unable to provide.

The Lone Bolt

09-07-2006, 01:24 PM

Rohirrim

09-07-2006, 01:57 PM

I knew my post would send you knee jerks into a fit of rage. But the fact remains that we have to ask the questions. I mean if the US government could produce a scintilla of hard evidence -- a black box, or even a piece of 757 wreckage (not just a photo of same) or a video showing a 757 it would be different. But they haven't.

I can't understand why you patriots are satisfied with a mere byte of pentagon video footage -- one that shows nothing but an explosion -- when we know the government has (or had) in its possession numerous tapes from different cameras -- and you birds won't even demand their release. To me that's so lame it's off the radar screen.

All of those tapes should have been turned over to the 911 commission -- which then should have appointed an independent panel to analyze them. The crumb we actually got stinks to heaven.

Maybe you lemmings prefer crumbs. If so, that's your problem.

So we have to ask logical questions -- however inconvenient -- and continue doing so until we get some real answers.

Name calling? Tsk, tsk. You just don't appreciate diversity when you hear it. :welcome:

alkemical

09-07-2006, 02:11 PM

MHG,

In a past life i was a conspiracist lover. Not for the belief in conspiracies - but for the love of the excersise in thinking of them and thinking them through. Sometimes - i find ones that are so wacked out, but actually "logically" fit. (reality is stranger than fiction..... etc) -

However - i noticed a difference between what i ask and what you are looking for.

Where as it's well documented that i have a small *cough* disdain for authority, i've only ASKED the gov't to be honest. Where as i can't say the 911 commision's report is 100% accurate - i do find the logical fallicy in asking the gov't for proof, only to perpetuate the 'myth' that if the gov't does produce the 'proof' - it is invalided because it's from the gov't/authority.

I wanted the gov't to be honest on shooting down flight 93. I'd also like more on WTC7. There's enough sources to prove/disprove any angle. Maybe there will be no proof that can satiate me.

Tom H.

09-07-2006, 02:38 PM

From the Onion (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/51367)

mhgaffney

09-07-2006, 07:40 PM

MHG,

In a past life i was a conspiracist lover. Not for the belief in conspiracies - but for the love of the excersise in thinking of them and thinking them through. Sometimes - i find ones that are so wacked out, but actually "logically" fit. (reality is stranger than fiction..... etc) -

However - i noticed a difference between what i ask and what you are looking for.
.

Caligula, er I mean Clavicula, I was never repeat never into conspiracy theories. What a bunch of BS I always thought.

911 changed this. I crawled out of bed one day and quite suddently my government was telling me that a bearded fanatic in a cave on the far side of the planet with a cell phone engineered the most horrific act of terrorism in US history.

Most debunkers of quote conspiracy theories always forget that the official 911 story is itself a pretty far out there conspiracy theory. In fact it's so out there that I just can't seem to make it to go down -- as in gulp.

I'll be posting a separate thread about 911 soon and will lay out my thinking in more detail.

alkemical

09-07-2006, 09:25 PM

MHG,

do you see though how - at times you paint yourself into a cyclic argument of asking the gov't for proof only to mark it off as propoganda all the same?

the constant 'secretive' behaviour of the gov't is what fuels my distrust for them even further than it was.

mhgaffney

09-07-2006, 11:42 PM

MHG,

do you see though how - at times you paint yourself into a cyclic argument of asking the gov't for proof only to mark it off as propoganda all the same?

.

Would you not agree that the black box on board flight 77 is pristine evidence? So what happened to it? Would you not agree that the video tape that filmed the plane approaching and impacting the pentagon is pristine hard evidence? OK so where is it?

After a crime the police immediately cordon off the crime scene and confiscate all evidence for forensic analysis. Yet on 911 standard procedures went out the window. Our government controlled the evidence and flow of information almost totally -- and Americans bought it -- including people on this board -- with hardly a protest.

The only reason Bush gave us the 911 commission is because the families of the victims demanded it and refused to take "no" for an answer. So the neo cons set up a phony panel loaded with people who would do their bidding. In almost every case the members had serious conflicts of interest. The naming of Kissinger to lead the panel showed Bush's contempt for America - given Kissinger's known lobbying activity for Saudi Arabia. He soon resigned rather than disclose his business dealings -- but this was the pattern. One member who had integrity, Sen Max Cleland, resigned to protest the fake investigation.

Regarding propaganda, we are immersed in it. The government's point of view is everywhere. Turn on a TV or a radio and you are bombarded with it. People can be made to believe anything -- no mattter how irrational -- if it is constantly repeated -- and if there are no alternative viewpoints. People who dare to think different thoughts come to feel alone and isolated -- that they are the only ones. Eventually, unless they connect with others like themselves they succumb to mind control -- and give up having free ideas. The herd mentality takes over.

