Kucinich to Investigate Discrepancies in 9/11 Report

[petgoat]

"{A}s chairman of a House subcommittee on domestic policy, he plans to launch
an investigation of 'a narrow portion' of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
He offered few details, but said his subcommittee would be looking at 'a few,
specific discrepancies in the public record.' The 9/11 Commission that published
its final report in 2004 never resolved some conflicting facts, Kucinich said."

Dennis knows where the bodies are buried. Stay away from small aircraft, please!

http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=575248&category=REGIONOTHER&BCCode=LOCAL&newsdate=3/26/2007

edited to shorten title

[bdamomma]

1. You got to love Dennis, he is doing the peoples' work!!

[Ezlivin]

2. "Dennis knows where the bodies are buried."

Unfortunately, so do all of us: The roads were paved with them.

The evidence at the WTC sites were cleaned up much too rapidly to allow for a proper criminal investigation. The fact that human remains are still being found more than 5 years later is proof that proper procedures were not followed.

I hope that Kucinich also can get the gag order lifted on the NYFD. Firemen are dropping like flies and they have damning things to say and reveal.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

14. OMG!

now it's really war!

[demnan]

3. He has a button

that I gave him Friday that says "IMPEACH HIM". Let's watch to see when he puts this button on.

[CrazyOrangeCat]

4. Definitely stay away from small aircraft!

The NORAD "response" that morning was a joke.

I don't know what happened that day, but the greatest airforce in the world behaved like a third-rate Central American operation.

That right there stinks to high heaven. And, god bless him, I hope he can find an answer or two . . . without getting himself killed.

[smoogatz]

5. One small matter entirely omitted from the Commission report--

the in-its-footprint collapse of WTC 7, the 47-story skyscraper that WASN'T hit by a jumbo jet, but still collapsed straight down exactly as though it had been imploded. You know, the one nobody in government or the media ever talks about.

Lots more info here: www.wtc7.net

[sasha031]

6. we are the media

[FtWayneBlue]

you mean the one the BBC reported had collapsed already,

when it was still standing in the reporter's background?
I wonder who told them it had collapsed, and what happened to that person?

[rinsd]

26. Yes because the new media never just got it wrong.

Did you see those morons claiming the pope had been selected before it happened?

[MonkeyFunk]

8. it wasn't

"in its own footprint", but it was close. That's the way buildings collapse, regardless of the cause.

Did you expect it to fall over like a tree?

[smoogatz]

9. "That's the way buildings collapse, regardless of the cause..."

Building 7's Rubble Pile

Less than seven seconds after Building 7 began to implode, all that was left of the steel skyscraper was a rubble pile. The rubble pile is notable for several features:

* its location - It was centered around the vertical axis of the former building.
* its size - The pile from the 47-story building was less than two stories high.
* its tidiness - The pile was almost entirely within the footprint of the former building

What does the shape of the rubble pile indicate about the events leading to the collapse of building 7?

Consider the rubble piles produced by other collapses. The only examples of total collapses of steel frame highrises (excepting WTC 1, 2, and 7) involved either severe earthquakes or controlled demolition.
Total collapses due to earthquakes are extremely rare. The rubble piles of the few documented cases had none of the above features. 1
Total collapses due to controlled demolition generally have all of the above features. In fact, to achieve such a small, consolidated rubble pile is one of the main objectives of a controlled demolition.

http://www.wtc7.net/rubblepile.html

[cascadiance]

19. Someone probably wanted to make sure that the secret documents stored there...

were really buried and destroyed and not floating in the wind if it hadn't been destroyed like that. Supposedly Building 7 did have a lot of secret SEC documents of numerous Wall Street investigations, many of which I'm sure that they wanted to make sure were buried well and lost permanently!

[smoogatz]

29. There's all kinds of rumor and speculation about what the motivation was

for "pulling" WTC 7. I have no idea. But if you watch the three videos at wtc7.net, it sure looks like a textbook controlled demolition--and at this point I've seen videos of dozens of them.

[bagrman]

66. Similar to the Maurel building in OK. It stored all of teh Mena Ark. investigation records.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[smoogatz]

28. You're preaching to the choir.

Respond to Mr. Skeptic guy--I'm convinced that WTC 1, 2 & 7 were wired for demolition.

[TrogL]

47. Correlation is not causation

Say it over and over until you understand it.

