9-11 Conspiracists Invade Ground Zero

[struggle4progress]

<snip> Into this somber setting marched about a dozen 9-11 conspiracists, who claimed a patch of sidewalk to preach what they called the truth. "These people weren't killed by Arab terrorists. You've been lied to!" shouted a woman who looked vaguely like Joey Ramone, holding up one end of a banner that read, "9-11 World Trade Center: Controlled Demolition."

Her name was Lisa Giuliani and she broadcasts her theories though a Pennsylvania grassroots video collective called Wing TV.

She lectured about how only a series of controlled explosions could have so rapidly pancaked the twin towers. "There's no way jet fuel could have melted all that steel. It was a freefall. The concrete was so thoroughly pulverized, Manhattan was blanketed in dust. Think about it," she urged. "Do your homework, please!"

Her message played about as badly as could be expected. "I was there, so shut the fuck up. You don't know what you're talking about," snapped an enraged firefighter in fatigues, stalking off into the crowd. <snip>

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0537,fergusonweb2,67726,2.html

[texpatriot2004]

1. Oh my God, they wouldn't do that, would they? That's wicked.

How sick is that?

[OKthatsIT]

15. "conspiracy' SPIN, deception, and secrecy of the RW

Until we have FULL DISCLOSURE, it will be the whistleblowers who step forward, one by one...to expose the criminal backdrop of 9/11.

It IS unfortunate so many people have not kept abreast with the information that has been revealed by whistleblowers up until now.

Most of these so-called "Invaders" represent the same sentiment as the families of the victims. So, the 'mood' of this post is deceptive propaganda.

[katty]

77. Agree-there is so much information that has been revealed...

I have been filling people in (providing weblinks, et al)on all this for years now--it's exhausting repetition but it has to be done.

[OKthatsIT]

93. It's so frustrating when the TRUTH is right in your face

Asbestos in the WTC - Towers' Destruction 'Solved' Asbestos Problem

The Twin Towers had large amounts of asbestos fireproofing which would have necessitated costly removal had they remained standing. The exact amount and distribution of the asbestos in the towers remains unclear, like other details of the buildings' construction and history, but the evidence suggests that the cost of its removal may have rivaled the value of the buildings themselves.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/asbestos.html
-------------------------------------------------------------

Larry Silverstein bought those buildings and knew full well the cost of the asbestos removal would NOT be good business. At first, the plan was to abate the the actual removal with some type of covering material...even that alone would have cost nearly 1 Billion dollars.

What we dont know yet is who else was involved WITH SILVERSTEIN. Who in the US Govt cooperated and carried this horrendous MURDEROUS act of 'pulling it' while 3000 people were still inside the bldg.

This the CRIME OF THE CENTURY.

view this: http://www.question911.com.nyud.net:8090/per82fw8987023f08dwf033e08f/SecretEvilOf911.wmv

For more information(and videos): http://question911.com/links.php

[DemonFighterLives]

140. It is that same asbestos that would have slowed or prevented

the melting of the steel.

GFY Cheney knows all about stose, let's ask him.
:nuke:

[JackRiddler]

191. The real story...

This is late given the massive threads already run on the Village Voice piece, but it just shows you that the righteous are the slow - or is it the unpaid?

A RESPONSE TO SARAH FERGUSON'S PROPAGANDA PIECE

PLUS

MANY PHOTOS, VIDEO, STATEMENTS, DEMANDS, MEDIA COVERAGE LINKS, ETC. ETC.

FROM THE SUNDAY 9/11 2005 RALLY AND MARCH IN NEW YORK CITY:

"Should we rejoice, because it was the largest march for 9/11 truth in history?

"Or should we despair, because it took four years before 300 people rallied on the streets of New York City to confront the US government and the corporate media for their lies about September 11th, 2001?

"In the most moving speech of the day, Donna Marsh O'Connor, mother of Vanessa Lang Langer (who died at WTC Tower II) defined the task ahead for the 9/11 truth movement with a simple question..."

http://summeroftruth.org/09-11-2005.html

[Frederik]

2. Fireman had questions, too

At one point, an auxiliary fireman stepped forward and tried to reason with the protesters to "respect the memorial sentiment."

"Believe me, I have questions too," he told the protesters. "But you've got to respect the dead. These people are not ready for this. You're just creating resentment."

The demolition lady was adamant. "There is no good time. I lost a lot of firefighter friends too," she maintained, adding, "This is the only way we can reach the 9-11 families."

----------

I have to agree with the fireman.

[texpatriot2004]

5. Yeah, seems like they would know being as how they are

trained and all. Did anyone listen to them? Answer their questions?

[leesa]

27. I think the family members ARE ready and have been for a long time

They ALL know they were lied to and I think they very much need to know how and why.

[Henny Penny]

89. "This is the only way we can reach the 9-11 families." ....

Why does that just not ring true to me???

We all have questions and we all know when we should raise them. If the account given here is correct, this woman is either crazy, or being employed to discredit the movement.

[graphixtech]

105. good observation

Personally, I firmly believe the latter.



http://truthemergency.us/pages/Regional.html

[goforit]

150. Yes great point. This has always been a great strategy of GHWB.

I do believe that 75% of all the 911 families sense
this was all an inside job.
I do feel that they are united.
I do feel though they know our Justice System via the Administration
is preventing any further action.

And yes this suffering woman is trying in the wrong way to achieve
her goals.She will be made a fool easily.

She should go talk to Fitzgerald for help.

[philb]

180. Majority of N Y Firemen & Police at WTC described explosions

or events that appeared to be explosions
http://www.flcv.com/firemen.html

[Endangered Specie]

3. Fools.

[texpatriot2004]

6. Oh like what, those tinfoil hat types? n/t

[Endangered Specie]

7. Its one thing to believe in ridiculous conspiracies.

Its quite another to march your way down to sacred ground and disturb people remembering lost loved ones.

[texpatriot2004]

8. We can all remember in our own way. n/t

[Endangered Specie]

13. Ah huh...

Except that stunt was about as low as W strolling across an aircraft carrier in a flight suit.

[texpatriot2004]

16. Well, you got me there cause that was really, really low.

I heard that might have been illegal? Impersonating someone or something?

[hiley]

26. damn near everything the dictator does is illegal

Check out this 9-11 4th Anniversary flash animation and how
the globalists are celebrating it...

http://www.linktoit.com

and here is a download link for achiving/email-attachment-sharing
purposes. It also fits nicely on a floppy disk that can be handed
about the office...

http://rapidshare.de/files/4960576/911AnniversaryTheRealArchitectsofTerror.swf.html

[Terran]

91. Oh yeah, you are SO right

These people's agenda is just as low down and scummy as BushCo's. Why didn't I see that? :eyes:

[Carni]

96. I'm sorry but this looks like something Rove would contrive

The woman looks like Joey Ramone? WTF?

This is a little too convenient IMO

These people were probably sponsored and invited by rovarian repukes attempting to make all people with 911 doubts look like nuts and crackpots.

[SpiralHawk]

14. It's one thing to examine plausible conspiracies

and to question all the lies and cover ups of the Bush admin.

And it is indeeed another thing to disturb people remembering their lost loved ones.

Respect the dead and grieving.

Question the authority and veracity of all those officials who claim to have it. That is the American way. That is the patriotic way.

[K-W]

58. But from thier point of view they know what happened.

It is a matter of concience for them to speak out about it.

Who gets to pick and choose which people get to speak out?

[MrSammo1]

171. I was there

people know the truth. Hundreds of people were on our side. This included many of the police and firemen.

People know!

[Dissenting_Prole]

68. NO MORE GREIVING UNTIL WE KNOW THE TRUTH

eom

[StrafingMoose]

36. Actually, I think they're much more disturbing to...

the people who _used_ these deaths than to the people who were there to mourn them.

[K-W]

57. They think they are right.

So even though they think thier theory is correct, they should act as if they agree with you that it isnt correct?

Free speech means letting everyone express themselves, even people you think are wrong.

[ret5hd]

84. Sacred?

how is any ground sacred? (or a flag, for that matter)

[DemonFighterLives]

142. I think most of those spirits went instantly into the clouds

Therefore the skies above are the sacred(ground) place.
I'll leave it at that.

[Skip Intro]

4. Now why would anyone question the regime's official story on 9*11?

I mean, surely the passports could have survived where the twin towers and the planes' black boxes did not, and we've seen the pictures and bush just misspoke when he said he saw the first plane hit on live tv when it was never broadcast on live tv and wtf is PNAC and we had to get the Saudi royals out while no other flights were allowed and nobody could ever have imagined and the "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US" was a historical document what looney conspiracy nut would dare question bushco's integrity or even think past what's been presented to him/her in such a pretty red, white and blue wrapping?

[texpatriot2004]

10. I would. I came after John F. Kennedy. If a government can do

that...it can easily do this.

That was really sick though the way the Saudis got an escort out of town without questioning. I wonder why?

:patriot:

Dissent is the highest form of Patriotism. I think Thomas Jefferson said that.