Since 911 we have lived a page out of Orwell. As he wrote: "In a world of universal deceit speaking the truth becomes a revolutionary act.."

defenseman

09-08-2006, 06:49 AM

I knew my post would send you knee jerks into a fit of rage. But the fact remains that we have to ask the questions. I mean if the US government could produce a scintilla of hard evidence -- a black box, or even a piece of 757 wreckage (not just a photo of same) or a video showing a 757 it would be different. But they haven't.

I can't understand why you patriots are satisfied with a mere byte of pentagon video footage -- one that shows nothing but an explosion -- when we know the government has (or had) in its possession numerous tapes from different cameras -- and you birds won't even demand their release. To me that's so lame it's off the radar screen.

All of those tapes should have been turned over to the 911 commission -- which then should have appointed an independent panel to analyze them. The crumb we actually got stinks to heaven.

Maybe you lemmings prefer crumbs. If so, that's your problem.

So we have to ask logical questions -- however inconvenient -- and continue doing so until we get some real answers.

You are the problem, fortunately no more than water off a ducks back.

Rohirrim

09-08-2006, 07:13 AM

One member who had integrity, Sen Max Cleland, resigned to protest the fake investigation.

You are misprepresenting why Cleland resigned. He did not resign because he believed that the U.S. was IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER involved in carrying out the attacks of 911, or covering for it, or complicit in any part of it. He resigned because a true investigation would have revealed that the WH had the intelligence to stop 911, but was so focussed on its own goals (Iraq) that it ignored its Constitutional duty, allowed 911 to happen on its watch, and was subsequently stonewalling the investigation so that the nation would not find out the truth.

In Cleland's own words:

Well, first of all, let's look at what Richard Clarke has said. That’s the man in the White House serving four Presidents, three Republicans and one Democrat, the man responsible for monitoring terrorist activity and threats to the United States. He has come out with a scathing indictment of President Bush, saying he has handled the problem terribly because he had an obsession, basically, he and his top advisers, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, with Iraq. Not an obsession with Osama bin Laden and the terrorist cadre that was increasingly being formed in the 1990's that is responsible, we now know, for the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 sailors, or an increasing number of attacks and then ultimately the attack on 9-11. And yet this administration has chosen to focus on Iraq, not al Qaeda. Why? I think that is why the 9-11 commission has been dissed because if you really go into it, you really go into 9-11. You realize that this government had more information at its disposal and, in many ways, failed to understand the threat from al Qaeda, or discounted people like George Tenet who, from 1998 on, said that we were at war with al Qaeda. So, what happens here is that the real information that we did have from the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. about al Qaeda was relatively dissed and then Cheney and others went to the C.I.A. and said, look, give us the information that we really want. Richard Clarke recounts in his book that the 12th of September, after Condoleezza Rice had put Richard Clarke in charge of the emergency response in the situation room. The next day Richard Clarke goes in the situation room and they're all talking about Iraq, not al Qaeda. Why is that? Why would the President continue to insist without any shred of evidence to connect Saddam Hussein with this attack? And why would Rumsfeld, on the day of the attacks, September 11, as revealed by Bob Woodward's book "Bush at War" published two years ago, in his handwritten notes, say put it all together, tie it all together? Because they had a predisposition back to 1992 to go to war with Iraq. Why? Because I think the Neocons, the Right-wing in America, felt that president Bush I got beaten primarily because he didn't take out Saddam Hussein because -- so that became the real litmus test for foreign policy for the Neocons and for the Right wing. And once Bush got elected and Cheney was Vice President and Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defense and Wolfowitz was the number two in the Department of Defense, the Cheney-Wolfowitz plan dating from 1992, to take out Saddam Hussein became the operative foreign policy agenda. Item number one. We now know from secretary O'Neill, a Republican, who was Treasury Secretary under George Bush for a while, that within 10 days of the inauguration of President Bush, he was talking about invading Iraq. So, now if we really examine 9-11, we find that this administration, President Bush, has used 9-11 and the tragedy to this country and to the families in this country, the over 3,000 people who were lost, used that as an excuse to go after Saddam Hussein, not a reason to create the war in Iraq. So, they created a war that they were already predisposed to do and 9-11 gave them the excuse. That is why Osama bin Laden is still on the loose. That is why Osama bin Laden and his terrorist cadre are still blowing up people by the hundreds most recently in Spain, which changed that government and now Spain is withdrawing from Iraq.

I mean, we have a killer and killer organization on the loose and this President has chosen another course to pursue because of his own predilections to I guess avenge his father or follow the Neocon path that Saddam Hussein was the real enemy. The real enemy is Al Qaeda and that's what the 9-11 commission will increasingly find in testimony and they will increasingly find that this government had more information about Al Qaeda from the FBI, dating back to 1994 that planes were planned to be used to hit major targets like big buildings. And if you follow the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, Al Qaeda in many ways was behind that and why -- why -- they didn't take their eye off the ball.

But this administration took its eye off the ball and, with a war in Iraq, has got our cream of American forces now bogged down there. We're losing two soldiers a day and I think it is a disaster.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/23/1546256