[smoogatz]

50. Not saying it was, Mr. Snarkypants.

I'm saying that even the FEMA report on the WTC 7 collapse draws only very weak conclusions about what brought the building down; that such a collapse was completely unprecedented prior to 9/11, and that the extraordinary conditions that may have contributed to the collapse of WTC 1&2 weren't present in WTC 7.

[eridani]

79. I agree that WTC 7 is really suspicious, however--

--I just can't get around the fact that in the real world, people who do controlled demolition work have to put in A LOT of time doing preliminary investigations, including test blasts. You can never assume that the official building design records reflect the way the building was put together 100%. Demolitions people are always finding extra rebar where it wasn't supposed to be, and missing rebar from places where it should have been. When they demolished the Kingdome in Seattle, there were a lot of public bulletins put out to warn people not to panic about the test blasts. It took several weeks to set everything up, and I can't imagine how they could have done all of it completely secretly.

[mod mom]

10. Actually, I would expect that if a building was mainly damaged on one side,

that the damaged side would be weakened and would collapse toward that one damaged side, not straight down on itself.

[smoogatz]

11. You'd think.

You know, a lateral collapse. You'd actually have to work pretty hard to keep a 47-story (or a 110-story) skyscraper from collapsing laterally, if the damamge to the structure was significant and asymmetrical. Demolitions people have to place the charges very carefully in order for that to work, and the demolition itself has to be perfectly timed--or the building falls over sideways. Like a tree.

[MonkeyFunk]

16. Lateral collapse...

like a tree falling down?

Buildings are made up of pieces, that come apart. When those parts come undone, they fall straight down.

Ever play Jenga? Does the whole tower tip over in one piece?

[smoogatz]

17. Seems to me--and I'm no physicist or civil engineer--

that if you, say, blew a hole in the side of a 110-story skyscraper and did major damage to its structural support, but that the rest of the building remained relatively undamaged and therefore rigid, it would fall laterally--like a tree being cut by a chainsaw. Unless some internal force was causing it to "fall apart," or to collapse straight down on top of itself. Why would gravity act one way on a tree, and another way entirely on a building?

On edit: in Jenga, does the whole tower always collapse in its own footprint? Or does it often fall laterally, depending on the position of the piece you remove?

[MonkeyFunk]

18. But WTC7

wasn't a single, solid structure, like a tree.

It didn't fall because of damage to one side of the base, like felling a tree. It collapsed because internal columns that carried exceptionally heavy loads were damaged, transferring even more load to other columns, that eventually collapsed possibly due to weakening from the 7-hour fire that burned.

[smoogatz]

20. WTC7 was a rigid, steel-framed skyscaper

built specifically to withstand fire, and designed so that whole sections of floor could be removed without compromising the support structure. It is only the third steel-framed skyscraper to be alleged to have been destroyed by fire (WTC1 & 2 are the other two, of course). There have been lots of intense fires that have burned longer and done more damage to steel-framed buildings than the WTC-7 fires, but none of those buildings collapsed--or even came close to collapsing.

http://www.wtc7.net/buildingfires.html

[bagrman]

23. The fires were to small to do any real damage.

[MonkeyFunk]

24. Sez who?

[CrazyOrangeCat]

30. Jet fuel is just extra-clean kerosene.

Nothing special about it. And it can't burn hot enough to melt steel. Distort it, yes. But the idea that these steel-structured buildings were exposed to an inferno that caused large steel members to melt--and thus cause the whole frame to collapse, is preposterous.

Mechanical engineer weighing in, here. For whatever that's worth.

[MonkeyFunk]

33. The fires in WT7

weren't jet-fuel.

[CrazyOrangeCat]

36. That is correct.

No one knows what exactly was burning. I've heard that it might have been diesel. Which makes even less sense, re: complete collapse.

But the twin towers were engulfed with jet fuel for a few minutes. And the fires were burning out . . . when the towers collapsed. That doesn't make sense. Some people act like jet fuel is some really high tech shit. It's only kerosene, and it can't bring down a tower.

[smoogatz]

32. Sez 100 years or so of the history of steel-framed buildings.

One of the cool things about steel is that it takes a lot more heat than you could generate with an ordinary building fire to melt it. Since WTC 7 suffered no impact damage and no blast damage, and no significant amount of jet fuel was present to act as an accelerant, it's pretty hard to explain why a simple building fire would cause it to fall straight down at roughly the speed of gravity. You really ought to go look at the website I've been pimping--it's quite interesting.