[reprobate]

29. Not just Saudis. Bin Laden family members from around the US.

[hiley]

9. WingTV does not represent me

More from the article
snip---
"I sometimes wonder if there could have been a conspiracy," confessed Lester, who said he survived on 9-11 only because he popped downstairs to get his shoes shined just before the first plane hit. "Some of the arguments kind of make sense, like the slow response rate , or how Bush reacted that day. I saw Fahrenheit 911. It makes you wonder.
snip---

Not all the 9-11 skeptics were so brazen.
Distinguishing themselves from the proselytizers downtown, about 200 protesters gathered outside the offices of the New York Times shouting, "Tell the truth!" The protest was organized by members of NY911truth.org to condemn the failure of the mainstream press. They say the media failed to raise questions about the numerous unexplained anomalies of 9-11-like why it took NORAD so long to scramble planes when five war games were running that day, or why World Trade Center owner Ken Silverstein implied that that WTC building 7 was "pulled"—a reported comment which leads conspiracists to presume that the other towers could have been intentionally taken down, too.
snip--
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0537,fergusonweb2,67726,2.html

http://www.wingtv.net/
WINGTV is not for me but It was an inside job.Edit to say Lisa argues to much for me and that is all I meant by WingTv not being for me..
hiley

http://www.ny911truth.org/

[QuettaKid]

11. and don't forget to add

the quick grab by the FBI of all the cameras in the area around the pentagon...they were there within minutes. the strange stock market activity.....the lackadaisical response of allowing bush to continue with his previously announced pointless photo-op.....and on and on and on...

[hiley]

12. and on and on is

exactly right too.

[Frederik]

47. They are right-wingers

wing-TV have ties to the militia/survivalist right-wing.

911truth.org, on the other hand, is probably a COINTELPRO-style psy-op. One of their co-founders is Jim Garrisson (not him of JFK fame, of course) of the Gorbachev Foundation, a friend of George Shultz, co-founder of the Christic Institute which was involved in Iran-Contras, and generally a transparent spook. Another co-founder is Byron Belitsos, who is involved in the bizarre Urantia Cult, which was, believe it or not, created by a Skull & Bones alumnus.

Look for the truth elsewhere.

[graphixtech]

48. Correction

Not sure where you get your information, but Jim Garrisson is not a founder of 911Truth.org,
and Byron Belitsos is no longer involved. 911Truth.org is quite legitimate.

Here is the current About Us page on 911Truth.org.

http://www.911truth.org/index.php?topic=about




http://www.911truth.org/index.php

(excellent article from 911Truth.org)
It’s Not Just New Orleans That Needs Rebuilding
By Bryan Sacks

So now, horribly, we know what it takes to stir disgust and outrage directed at the federal government, in the hearts of the corporate press corps. It takes a catastrophe of biblical proportions unfolding right before their eyes, right here in America, right in front of their cameras and camera crews, amid the stench of rotting corpses and a heaving mass of literally thousands of sick and dying.

Katrina’s aftermath has exposed the ‘most powerful country in the world’ as literally powerless to address the most basic needs of the most highly visible suffering people on the planet. This monstrous failure could literally be paradigm-shifting in its effect on the public consciousness.

(excerpt)
While the scope of the tragedy in New Orleans grows, its immediacy will make comparisons to past government-sponsored failures seem inappropriate, and that's understandable. But when enough time has passed, perhaps this colossal failure will enable the public to entertain the similarities between the Administration's failure to respond to Katrina, and its orchestrated failure, represented by the omissions and distortions of the 9/11 Commission Report-- to answer the questions gnawing at victims' family members and millions of other Americans for years now about the true scope of the attacks. The victims of Katrina deserved better, and likely thousands have died because of a cataclysmic failure to respond in time. There should be a full investigation and a complete accounting of the tragedy with consequences for failure and malfeasance. To our great detriment, that is exactly what has thus far been denied all citizens regarding the aftermath of September 11.

(excerpt)
The horror of Katrina's aftermath, even more than 9/11, may prove to be a monumental political turning point. We must work to ensure that, unlike with 9/11, it's a turn for the better. Getting the truth out, both about the scale and disproportionate impact of this tragedy as well as the facts about 9/11 cover-up, has never been more important. The dead and dying in the South, and the dead in New York demand it.

(full article)
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050904221329705

[Frederik]

50. Ah, sorry

Garrisson was of course the co-host of the "9/11 Convergence Conference" of last year. I thought he was involved in 911truth.org?

You may have suffered an attempt at infiltration, then.

[Up2Late]

128. Thanks for those people/links

I have found the same type of RW links to other Conspiracy dis-creditors, but I didn't know those people.

I posted other links below.

[Frederik]

146. But be sure to read

the response from a DUer who is involved in 911Truth.org, #48 above. I may have been partly wrong about that site/organization.

[JackRiddler]

194. wow, is this the quality of your work?

You've got some nerve slamming people who actually get (a few) things done in such an ignorant fashion.

Jim Garrison never had anything to do with 911Truth.org except that he signed a statement along with 150 others.

Byron is no longer with 911Truth.org.

A loose chain of association says nothing about what the group actually does. Do you have a problem with the site, or the projects the group puts on?

Do you think it's all right to just reproduce whatever bullshit you read without any fact-checking? This is the kind of lazy and sloppy work that ends up being denigrated as "conspiracy theory."

People who are serious about 9/11 or anything else will go to the trouble of backing up their assertions rigorously.

[bluestateguy]

17. Sounds like some people are eating a few too many Fruit Loops

and I suppose the hijackers are alive and living on a beach at Cancun under the protection of the CIA.

[Up2Late]

18. Disgusting, these so-called conspiracies are started by...

...Ultra-RW Wackos!

They take a few shreds of so-called evidence, that the average angry and confused person on the internet wants to believe, and builds an entire industry around it.

For all the true believers out there, these are Scam Artists and History Revisionists who goal is to take your money, $19.95 dollars at a time selling their bogus books and bogus videos and DVDs.

[halsaxby]

22. Sorry, Occam's Razor must prevail.

The official 9/11 story is simply not credible.

The PNAC, which represents powerful oil interests, wished for a Pearl Harbor type event to justify American military conquest. It happened, yet the PNAC is never referenced in the MSM.

The mastermind, Osama bin Laden, was and probably still is funded by some of BushCo's closest Saudi Arabian friends. This is too bizarre to be a coincidence.

Amateur pilots, with only private single seat licenses, were able to handle extremely sophisticated 757/767s with extreme precision under incredible stress. Not likely. The 9/11 pilots had to have much more 757/767 training than we've been told. An experienced commercial pilot told me that it was a miracle they could even get to New York, let alone hit something like the WTC at high speed.

The military air command has stated that before 9/11 it was not designed to operate within US borders. In other words, if we were attacked by an enemy air force and the enemy suceeded in penetrating our air defenses the military had no contigency for this. This is ludicrous.

Before and after 9/11, Al Qaeda's best efforts had been fairly amateur car and boat bombings, typical mainstays of Islamic terrorists. Somebody with a healthy knowledge of structural engineering had to help plan 9/11.

There are many reports of the Bush administration being tipped off about the plot, prior to 9/11. The Mossad, the FBI, and Able Danger are just a few of the entities that provided forewarning. Each was not only ignored but actively thwarted.

This could go on and and on but the simple explanation is this: Al Qaeda received it's orders from American corporate interests via the Saudi ruling class. The pilots were most likely ex-military pilots who received fairly extensive 757/767 training in the Middle East before ever coming to the US. They were ordered to attend US flight schools simply to lend credence to the official version.

[SidDithers]

30. LMAO...you try to use Occam's Razor, to tell us that...

"Al Qaeda received it's orders from American corporate interests via the Saudi ruling class. The pilots were most likely ex-military pilots who received fairly extensive 757/767 training in the Middle East before ever coming to the US. They were ordered to attend US flight schools simply to lend credence to the official version."

About Occam's Razor, to paraphrase the great Inigo Montoya..."You are using that word, I do not believe that it means what you think it means..."

Sid

[rman]

157. You mean you're unfamiliar with the stories of Edmonds and Singh?

Sibel Edmonds and other Whistleblowers Group:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=344


Regardless of Occam's Razor, any theory must fit the data even if that means it's not a simple theory.

[DemonFighterLives]

143. Great post

Welcome to DU!
You hit on several important points in question.

Our radar was pointed out to sea- :rofl:

[MisterP]

32. any evidence?

[Up2Late]

33. Evidence of what?

What would you like? I have plenty.

[MisterP]

35. that 9-11 conspiracy theories are created by the Right

[Up2Late]

43. O.K. here's one of the first to get the "Secret Pod" under the jet and...

...the "What is the bright flash seen just before the planes impact the North and South Towers...," BS and the "...no windows on "Flight 175..." snowball rolling.

Now, just to be clear, I'm not a total non-believer, a lot of what was written above could have happened, but is impossible to prove or disprove, the "conspiracy theories" that I think are totally nuts are the ones I listed above, as well as the "Tower 1 and 2 were brought down with controlled demolition..." and the "missiles hit the towers and the Pentigon..." Bla Bla Bla...

This video is where most of those ludicrous theories began. This video is produced by Dave vonKleist, a RW anti-semitic, UN-hating, preacher from "The Power Hour," P.O. Box 85, Versailles, MO 65084

<http://www.thepowerhour.com/>

Here links to his video: <http://www.911inplanesite.com/>

Here a review from one of the converted: <http://pandora108.bizhosting.com/video_dvd_911_in_plane_site_hosted_by_dave_vonkleist.html>

Here's a site I haven't explored yet, could be totally bogus, or not: <http://hometown.aol.com/wbflegal/DaveJoycewebsitepage14.html>

Other big supporters and creator of the wacko theories are people like Jeff Rense, groups like The Barnes Review and most likely Fred Phelps. I'd give you more links, but it would probably get my post deleted or the tread locked, because most of this crap comes from far more extreme sources.