For me, the collapse of WTC 7 is the great, unanswered mystery of 9/11. All the other discrepancies, contradicitons and crazy coincidences seem trivial in comparison. I can only come up with two possible explanations for WTC 7: either it was built out of Twizzlers instead of steel, or it was wired for demolition ahead of time.

www.wtc7.net

[MonkeyFunk]

34. The fires didn't need to melt the steel

they just needed to weaken it.

[smoogatz]

35. Maybe you know something about the physics of steel that I don't.

How much heat does it take to "weaken" a sky-scraper's steel frame to the point of collapse? Why haven't any of the several other steel-framed buildings that have burned intensely for hours been "weakened" to the point of collapse?

[MonkeyFunk]

38. at

about 1200 degrees, fahrenheit, steel loses half its strength. FEMA estimates the WTC fires reached about 2000 degrees at their highest.

A 300 degree differential can cause steel to bend.

[smoogatz]

46. Those would be the jet-fuel accelerated fires in WTC 1&2, I assume.

There are no reports of large, exceedingly hot fires burning in WTC 7. The biggest fire appeared to be contained in a two-floor section of the building (between floors 5 and 7), and isolated for some reason unexplained in the FEMA report to the building's south side. The FEMA report is extraordinarily inconclusive in its findings. From the FEMA report:

"5.7 Observations and Findings

"This office building was built over an electrical substation and a power plant, comparable in size to that operated by a small commercial utility. It also stored a significant amount of diesel oil and had a structural system with numerous horizontal transfers for gravity and lateral loads.

"The loss of the east penthouse on the videotape suggests that the collapse event was initiated by the loss of structural integrity in one of the transfer systems. Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.

"The collapse of WTC 7 was different from that of WTC 1 and WTC 2. The towers showered debris in a wide radius as their external frames essentially "peeled" outward and fell from the top to the bottom. In contrast, the collapse of WTC 7 had a relatively small debris field because the facade came straight down, suggesting an internal collapse. Review of video footage indicates that the collapse began at the lower floors on the east side. Studies of WTC 7 indicate that the collapse began in the lower stories, either through failure of major load transfer members located above an electrical substation structure or in columns in the stories above the transfer structure. Loss of strength due to the transfer trusses could explain why the building imploded, with collapse initiating at an interior location. The collapse may have then spread to the west, causing interior members to continue collapsing. The building at this point may have had extensive interior structural failures that then led to the collapse of the overall building, including the cantilever transfer girders along the north elevation, the strong diaphragms at the 5th and 7th floors, and the seat connections between the interior beams and columns at the building perimeter."

So, the building "imploded" (FEMA's word), and FEMA admits that its best scenario has a low probability of being the explanation. Meanwhile, all the evidence was shipped to China. None of that raises any skepticism flags for you?

[And the Oscar goes]

83. FEMA was both right and wrong

The fires may have gotten up to 2,000, yes, but jet fuel in an uncontrolled burn won't get higher than 1,100. Only industrial or military explosives, such as the ones which were alleged to have been installed the weekend before 911 (when all the building's security and power were shut down in an unprecedented event and new "cabling" installed by Bushco (Marvin Bush), which apparently created a lot of concrete dust for some reason, too), can get above 2,000. The sulfur residue on the remains of the WTC buildings suggest thermate.

[PinkyisBlue]

89. Is this the same FEMA that worked so efficiently during hurricane Katrina?

You're basing your opinions on the statements by FEMA?

[CrazyOrangeCat]

37. That is false.

[MonkeyFunk]

39. What is false?

that steel has to melt before the structural integrity of the steel is compromised?

You are wrong.

[CrazyOrangeCat]

40. It is possible that the fires could have caused . . .

. . . some of the top floors to collapse. The fire was briefly very, very hot. There could've been enough distortion of the beams. (Having seen cross-section drawings of the massive, massive central core, I seriously doubt it.) We'll never know, of course, because the debris was quickly removed from the site.

But the pancaking of the remaining 80+ floors, that is given for the rest of the collapse, is absurd to me.

[MonkeyFunk]

41. So when a several thousand tons of weight

fall onto a lower floor, the lower floor is expected to sustain the load?

Try this:

Balance a brick on your head. No problem, right?

Throw the brick 15 feet up in the air, and let it land on your head. Do you get the same results?