This article explains what I'm talking about well. It's from "The New American" which is part of the John Birch society. Yes, I know who they are, but they are one of the targets of the Conspiracy theory dis-creditors and tells how this Dave vonKleist fits into this web: <http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_1253.shtml>

Which brought this from vonKleist: <http://www.thepowerhour.com/news/vonkleist_provacateur.htm>

This web of Conspiracy and counter-conspiracy is very twisted and complicated and is best not to think to long about or you might burst a blood vessel (or at least give you a head ache. If you want ot read the really hateful stuff, goto the Southern Poverty Law Centers site: <http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intpro.jsp> and search the web for some of the hate groups they monitor.

If that's not enough, I'm afaid you'll need to explore some of this for youself, it would take a week to try to explain it all.

[Frederik]

49. I largely agree

Much of it is produced by wackos on the extreme right-wing. Von Kleist and Wing(nut) TV are prime examples. At the other end of the spectrum is French left-winger Thierry Meyssan, who was the first to claim that no plane hit the Pentagon.

EDIT: What I wrote about 911Truth.org appears to be partly in error.

I'll add that the full story of what happened is still unknown to us. The 9/11 Commission report is a limited hangout and notorious for its omissions. I believe that at least some the answers lie in the hidden history of the "intelligence community" from the late 70s onwards, the privatization of clandestine operations and the courting of Islamist terrorists by the CIA during the 80s and 90s.

I'm convinced that, at the very least, it was allowed to happen. But not necessarily by Bush.

[rinsd]

81. Don't forget Justin Rainmando (nt)

[rman]

162. we're way past pods and holograms dude

the consensus here on those theories is that they are at best a distraction, and possibly disinfo.

[Up2Late]

179. They most definitely are for distraction, and are disinfo, that's what...

...I was saying. But if you read through most of the earliest posts here, you'll see that their are still a lot here, but far more on the internet, who haven't been clued into that yet.

Also, my posts here are about the people who this post was originally about, the WTC Protesters. They are either the clueless deceived, or are part of the DisInfo problem.

[StrafingMoose]

38. Yes, 'few' shreds of evidences that tear the official story to parts

Now, let's see if you have the guts to call every inspector, investigator RW nuts.

[Up2Late]

46. Every inspector, investigator are RW nuts. How that?

That didn't really take "Guts."

If you read my reply at #43, you will get a better idea of what I'm talking about and my position.

[StrafingMoose]

116. My bad, haven't read all of your posts...

I have also some problems debating about the whole physical evidence theme.

There's enough inconsistencies in the official story to have serious doubts about it, without the need to debate the way the WTC towers fell, altough they don't seem to corroborate the official story at first glance. If some want to do researches and formulate valid questions about the Pentagon, the WTC's fall, etc I do not object though.

[JohnLocke]

19. What morons (nt).

[WhiteTara]

20. why should it be a stretch that the government did 9-11?

"Down at Ground Zero, the 9-11 "truth" warriors were clearly emboldened by the hurricane fiasco. "The public saw people dying while Condi was shopping for shoes, Dick Cheney was playing fake cowboy, and Bush was backstage playing guitar," relished Ben Maurier of Brooklyn, who predicted a wash of new converts to the cause. "If they knowingly allowed that many people to die in New Orleans, why should it be a stretch that the government did 9-11?"

Yes indeed, if we can witness Katrina, we can imagine 9/11

[Dissenting_Prole]

69. On addition to New Orleans, don't forget...

Panama, and Rwanda, and Costa RIca, and Nigeria, and...

[wordout]

21. Shut up you idiots! I'm a firefighter and was there too. I'm the one

that rode the debris down 38 floors like a surfboard!

Besides, it's PROVEN_FACT the reason those 3 towers fell because they were made of marshmallows!

:banghead:

[medeak]

23. hero you! husband told me that am "tower will fall"

after first plane flew in. He's mechanical contractor and engineer..built many high rises. Said.."jet fuel is too hot...will melt the steel"

He was so somber... I thought...why the hell aren't they evacuating everyone!

[DemonFighterLives]

144. Not to dis your hubby

but there is no way that the steel covered in asbestos and sheetrock, etc could ever get hot enough to do that. Especially the second one where the fireball was mostly outside of the building.
Many engineers disagree on this point though.

[texpatriot2004]

24. You were a fire fighter there at ground zero? Really? n/t

[wordout]

34. not exactly, but..

i always wanted to - be - a fireman. that or a lumberjack.

[Twist_U_Up]

122. bwahahahaa

hilarious :wtf:

[StrafingMoose]

39. That's another part of the story...

If it was so obvious that these buildings were made out of marshmallows, why did 3000 +/- people die there?

[wordout]

42. Aluminized marshmallows?

:shrug:

[Rosco T.]

25. Watch 9-11 in Plane Site and make up your own mind...

http://www.911inplanesite.com/

[texpatriot2004]

37. thanks for the 911inplanesite link n/t

[Up2Late]

45. 911inplanesite is total BS, I wrote about it above...

...so I won't repeat it here, unless my post get scrubbed. Made by people who are trying to discredit ALL conspiracy theories by presenting totally foolish and bogus evidence.

[MrSammo1]

173. You are wrong

We have no physical evidence that jets crashed in Shanksville or at the Pentagon. The few supposed pieces of "proof" don't equal a jet.

The Towers and building 7 were taken down with explosives. That's the only way what we saw could of happened.

The proof is right in front of your eyes.

All you have to do is open them!

[MercutioATC]

195. That video is FULL of lies. VonKleist is a charlatan.

Just search "VonKleist" in out 9/11 Forum here. You'll see what I'm talking about. The man misrepresents and alters evidence to sell videos.

[NYC Liberal]

28. I walk by "Ground Zero" fairly often and I see those people

Most of them just walk up to you with a handout or something. Haven't seen anyone shouting and causing a big scene, though.

[graphixtech]

31. Just to be clear, this was an independent tiny group

It is a shame that the press focused on these 6 Wing TV activists, while completely ignoring the nearby NY911Truth rally which attracted a much larger, passionate crowd of over 200 level headed people.

NY911Truth and 911Truth have repeatedly expressed their opposition to a Ground Zero protest on Sept. 11th with the philosophy that Ground Zero should be off limits on that sacred day.


(911Truth.org, Ny911Truth.org, and 911Visibility.org have absolutely no connection to Wing TV, the people protesting at Ground Zero on 9-11)

[StrafingMoose]

40. I also read reports of police officers actually supporting some of these..

NY911 Truth rally. They were just bared from talking with the activists.

[Bushwick Bill]

51. Bingo

The problem is that anytime the 9/11 truth movement gets what could be breakthrough media attention, the focus always seems to be on the weakest theories or groups of people. WingTV may or not be COINTELPRO or whatever, but even if they are well meaning, their presentation comes off as crazy.

When official conspiracy theorists attempt to debunk the 9/11 truth movement, they always focus on the weaker aspects which IMO are toughest to prove, like controlled demo or the no plane at the Pentagon theory. They never address WTC 7, the wargames, paymaster General Mahmoud Ahmad, the stock trades, spiking of specific FBI investigations, etc., etc, which are the points I believe the 9/11 truth movement should be pounding.

I never saw In Plane Site, but I know that some in the 9/11 truth movement have problems with it.

I just wish all of the 9/11 truth movement could pull together, but there is so much misinformation/disinformation, that it seems darn near impossible.

[goforit]

153. Leave it to Fitzgerald.

[MrSammo1]

174. You are correct

Nobody caused a big scene. Most people there were in agreement.

People know the truth.

[Carolab]

41. Good for them. More people should do this.

9-11 was LIHOP or MIHOP. Too many unanswered/unexplained questions in the "official story".

[MrSammo1]

175. This is what had to be done

There was press there from all over the world.

The message had to get out and it did!

The fact that the Village Voice pulled their online article proves that we hit a nerve.

Was what happened there mentioned in any of the other MSM?

If there is no problem (and we are just nuts) WHY IS THERE A PROBLEM?

[ladylibertee]

44. I hope noone is thinking this psychotic idiots rantings ....

has any truth to them.I mean, HELLO? We saw the planes go into the towers.:eyes:

[Frederik]

53. I don't think anyone

doubts the planes hit the towers. :-)

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

67. Then you haven't met Webfairy!

The “hologram theory” was developed by Webfairy (Rosalee Grable) in order to explain the strange entry mode of the visible flying craft at south tower through the steel-column walls.

(...)

The hologram theory says that south tower (WTC2) was not hit by a large Boeing 767-200 (flight UA175) but by a small USAF cruise missile or drone with a large holographic cloak around it that made it look like a flight UA175, i.e. a flying deception.

http://www.gallerize.com/What_Is_The_Hologram_Theory.htm

[Frederik]

74. Oh, that is true

Don't forget Webfairy!

[MrSammo1]

176. We are missing

the physical evidence of two jets!

Do some research!

[LaurenG]

52. Does anyone really KNOW the TRUTH?

I think left to this administration, no one ever will. 4 Years is a long time to still be wondering what did happen. If the "conspiracy" were true how would anyone ever believe it anyway. Just because the planes flew into the towers doesn't mean that an explosion (controlled demolition) didn't take place as well. I am not sure of anything *bushco says. It may be true, it may not. I am not mad at those who want answers.

[info being]

54. Looks like a new crowd here.

I thought most of DU agreed that the Bush people were probably involved in 9-11.

[BL611]

59. I really hope your wrong...

I don't come here often enough to make a definitive statement, but I certainly hope there are not that many insane people on this site...

[politick]

72. Sorry

We are :)

[txaslftist]

75. There aren't.

There are a lot of wacky :tinfoilhat: threads like this one, but there is a lot of very good analysis, too. You can't go wrong with the LBN thread. The coverage here is faster than CNN or MSNBC or FOX. You'll even get foreign news here, like the bbc or even foreign language stuff. You'll hear it here first.

Plus you usually get first rate discussion.

The people who think LIHOP/MIHOP (Let it happen on purpose; make it happen on purpose) applies to 9-11 have some pretty good reasons to think so. Specifically Bush's statements pre 9-11 that he needed a "Pearl Harbor" type event to institute his policies; the close relationship his family had with the Saudis and by extension the Bin-Ladins; the fact that Osama hasn't been caught in all these years and in fact in 2002 Bush actually said catching him wasn't a priority.

I tend to believe that Bin Ladin is just what he seems to be, a savvy extreme politician trying to build a muslim empire by attacking the US. I think Bin Ladin saw the Bushes as an example of the Americans taking advantage of his people, and he had the training (courtesy of the CIA) and the money (courtesy of family connections) to put together an army of malcontents to carry out his will.

I don't think even Bin Ladin knew the towers were going to collapse, although he did say he had hopes that they would.

People who think the towers collapsed because they were blown didn't watch the videos. They collapsed from the top down, not the bottom up. Parts of the bottom of the towers were intact after the collapse, which wouldn't have been the case had they been demolished professionally.

The fact that Bin Ladin hasn't been caught is just pure and simple ineptitude and not making it a priority. My dad is a Kool-aid drinker, and even he gets mad that Bin ladin is still on the loose.

[HughBeaumont]

78. How do you explain WTC 7 then?

That surely didn't collapse from the top down. Watch the video. The top of that tower is CLEARLY intact the whole way down. Not only that, it collapsed in it's own footprint. Debunkers claim fires and debris caused that to fall, yet pretty much every photograph of it shows containable fires on three floors and an undamaged outer facade for most of the building. There was also another building near WTC 7 that sustained far more outer and structural damage than WTC7, yet it didn't collapse.

[mallard]

161. Re: "pure and simple ineptitude"...

... is currently the official reasoning for all the unanswered questions. It's evasive and mowing over too many inconsistencies.

Why no video of the Pentagon strike? Why is demolition of WTC not brought out in the controlled press?


You wrote:

" People who think the towers collapsed because they were blown didn't watch the videos. They collapsed from the top down, not the bottom up. Parts of the bottom of the towers were intact after the collapse, which wouldn't have been the case had they been demolished professionally."


Did YOU watch the video link above? Who's side are you on, anyway?


There was enough time between the strikes and the collapses to reckon the timing of planted charges from the impact points downward in sequence. It was very professional, but the window popping out are clearly from explosions. The buildings could not have imploded like that, period.

Incompetence is not the only avenue for non-rational explanation of gaping anomolies in the official account - but it is all some have left to offer. I think the marsmallow theory is more forthright.

There's a pattern of unified denial among supporters of our ME policy leaning towards one distinct interest group.

It seems people who deny the physics and point to incompetence as if it were evidence are blocking the truth actively to protect those certainly implicated in the actual destruction.

It's pretty obvious the screeners are hiding more than a lack of vision. They don't want some unconvicted felons getting into trouble.

[superconnected]

94. I thought it was a given that Bush was involved in 911.

Gee didn't ex pres bush sit at Carlyle watching the towers burn with Bin Ladens brother, oh yeah, he did.

Isn't the company that was in charge of security for the wtc a subsidary of carlyle, as well as the decontamination company for the anthrax and the security company after 911 in charge of airport security also a subsidary of Carlyle? Oh yeah, they are.

[DemonFighterLives]

184. Not believing an official lie makes us insane

Maybe I am misreading your post.

[K-W]

60. It is an easy mistake to think that threads are representative.

It may just be that threads about 9/11 theories attract a higher proportion of MIHOPers than this one.

[TNOE]

108. You're right

notice how they come out of the woodwork on a 9/11 thread? Probably their job - disinformation agents.

[TrogL]

55. Oh, Kerist here we go again

In no particular order:

1. The steel did not "melt" - it warped beyond its ability to hold a load and snapped.

2. It requires no particular sophistication to fly an aircraft once it's airborne, otherwise Microsoft would not have sold a bazillion copies of Flight Simulator. Landing's the bitch.

3. Controlled demolition consists of reducing a building's ability to maintain a load and allowing gravity to bring it down. In the sense that ramming an aircraft into a building (and the subsequent fire) reduced the towers' ability to support their own load and hence fall down (gravity does go down last time I checked) I suppose you could called this a "controlled demolition" but have yet to see any substantive proof of any explanation that cannot be dismissed by "gravity works".

4. Concrete is not rock. Hit most rock (I'm excluding light sedimentary rock like sandstone) with a hammer and it fractures. Hit concrete with a hammer and it pulverizes.

[TNOE]

62. Okay - please explain

1. Why is Sibel Edmonds being censored?
2. Why was Bush against establishing a committee to investigate one of the worst tragedies on US Soil?
3. Once he was forced to do this - why appoint Henry Kissinger to lead? How is it that the rest of the committee just happened to be tied to oil & gas & the bin ladens?
4. Why were they fighting to get Condi Rice to NOT testify UNDER OATH?
4. Why did he & Cheney REFUSE to testify under oath?
5. Why did Bush & Cheney have to testify together????
6. Why did Condi Rice lie and say that NO ONE COULD HAVE IMAGINED PLANES FLYING INTO BUILDINGS - when not only had those studies been done - but they were actually having a drill THAT VERY DAY?
7. How is it possible that our 4 Trillion $$ defense system was inoperable for ONE HOUR?
8. How was it that every single procedure that has been put in place over the years - didn't work effectively? How was it that EVERY ONE was asleep at the wheel?
9. The air space around the WTC has been a no fly zone since its inception - this one day 2 got by.
10. We know there are missles on top of the Pentagon - so why weren't they used?
11. Why were all the cameras from that day confiscated?
12. Where are the black boxes?
13. How was it that Marvin Bush just so happened to head up security at the WTC?
14. How was it that some people made a lot of money in the stock trades that day - then all that information disappeared - after it led to Buzzy Kongrad, CIA?
15. How was it that the lead FBI Investigator on Bin Laden was fired from his job and then hired at the WTC?
16. How is it that there is no record of a Todd Beamer ever being born or dead?
17. How is it that only a very small percentage of the people on the planes filed for the government money? Did they even exist?
18. How was it that cell phone calls were even made from the planes?
19. How is it that most of the hijackers named turned up alive and well?
20. How is it that the Secret Service KNEW Bush was not in danger and didn't move him immediately?
21. How is it that an FBI informant LIVED with 2 of the supposed hijackers and knew nothing?
22. Who benefited from this disaster - Bush, et al & oil or Bin Laden?
23. How was Bush so lucky as to hit his "trifecta"?? And amazingly enough the people in his administration wrote a report - PNAC - wishing for a "Pearl Harbor" type event? Why is 9/11 so similar to Hitler's Reichtag Fire?
24. How was it that the Patriot Act was ready to go - with no one being allowed to read it before signing?
25. How is it that those that were opposed to the Patriot Act got sent Anthrax?
26. How is it that the Anthrax sender was never caught and the particular type of Antrax was "military grade"?

I'm out of time here - but these 26 questions are just off the top of my head - there are many more. Surely, all this circumstantial evidence could only lead to "reasonable doubt" that this administration had not only something - but probably everything to do with it.

11.

[redqueen]

64. Nice list...

impressive that it was off the cuff...

[txaslftist]

76. Heh. Some folks have LOTS of time on their hands.

[redqueen]

86. Or excellent recall capabilities...

:wtf:

[TNOE]

107. You got it Redqueen

did this in about 5 minutes from the top of my head. But it has been 3 years, so alot just sticks with you.

Its so nice when someone is so logical!

[K-W]

65. Questions are not evidence. EOM

[politick]

73. nice list

They are, of course, questions, but the fact that many have gone unanswered, unaddressed and unacknowleged, leads to some pretty radical personal conclusions.

I wanted to ask you more about Todd Beamer -- never heard anything about that...

And also, I've read about hijackers turning up later, but could you direct me to a good source?

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Frederik]

79. I think it was a "conspiracy"

at some level, but that doesn't mean I believe in controlled demolition. I think people get distracted by the fall of the towers, or the supposed lack of aircraft parts at the Pentagon, when there are plenty of other issues pertaining to 9/11 that are much more interesting and illuminating. You list some of them yourself.

The anthrax letters is such an obvious case. The investigation suddenly stopped when it became clear that the anthrax came from Fort Detrick. It was sent to "liberal" media and liberal senators just as the Patriot Act was presented. An FBI agent involved in the investigation said at some point that their top suspect was the CIA's secret bioweapons programme... The federation of American Scientists' report concluded that it was likely prepared before 9/11, and by more than one person. So that should kill the "lone bioweapons specialist who wanted to warn people after 9/11" theory.

It is also beyond doubt that the FBI had a pretty good idea of what was going to happen on 9/11 and who would be involved, and yet did nothing to stop it, in fact did everything to sabotage investigations by field agents.

[TrogL]

92. My, what a wealth of logical fallacies

The topic of discussion (at least what I'm trying to talk about) is the specific issue of "controlled demolition" of the twin towers. My basic point is the impact and subsequent fire stressed the towers beyond their capabilities and they fell down (that being the direction gravity tends to move things).

Your response is a "shotgun" of off-topic questions that could be pretty much summed up as "changing the topic", one of the general classes of logical fallacy. Specifically, this is "straw man". You are attacking arguments I never made.

Hence, my point stands uncontested.

Be that as it may, I suppose I should address a few of those:

6. Why did Condi Rice lie...?

Puleez. She's a lawyer and a Republican to boot.

7. How is it possible that our 4 Trillion $$ defense system was inoperable for ONE HOUR?

Who says it's for only one hour? It's probably been busted all along. Remember, these are the same people who cooked up Star Wars missile defence.

8. How was it that every single procedure that has been put in place over the years - didn't work effectively? How was it that EVERY ONE was asleep at the wheel?

Bad design. See above. The air traffic controllers made enough ruckus but nobody was listening.

9. The air space around the WTC has been a no fly zone since its inception - this one day 2 got by.

So's the area around the White House yet somebody managed to crash a Cessna on the lawn.

12. Where are the black boxes?

Probably somewhere smashed to smitherines in the rubble of the twin towers mixed in with tons of office furniture. They're not indestructible.

Don't get me wrong. I'm firmly on the side of LIHOP and I'll even listen to arguments for MIHOP. Unfortunately, you haven't made any.

[TNOE]

110. HA

I haven't made any arguments???

Listen, I leave the destruction of the buildings to the experts - and the honest experts seem to all agree it was a controlled demolition - which I don't doubt, especially since Larry Silverstein - the owner of the buildings - said "they pulled it" on TAPE! So that pretty much answers that for me.

But the ONLY argument for LIHOP or MIHOP - IS they WOULDN'T testify under oath. If you are NOT lying - wouldn't they say "bring it on" - let's have a full and open investigation and prove to the AMerican people that it was in fact bin Laden? Didn't happen. That's really all one needs in a nutshell there. Sham committee and sham report.

We're are already way down the looking glass now

lies about 9/11
lies about Iraq WMD
lies about Iraq/911 connection
lies about Al CIAda
lies about FEMA/Hurrican Katrina

HOW MANY MORE LIES DO PEOPLE NEED????

[DemonFighterLives]

148. One cannot ignore that list

Great Job!

:thumbsup:

[Up2Late]

70. You know what the now, not so funny thing about MS Flight Simulator...

...is, If you have Flight Simulator 95,98 and 2000, of the "fun flights" (or whatever they call them) one of them they have you fly from La Guardia down around the statue of Liberty and then you're supposed to fly in between the two World Trade Center buildings, I've done it.

I also crashed in the attempt a few times too.

I remember they issued a Patch to remove those buildings after 9/11, they should have issued an apology too.

[DemonFighterLives]

147. Oh that explains it all

Thanks for that.
:banghead:

[Zynx]

56. Funny how none of the conspiracists get any scientific facts right.

Little things like how steel, in accordance with molecular motion principles, loses a great deal of strength well before it actually melts.

[HughBeaumont]

66. Ever been to the 9/11 forum?

There are plenty of people who have engineering and structural materials who can more than hold their own in scientifically explaining why the official story is a pile of crapola. What do you think, that the MIHOPers are all just retards for even questioning this pile of tripe? Those fires were OXYGEN starved - more smoke than heat. There were people in the holes looking out. The core was fireproofed. Firemen were scaling the building because they knew the fires were containable. Those fires weren't even NEAR as hot as people made them out to be and certainly not enough to cause two buildings to collapse in less than two hours in their own footprint without ANY resistance from the core.

If you're searching for things that are funny, then explain why the built-better-than-a-normal-steel-structure WTCs had no visible core or resistant structure hundreds of feet up after it collapsed when NEVER, EVER in the 100-year-history of steel structures has fire SOLELY caused a steel-structured building to collapse completely, without any central core sticking up and no burnt hulk left behind (which, if you look at most pictures of burning steel structured building aftermaths, you'll see), in it's own footprint.

[carlvs]

97. What a load of BS!!!

From what I have seen over in the 9/11 forum, it has been those who actually know their science and engineering that have shouted-down by people like you who put fantasy over rational thinking... :puke:

[HughBeaumont]

99. So janedoe and philb know NOTHING?

PaulThompson is just a fiction author? HARDLY. They've certainly offered more detailed, scientific and constructive arguments on the side of OTC criticism than you or any supposed "scientist" entering that forum has (the only one who I hold credible on the OTC side is LARED). Thompson has gathered thousands of entries deconstructing the events of that day from hundreds of legitimate news sources. You disrupt and add nothing but tiny quips because you think it's SUCH a stretch that this band of assholes would blow powerless people up for financial and political gain.

Nice ad-hominem. I don't even contribute to the forum much, but laugh at the utterly curmudgeonly tone of the people who are pro-OTC. The only fantasy here is that 571-page POS of flimsy theories authored by Cheney/Big Oil-connected repukes. You keep believing that borderline-tooth fairy horseshit, and I'll continue researching for the real truth, thank you very much.

[graphixtech]

138. recent Paul Thompson video clip (about the 911 Commission Report) others

This is an excellent seven minute clip of Paul Thompson,
filmed at Lafayette Park (across from the White House)
at the July 23 Emergency Truth Convergence event.


http://truthemergency.us/movies/PaulThompsRally.mov


Bob Bowman speaks about Treason and 9/11
http://truthemergency.us/movies/BobBowman2.mov


Jenna Orkin speaks boldly about the criminal cover up of the GZ air quality
http://truthemergency.us/movies/JennaOrkin.mov

(many other great speaker videos are available here)
http://truthemergency.us/pages/VideoAudio.html

[HughBeaumont]

141. I was there and I missed Thompson speaking.

I did see Dr Griffin talk, though, and Jenna Orkin as well. I'll watch these later. Thanks for the clips.

[drduffy]

80. i get tired of

people who know little being derisive and demeaning. There is a hugh abundance of evidence pointing to BushCo (or some subsidiary of) complicity.

[rinsd]

103. That and bait and switch....

Another poster linked to the debunking of the Popular Mechanics debunkings.

They substitute the total amount of steel in a tower to give the impression that it would be impossible to melt(forget about weakening) vs the amount of steel in just the few floors necessary for the collapse to happen. They also recast jet fuel as kerosene and substitute its melting temps.

[WoodrowFan]

124. in other words

they're lying. gee, Tinfoilers lying. now THAT's a shock.

[Overseas]

145. Funny how other steel buildings with less reinforcement

than the 47 steel columns in the middle of the WTC burned for much longer times and on more floors and DID NOT COLLAPSE AT ALL... Guess those buildings just didn't follow those scientific facts you were given... And WTC 7, with no direct impact, collapsed very neatly because of some scientific facts I just don't understand and never mind the owner saying on tape that he decided to pull it... And gee, guess the small hole in the Pentagon for a very big commercial plane was another new kind of scientific fact I've just got to understand... Unfortunately, the official theory requires too many of those scientific anomalies for me to believe... When the official theory requires much more suspension of disbelief and discarding of known data than alternate explanations, i've got to open up to other ideas...

[silvermachine]

149. Small hole?

<<<And gee, guess the small hole in the Pentagon for a very big commercial plane was another new kind of scientific fact I've just got to understand... >>>

I live about 1 mile from the Pentagon and trust me, the hole was anything but small.

[WoodrowFan]

158. nothing in your post is actually true

I bet the sky in your world is a pretty color. bye bye

[DemonFighterLives]

185. What color is the sky in your world

and who are you bye-bying?
I only see you show up to smack down someone who doesn't believe like you.
I suppose that qualifies me for a bye bye as well.
;)

[Bouvet_Island]

188. 9/11

"Funny how other steel buildings with less reinforcement"
Posted by Overseas
than the 47 steel columns in the middle of the WTC burned for much longer times and on more floors and DID NOT COLLAPSE AT ALL... Guess those buildings just didn't follow those scientific facts you were given...

That argument is in my opinion moot.

I watched the Griffin Vids, it is IMO partly relevant thing to bring up if you are discussing people knowing in advance they would come down. In particular about the WTC 7, this would be an interesting statement, knowing this would fall down would indicate access to information most people don´t have.

Most fires that this are compared to doesn´t include actually cutting parts of the steel structure in advance, and obviously there was some stripping of fire repellant going on though that might or might not follow NISTs version. I know there are examples of jets hitting buildings or natural disaster etc. But that aint saying the same as that the example is transferrable. Just a simple parameter like the speed of the impact, fuel load, and more importantly the design of the structural support of the building is all factors that you should account for before having an actual argument there.

A normal steel support structure will still work even if the temperature rises, it will transport both the stress and the heat to entire structure. There are two factors to the particular long burning fires Griffin brings up that are not necessarily valid for WTC.

1. With an intact structure, all the margins designed in as well as the fire proofing are at play. There are easily 50-100% margins or more on the load/yield. If certain parts of the building are particularly hot and the steel are not able to hold its load, (depending on the structure) other parts will share the stress and most importantly the heated parts will not stop to support the building, it will just flex, twist or bend into a position where it supports as much as it is able to under the current temperature. And this is a slow process that is the direct opposite to the domino effect you can get with a sufficiently broken structure. I believe a decent steel structured skyscraper would perform far better than what the values in the

2. A long burning fire consumes what is in the building, making it lighter as the metal heats. What do you think the weight was before and after a 24 hour intense fire? It also possibly allows for uninsulated radiation from parts of the steel structure that are away from the current fire, cooling the steel quite effectively a bit like a fanless computer processor cooler. Eh ... like a very badly designed one but still you get the idea, it can be a factor to consider.

While there are many things we don´t know about the collapse and some good questions, it is not disputable that the holes in the outer structure means that stress would be unevenly distributed in the bulding, and so that the domino type of structural failure would be possible. I am not saying I know that is what happened, but kutting out a part of a structural support can easily end its ability to fluidly transport stress around. It will stop being a good wet rope that´ll stretch and snap little after little, and start being a link that will not keep more than it´s weakest link.

Not a perfect picture but what happens is that the stress is emphasized on the parts next to the hole. Obviously, rising temperatures will do a lot more and faster work on steel that are stressed more than intended.

The argument that the other one should have fallen down first is in my opinion not scientific. Structural damage is the important factor, as well as the nature of the fire that we frankly don´t know that much about. It wasn´t only jet fuel that was burning inside, I think not even mainly and so quoting the burn temperature of "kerosene only" is not a clever comment to make about that fire, absent other relevant information about it like comparable situations. Did the central heating use oil or water as a medium? how much hydraulic and other oil is in an 757? Was there difference in access to Oxygen between WTC1 and 2?

For a controlled demolition of WTC 7 to have happened, you don´t need much of a conspiracy besides the one that silverstein already told you about. It went down in the afternoon, while on fire it is not said that it would be impossible to move around in it and it could be arranged safely in the amount of time available, though less than normal it would not clearly be against the laws of physics and so to say it is impossible is not scientific.

For the fast fall, it is a bit suspicious but I think anyone making claims about braking the top of a skyskraper should also explain non tech people about how large things have a tendency to not stop very easily. What is the brake lengt of a 2 CV at 90 mph? And a 50 ton trailer? the main friction would seem to be from the the floors, now as they would obviously not act very elastic, what would be the total lengt of high-friction the mass would have to travel? the core was standing for a while after, I don´t think anyone says it was pancaked.

There are also the theory of the demolition designed into the building from the start. I have not nearly enough fact to say anymore about this than that I read it referenced from discussion on this forum. It would just need the push of a button, at great financial benefit to Silverstein and naturally a share to the firefighters 911 fund just for a suggestion. It would not be a decision you would want public, thus the coverup etc, now were is the counterevidence against that theory?

I don´t have any perfect and clever theories that are both take into account every anomaly and let the bushes off the hook. But to me it doesn´t look like Mr Griffin et al have one either, their theory might be right but not very clever about it IMO.

Using physics like that, I doubt you would be successful at making a simple still, less so with say taking down a skyscraper without hurting the buildings next to it.

Now I am playing the devils advocate to a degree here, though some of the questions here I am sincerely interested in an answer to.

Personally, about the most interesting single fact I read about 11. sept. is that WTC7 contained the Enron and Worldcom case archives. Me, I dont need much more information than this to make a call, though I take the precaution that this information is true, I would be happy to see this information properly verified.

WTC7 would also seem to me to be the logical key to unlock the whole can of worms on the Bush admninistration, in particular just claiming it was insurance frad or suspicious about the enron papers, it should be a legitimate issue since the story doesn´t need to imply the government did 9-11, while doing an great job at exactly that if it were to get serious airplay.

Obviously the public or the media isn´t lost on the isssue, while some of you think the linked article was a smear, I have to say I was very impressed with how nicely it treated these asshats, actually helping them make their argument while they did about everything I can think of to make sure no sensible quote get trough in media coverage.

See those banners. Now why on earth should I trust like my future on people that can´t bring a banner when they aim for their spot in historybooks. They spent a whole evening preparing this ?!? What sacrifice and dedication! The audience only lost their family members!

The first rule of making communication is that you have to pick something that is at all possible to communicate to the intended audience, by the people that actually will be doing it.

And you have to make what you say, stay in reasonable proportion with the course of action. Government slaughtering the population like sheep, if the logical response is to use 2 hours to paint a banner and an hour walking in the street, you ara actually saying that either you don´t understand what you are saying and the consequences or you are not really that sure inside you got it right.

I mean as an example, If Bush broke down under one of his speaches and just blurted out with having organized 9-11, condi following suit. Then people would believe this. It is just a matter of accomplishing the same effect, with what you have at hand.

I mean like 4 victims just crying more than the other and burning the flag in front of WTC 7 would be an example of a statement that could (or could not) penetrate media. I mean you can hear people scream "Kill bush" and "whatever longwinded higly partisan" slogan all the time, but uncommon combinations like grieving, determined, well dressed and calm makes for effective television and can serve as a vessel to stories that journalists really want to make but are not allowed to.

I don´t think it should be necessary to cite a recent good example of a single or a few individuals getting more impact than quite a lot of demonstrants, with a good and simple idea. Seeing the Yes men close WTO and catch people´s reactions on camera is also something one can´t do to often.

What I am saying that screaming this at people and trying to fit the whole thing into the head of the public at once isn´t a great approach.

With any such endavour it is important to be prepared, mostly in keeping to a simple message and have a plan for disarming the most common attacks, like partisanship, conspiracy theorist agenda etc.

Which for the case of the WTC7 should be simple, if Silverstein unlegally profited from 9/11 he is obviously a scumbag no matter the party color. Simple criminal accusation, rich bastard as the bad guy and getting airplay should be a way different matter. "The guy that profited the most from 9/11"

Discrediting Silverstein would open up for all kinds of interesting questions about if the buildings were as safe, getting the drawings etc. And giving the coming (?) Nist paper as well as the omission report world fame, I imagine this would be incredible unconvenient to the administration after giving it a good four year wait. My idea is basically that if you can find a way to put a 9/11 conspiracy that people could see were true without it meaning they have to take a clear stand on an issue that demand they change their deepest beliefs. Then there would be a better odds of success.

[DemonFighterLives]

189. Thanks for the analysis

At least you are putting some reasoning to work. I'll kick this up so allthat writing is not wasted. We don't know an awful lot and B*shco is not forthcoming. 4 years under their belt already and much of the evidence destroyed. Can't help but compare to the Kennedy Assassination, where they bury, bury and bury hoping that no one will have a death bed confession.
:dem:

[Bouvet_Island]

190. Correction

to my post above

quote:

"1. With an intact structure, all the margins designed in as well as the fire proofing are at play. There are easily 50-100% margins or more on the load/yield. If certain parts of the building are particularly hot and the steel are not able to hold its load, (depending on the structure) other parts will share the stress and most importantly the heated parts will not stop to support the building, it will just flex, twist or bend into a position where it supports as much as it is able to under the current temperature. And this is a slow process that is the direct opposite to the domino effect you can get with a sufficiently broken structure. I believe a decent steel structured skyscraper would perform far better than what the values in the"

This was intended as a referral to this table.



As you can see, yield is easily half with the temperatures that are often quoted, around 500 celsius. Which is a fairly uncertain estimate, give what we do and do not know about the whole proceedings.

And average temperature is not that important, the important factor is temperature at critical spots, where structural damage brings multiplication into the math.

I am not an engineer though I have some physics education. But in my opinion, from a scientific viewpoint occupational or educational background is not at all a solid basis to judge if what they say are right.

First, scientists and engineers regularly are entirely wrong, no less entirely convinced. Secondly, people without any science or engineering background have accomplished important invention and feats. And third, stating on a message board or to a journalist that "I am an engineer" or scientist isn´t proof or even a very good indication they actually are, or if they are, speaking the truth.

In the sense that people lying about this fact would with a high probability be lying about their agenda too - and we know for a fact that there are a number of "professional liars" in this game - there are I´d say at least 5% chance any given stated engineer or scientist witness are commercial or opponent players. Which is a high uncertainty for information that are intended for making important decisions.

I second the notion from the New American article cited here, that it is very important to be particular about the facts used. A standard I believe they are not reaching themselves in that very article.

If there are uncertainty or even if the fact or arguments are easily subject to refution by forged evidence, I believe if you are trying to get this issue through to the masses you should discard this and stay to what have basis in physics and as credible eyewitness accounts as possible.

Survivors or firemen, clean-up workers etc. In addition to accomplished witnesses from academia and secret services, where in my opinion wider representation is better than sharpness of the claim one can achieve. Eg. a singular witness is problematic both because of the question of agenda and since discovery channel have made famous the most extreme US universities employees that study or "study" things like clearvoiance, nonsense itself or yeti's.

If you are seeking to build a base of widely supported fact that contradicts the official story, it might be a prudent practice to do so on evidence that doesn´t imply the particular unthinkable thoughts we are all familiar with. I mean so that people in the scientific community that are skeptical could get a way to voice their concerns, without being subject to consequences for their career or reputation.

I believe if you could start processes that could both produce more proof and credible testimony, while at the same time making the other part seem suspicious, violent or antidemocratic and so on, much could be accomplished. Notice the creationist movements impact with a scientific alibi consisting of just a few people. It is in my opinion possible to employ some of the same tactics with a legitimate cause and real scientist as well. I obviously don't agree with them at all, and I suspect they don't entirely do themselves but from their perspective they are accomplishing to change the topic from science to God in every university in the states. And I believe the moderate christians have benefited from this as well at campuses, eg. the lecture "you don´t have to be a creationist to be christian" would seem to be more interesting today to a wide range of students than about any religous topic would, some time ago.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CardInAustin]

63. Unfortunate....

Yes, there are many many unanswered questions about 9/11. But, in the true spirit of Occam's Razor (as incorrectly used above), the most simple explanation is that two planes were flown into the WTC. Since the buildings were made of steel, and not concrete like some new skyscrapers, the jet fuel entered the building (if reinforced concrete had been used like in the Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur, it is possible that the impact would have kept most of the fuel outside of the building, and possibly would have avoided a catastrophic collapse....but this technology wasn't available when the WTC were built). So, the jet fuel just sat there and burned. Over time the intense heat warped the structure until it could no longer hold the weight above it. Once that gave way, it became an impact load....something that skyscraper was never designed to take (namely, the impact of the top several dozen floor dropping on to the rest of the building. After that it was a runaway freight train.

Look, I think the Bush administration sucks, and they do lots of bad things. But not EVERY bad thing is their fault Yes, there may be some underlying policies, covert ops, that helped us get to the point where AQ was a viable entity capable of such an act. But that doesn't mean that the Bush administration flew those planes into the WTC.

:tinfoilhat:

[Terry in Austin]

71. Then the crucial fact would be...

...whether jet fuel burns hot enough to soften steel sufficiently to cause the observed failure. From the numbers I've seen, this would be a stretch, at best.

[drduffy]

82. sorry but you happen to be wrong

about the law of parsimony - there are many examples in science where it simply doesn't hold up -- in addition, while the simplest explanation of a phenomenon, the one that requires the fewest leaps of logic would ordinarily be picked between two competing theories, that is only when both explain the data. The BushCo conspiracy theory does not explain the data. So, whether simple or not, it has to be discarded....

and you are wrong about the fuel, the steel issue and the collapse of the buildings.

[CardInAustin]

104. Hmmmm....

"and you are wrong about the fuel, the steel issue and the collapse of the buildings."

I am? I would be interested in hearing such an explanation.

On second thought, I think I know where you will probably go with this....and again, I just see no proof of any plausible explanation other than the obvious one....two huge jets full of fuel flying approximately 500mph (one faster, one slower) hit the towers. The combination of the impact and the jet fuel weakened the structures to the point where they eventually collapsed.

[DemonFighterLives]

151. Welcome to DU

But you appear to have swallowed the company line.
If the whole collapse was just from the domino effect, some high steel would have still been standing.

[TankLV]

83. Oh brother...

[Brightmore]

85. Here's a good article from Popular Mechanics

That debunks a lot of these myths and conspiracies.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

[rinsd]

87. Popular mechanics is controlled by RWers trying to cover up!

:eyes:

[Brightmore]

90. PM is part of the VRWC!

Which is controlled by the Jews and Free Masons! It's true!

[HughBeaumont]

88. And this debunks PM

yeah, like I'm going to take ANYthing Hearst-owned PM says as the Gospel

UnbeLIEvable that they would even buy the ridiculous NIST/9-11C explanation about WTC7 in light of all the evidence that has come out about it.

[rinsd]

102. All the evidence?

What evidence says it was a controlled demolition beyond arm chair analyzers thinking it looked like something they saw on the Discovery channel.

Yeah no plane at the Pentagon..all those people just disappeared, missile pods etc etc.

[HughBeaumont]

114. How about the owner of the building himself saying

"we decided to pull it"??? Did you NOT watch that PBS special? Probably because he KNEW that the story of a steel framed building in mostly pristine condition, save for a few trashcan fires, collapsing perfectly in it's own footprint because of "fire and debris" would never fly? Probably because of the WAY it fell (bottom first, top in the same condition all the way down) and the way everyone SAW it fell LOOKED like a controlled demo? Doesn't take a genius to figure that out . . .

[salvorhardin]

115. What PBS special?

Just asking.

[HughBeaumont]

118. America Rebuilds

Here and here.

[salvorhardin]

121. And you don't think

that a memory recalled months after the fact of what must have been a terribly stressful and harried day could be at fault? Maybe Silverstein was just misremembering what he said or perhaps using an imprecise word?

I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.

I see nothing suspicious in that statement (which I do not have the context for). 'Pull' is a common English word that happens to have another meaning in the context of demolition. I use the word 'memory' all the time, such as in the paragraph above, but I certainly don't mean that the RAM in Mr. Silverstein's computer is flaky. This seems like quite a stretch, not to mention the ridiculousness of doing a controlled demolition in the conditions of that day or the ludicrousness of imagining that hundreds of holes could have been drilled in the steel understructure of WTC7 and explosives planted without the people who work there every day noticing.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

137. The context...

...was referring to the fire control centre in or near WTC #7. The reason you never see the whackos referring to this quote in context is that it makes this obvious.

[salvorhardin]

165. Ah! Thanks for the info.

I figured it must have been something along those lines.

[Name removed]

123. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

132. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

156. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

159. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

163. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

166. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HughBeaumont]

167. Documented events are "irrational nonsense"?

The huge volume of puts on the WTC's biggest tennants a week before 9/11 is "irrational nonsense"?

NORAD and FAA performing a total belly flop on protecting restricted DC airspace and not responding to hijack warnings or checking on off-course planes on the SAME DAY is "irrational nonsense"?

The Johnny-on-the-spot FBI confiscating surrounding video footage of the Pentagon crash within minutes of it occurring and never showing it again is "irrational nonsense"?

The president ignoring the Aug 6 PDB entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the US" (and this is the most OBVIOUS of the numerous warnings they received and did nothing about) is "irrational nonsense"?

I'll tell you what's some fucking "irrational nonsense": 3 steel framed buildings collapsing uniformly solely due to oxygen-starved FIRE on the same day, leaving behind NO burning or really even visible core, frame or anything except dust and debris, when NEVER in the 100-year history of steel framed buildings has fire caused a controlled-demo-fashion collapse of said building within 90 minutes. We're talking buildings that have burned at much, MUCH hotter tempuratures (peruse this forum for more infor) for multiple HOURS and have left behind SOMEthing.

[salvorhardin]

168. Aww, and I heart you too.

The documented facts are not irrational nonsense, but the ludicrous fantasies spun around those facts based on the flimsiest of pretenses and pseudophysics certainly are.

[rinsd]

169. Hold onto those straws tightly....

What is more likely in a weakend state building where the weakened state exists towards the top of the building?

Crack and fall over like a tree?

Or start a panckaing effect when the first few floors fail?

" steel framed building in mostly pristine condition, save for a few trashcan fires,"

Yes, trash can fires kept people from escaping....that why they jumped to their deaths. Make sure that beanie is on good and tight.

"
e way everyone SAW it fell LOOKED like a controlled demo? Doesn't take a genius to figure that out . . ."

Thank you....I didn't think I'd be able to get my "based on what they saw on the discovery channel specials about building demo, arm chair analysts had it all firgured out" line in this discussion.

[HughBeaumont]

172. SIIIIIIGH, I'm talking about WTC7, NOT 1 and 2.

WTC7 looked EXACTLY like a controlled demo, there WERE nothing but a few fires (ALL pictures show this), and when steel framed buildings collapse, they break off in pieces from the exterior, leaving the burnt hulk of the core behind. Look at ANY steel building before or after the WTC that has caught fire and you will find NONE that collapsed completely due to fire.

And the built-better-than-normal WTC1 and WTC2's cores should have provided SOME resistance and the core structure SHOULD have been left behind if it was simply just FIRE that caused it's collapse. 3 steel buildings completely collapsing without leaving the core structure behind on the same day doesn't even come CLOSE to negating history. There needs to be an independent investigation done on these buildings.

Oh, and the FUCK OFF is for the "beanie" comment. Be a douche elsewhere.

[rinsd]

177. Sorry about that...

"h, and the FUCK OFF is for the "beanie" comment"

I imagine you go for the coat hangers suspended from the ceiling, it's much more comfortable especially in the summer time.

[HughBeaumont]

178. You gives none, you gets none back. n/t

[GayCanuck]

95. I think the US gov knows more

But I was in the Village that day extending my week-end stay and I saw the 2nd plane fly into the building. No way it was a controlled explosion.

[spooked911]

98. Welcome to DU!!!!

:toast:

So, what angle did you see it from? Did it look just like it did on TV?

[GayCanuck]

155. Thanks! What a great online home

We're cheering for a change in USA leadership here in Canada! I was near the corner of Bleeker and Mercer watching the whole thing unfold. I had an angle sort of slightly northwest of the tower. I'll never forget it. It took 3 hours to get to Brooklyn that day. I'm so proud Canada never got involved in Iraq. I think we are safe and we are very sensitive to Muslims here in Canada. I have a second shop in Montreal and there are lots of Muslims there. I've had many of them in my shop and they have been nothing but cordial and respectful.

[HughBeaumont]

100. That isn't the argument.

"Controlled Demolition" refers to what possibly happened 85 minutes AFTER the plane crashed. No one denies planes crashed into the buildings.

[newspeak]

101. throwing the baby out with the bathwater

I believe that there are questions that need to be answered; however, when you have an individual (let's say like David Icke), there is some information that is true, but then he throws in the alien shite and lizards. So, actually he defuses the truth with truly ridiculous over-the-top fairy tales. Well, I believe some of the 9-11 arguments may be ridiculous and may dilute the very premise of LIHOP, MIHOP, or just sheer stupidity. Focus on things you know, not hypotheticals. What are the important questions? Who did the put options? What is the connection between Atta and the Pakistani government? Who was Atta and the other alleged terrorists, I mean who were they really? Was there US military exercises being held the week of 9-11, what was the impact? Most importantly, who gains??????

[NYC]

109. So, how about a thorough investigation?

An investigation that would answer all the questions.

I guess not. As long as there are no answers, there will be questions.

[libertypirate]

112. We don't need answers we need the right questions /nt

[Frederik]

152. We need both

but yes, questions first. Too many are obsessed with the wrong questions (what really hit the Pentagon, why did the towers collapse)), while many of the right queations undoubtedly remain unasked. Who was Mohammed Atta is a very important question, which is asked by too few (hardcore CTers will just dismiss the question with "he was just a patsy"). An equally important question, which is not asked by many, is who is Atta's father, Mohammed el-Amir, who visited Atta Jr in Florida two weeks before 9/11, a fact which mysteriously didn't make it into the 9/11 Commission report.

And who were Atta's wealthy German friends, who came to visit him several times in Florida?

[Taxloss]

111. Sick, deluded idiots. n/t

[short bus driver]

113. ALL ABOARD!!

[salvorhardin]

117. I'm curious...

Does it bother all you conspiroids that most of the sources for your theories are extreme right-wing and/or anti-semitic sites?

[Taxloss]

119. It doesn't seem to.

Interesting that.

[HughBeaumont]

133. One of the best books is "The Terror Timeline"

written by Paul Thompson. Every resource he gathers (and there are over 1500 entries) is from mainstream media sources. No alexjones, no prisonplanet, no rense, none of that. All sources are from legitimate mainstream news sites telling of the events before, during and after 9/11 to state his case of LIHOP.

While mainstream media may be run by the right wing, I'm not really sure they would try to do in their own by reporting news that directly conflicts with the 9/11 Commission's version of the events. And I doubt that Thompson OR David Griffin are anti-semites; they're the ones who pose the most reasonable arguments and the ones I listen to.

Besides, the 9/11 Commission itself is a tad right-wing and corporate serving;

Thomas Kean has ties to the National Endowment for Democracy, a long-time conduit of CIA covert operations abroad. Kean also has a history of investments that link him to Saudi investors who have financially supported both George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden in the past. One example is his former business connections to Khalid bin Mahfouz, an alleged terrorist financier.

Fred F. Fielding has done legal work for two of Bush's leading "Pioneer" fund-raisers. Fielding also works for a law firm lobbying for Spirit Airlines and United Airlines.
Slade Gorton has close ties to Boeing, which built all the planes destroyed on 9/11, and his law firm represents several major airlines, including Delta Air Lines.

James Thompson is the head of a law firm that lobbies for American Airlines, and he has previously represented United Airlines.
Richard Ben-Veniste has represented Democratic National Chairman Terry McAuliffe, and continues to represent Boeing and United Airlines.

Lee Hamilton sits on many advisory boards, including those to the CIA, the president's Homeland Security Advisory Council, and the US Army.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission

I don't have to tell you about Phil Zelikow, a Poppy old boy.

[salvorhardin]

135. And...

My next door neighbor's best friend's niece's cousin's dog once sniffed the crotch of Donald Rumsfeld.

[HughBeaumont]

136. Hope he got him off.

:eyes:

[rman]

160. Us conspiracy theorists base our theories

on information that's out there in the open. That's our source - not some RW websites. The fact that the same or similar theories are prposed by certain websites is irrelevant, since (much unlike the RW) we don't do guilt by association.

It looks like most nay-sayers in this thread are in this 9-11 forum for the first time, and didn't bother to lurk or read much before posting.
We've been over every single objection you folks make, time and time again. You would know the counter arguments if only you'd take the trouble to read.

[HughBeaumont]

164. Actually, this thread used to be in LBN, but got moved.

So they aren't officially in the 9/11 forum for the first time. This is the curmudgeonly side of DU revealing itself. Man, the condescension is amazing. Telling us that we didn't carefully watch the videos of the Towers falling, that we're lunatics for even QUESTIONING our Fuhrer's hand-picked 9/11 Commission version of things!

The truth is, we've watched and vidcapped these videos more than ANYone on the regular forums. To dismiss anything with a wave of a hand as they do is the same as accepting the 911C's illogical lies as the gospel.

[anotherdrew]

120. bush did it. we know it. now what?

"I was there, so shut the fuck up. You don't know what you're talking about," snapped an enraged firefighter in fatigues, stalking off into the crowd.

He was there, so that means he knows anything? I think not, I don't even comprehend what he's supposedly upset about.

[NecessaryOnslaught]

125. Chief of Safety NYFD: Multiple explosions, secondary devices planted...

http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/SecondaryDevices.mp3

[NecessaryOnslaught]

126. Fire Engineering Magazine: $elling out the investigation.

$elling Out the Investigation
By Bill Manning

Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happyland Social Club Fire? Did they cast aside the pressure-regulating valves at the Meridian Plaza Fire? Of course not. But essentially, that's what they're doing at the World Trade Center.

For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car.

Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall.

Hoping beyond hope, I have called experts to ask if the towers were the only high-rise buildings in America of lightweight, center-core construction. No such luck. I made other calls asking if these were the only buildings in America with light-density, sprayed-on fireproofing. Again, no luck-they were two of thousands that fit the description.

Comprehensive disaster investigations mean increased safety. They mean positive change. NASA knows it. The NTSB knows it. Does FEMA know it?

No. Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything.

Maybe we should live and work in planes. That way, if disaster strikes, we will at least be sure that a thorough investigation will help find ways to increase safety for our survivors.

As things now stand and if they continue in such fashion, the investigation into the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals.

However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.

The frequency of published and unpublished reports raising questions about the steel fireproofing and other fire protection elements in the buildings, as well as their design and construction, is on the rise. The builders and owners of the World Trade Center property, the Port Authority of New York-New Jersey, a governmental agency that operates in an accountability vacuum beyond the reach of local fire and building codes, has denied charges that the buildings' fire protection or construction components were substandard but has refused to cooperate with requests for documentation supporting its contentions.

Some citizens are taking to the streets to protest the investigation sellout. Sally Regenhard, for one, wants to know why and how the building fell as it did upon her unfortunate son Christian, an FDNY probationary firefighter. And so do we.

Clearly, there are burning questions that need answers. Based on the incident's magnitude alone, a full-throttle, fully resourced, forensic investigation is imperative. More important, from a moral standpoint, for the safety of present and future generations who live and work in tall buildings-and for firefighters, always first in and last out-the lessons about the buildings' design and behavior in this extraordinary event must be learned and applied in the real world.

To treat the September 11 incident any differently would be the height of stupidity and ignorance.

The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately.

The federal government must scrap the current setup and commission a fully resourced blue ribbon panel to conduct a clean and thorough investigation of the fire and collapse, leaving no stones unturned.

Firefighters, this is your call to action. Visit WTC "Investigation"?: A Call to Action, then contact your representatives in Congress and officials in Washington and help us correct this problem immediately.
http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=OnlineArticles&SubSection=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=131225

[Qibing Zero]

131. This is exactly the first bit of evidence that needs to be presented

If you watched the democratic senators who were to be questioning John Roberts give their opening statements on the first day, you'd notice that many of them echoed the same critical sentiment: The fact that the administration witheld some of Roberts' records was doing nothing but hurting his case in the end.

That same logic must apply to the 9/11 investigation. The fact that every bit of evidence was taken away is a HUGE issue here. A situation has presented itself, with all the secrecy and everything, that pits the government versus the people, and considering the fury in which the administration seems to push 9/11 for other (nonrelated) purposes, it becomes extremely hard to believe their version of the story.

[philb]

181. Majority of firemen in position said there were explosions and

police at site also reported explosions.
http://www.flcv.com/firemen.html

But there seems to be a lot of confusion and unanswered questions. if the Gov't would start providing answers and release the evidence and information such as the videos at Pentagon and black boxes, part numbers, pictures of debris, and other evidence suppressed at WTC these could be cleared up
http://www.flcv.com/coverup.html

[NecessaryOnslaught]

127. "It was as if they had detonators..."

http://xenonpuppy.net/collapse%20update/discussion%20in%20firehouse.mpg

[mirandapriestly]

129. Sad That the Voice Would Write Such A Propaganda Piece

They must have been "influenced" by someone. And saying she looks like Joey ramone, to at the same time insult and discount her, and appear to be hip.

[pox americana]

130. Yes it is.

The links seem to be broken too. Looks like somebody doesn't want to hear it.

[salvorhardin]

134. That's right!

Because we know that nontechnically trained writers for liberal publications like the Village Voice never make mistakes that overwrite their immediately prior story!

Besides, those damn Jewish reptoids have probably taken over the Village Voice. David Icke save us! :sarcasm:

[DemonFighterLives]

139. I'm not sure where the protest was held,

but when will the time be right? It has been 4 long years and it is about time some sort of truth comes out. I'm sure the person or persons protesting did not mean to disrespect the dead.
I have only read part way through this thread so far, so please take my remarks with that in mind.
I'll finish reading now.
I really want the truth so bad and the bushies out so bad that some sacrifices may need to be made.
:hide:

[Bridget Burke]

154. The link to the story doesn't work.

And searching at the VV site doesn't help.

"Conspiracy Theory" was originally the alternative to the "Lone Gunman Theory." On 9/11, there definitely was a conspiracy--people conspired. I find it odd that so many articles focus on the more unlikely theories, in order to discredit any questioning of the Official Government Conspiracy Theory.

[DemonFighterLives]

183. That was weird. The headline is there, but it doesn't go to the story

Maybe it's time for another layer of tinfoil.

[MrSammo1]

170. The Village Voice

removed the online story already.

No surprise here!

[salvorhardin]

186. If it's of any interest

I wrote the Village Voice asking about the story. They responded that:

there was some confusion about this story being entered multiple times, the link ... should be working now.

The original link to this article does indeed function again.
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0537,fergusonweb2,67726,2.html

[DemonFighterLives]

187. Thanks for writing them and for the heads up on the link

I finally got a chance to read it.
:thumbsup:

[MrSammo1]

192. Hmmmmm?

http://www.sabcnews.co.za/world/north_america/0,2172,112194,00.html

[DemonFighterLives]

182. Here we are again in the basement -9/11 forum

:headbang:
I got absolutely no replies by anyone on this thread. I guess the Official 9/11 believers aren't strong in their convictions.

Too many loose ends in the official story for it to be true.
:tinfoilhat:

[MrSammo1]

193. Who in their right mind

would believe the official government story anyway?