[CrazyOrangeCat]

43. If they hadn't removed the evidence . . .

. . . from the scene of the biggest crime in the history of this country, maybe we could piece it together.

I don't trust the 9/11 Commission Report, MonkeyFunk. I don't trust the various "independent" testing entities. I don't trust Popular Mechanics. I don't trust hardly anyone.

Or bricks, for that matter.

Lunchtime!:hi:

[MonkeyFunk]

44. regardless of whom you trust or not...

do you understand the point I was making with the brick analogy?

[CrazyOrangeCat]

51. yes, I do.

I happen to think the central cores of the twin towers were strong enough to resist total collapse. That's just a hunch, I'll admit. But theories are all we who are interested in the truth coming out, have got. Because, for some reason, the evidence at the scene of the crime was removed.

The Bush Administration initially resisted any 9/11 investigation. Why is that?

I think that stinks to high heaven.

But it is not really that surprising, coming from the cabal that gave tacit approval to torture of enemy combatants . . . and a host of other fascist-inspired actions against American citizens.

[The_Warmth]

72. I fall over, not collapse on myself.

.

[MonkeyFunk]

78. Then I would suggest

a) you drink less and
b) you try to compose yourself of interconnected parts, just to see what happens.

The CT'ers are quite fond of asking us questions like "when has any other steel-framed building collapsed due to fire?"

So let me ask you - when has any other steel-frame building tipped over like a tree?

[rman]

87. Doesn't explain how "thousands of tons" ended up falling due to fire.

Once it does fall, sure it will cause a lot of damage - but that's not what the debate is about.

I think that makes your argument qualify as a straw man, meaning your argument is in fact a non-argument.

[bagrman]

67. There is plenty of videos that show WTC 7 falling down, there are a few that show

two small fires, amounting to 4-5 window worth of rooms on fire, no raging infurno, and not enough to do any damage that amounted to a collapse.

[TrogL]

48. What else would you expect it to do?

>cause it to fall straight down at roughly the speed of gravity

Things fall sideways?

Things fall at a different speed than 32 ft/sec/sec?

[CrazyOrangeCat]

52. Why did WTC7 collapse?

Any kind of reasonable explanation?

I sure never have found anything that doesn't smell like b.s.

[smoogatz]

53. Yep. Depending on the type of damage, they sure do.

As Jones explains:

"A near-symmetrical collapse, as observed, evidently requires the simultaneous “pulling”
of many of the support columns (see below, particularly discussion of Bazant & Zhou paper).
The likelihood of complete and nearly-symmetrical collapse due to random fires as in the
“official” theory is small, since non-symmetrical failure is so much more likely. If one or a few
columns had failed, one might expect a portion of the building to crumble while leaving much of
the building standing. For example, major portions of WTC 5 remained standing on 9/11 despite
very significant impact damage and severe fires."

He also shows pictures of some buildings that fell over sideways, kind of like trees.

As to the speed with which WTC 7 fell:

Journal of 9/11 Studies 27 September 2006/Volume 3
The rapid fall of the Towers and WTC7 has been analyzed by several engineers/scientists
( http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/proofs/speed.html; Griffin, 2004, chapter 2). The roof
of WTC 7 (students and I are observing the southwest corner as it commences its steady fall)
falls to earth in (6.5 +- 0.2) seconds, while an object dropped from the roof (in a vacuum) would
hit the ground in 6.0 seconds. This follows from t = (2H/g)1/2. Likewise, the Towers fall very
rapidly to the ground, with the upper part falling nearly as rapidly as ejected debris which
provide free-fall references (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/proofs/speed.html; Griffin,
2004, chapter 2). Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum –
one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors –
and intact steel support columns – the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass.
If the central support columns remained standing, then the effective resistive mass would be less,
but this is not the case – somehow the enormous support columns failed/disintegrated along with
the falling floor pans. Peer-reviewed papers which further analyze the WTC skyscraper
collapses, by Dr. Frank Legge, Professor Kenneth Kuttler, Gordon Ross and Kevin Ryan, are
recommended and available here: http://www.journalof911studies.com/ .

How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum and energy in
the collapsing buildings? The contradiction is ignored by FEMA, NIST and 9-11 Commission
reports where conservation of energy and momentum and the fall-times were not analyzed.
Gordon Ross argues that when conservation of energy and momentum are factored in, then a
gravity-driven collapse will be arrested, so that only a partial collapse of the Tower would occur
(see http://www.journalof911studies.com/, Gordon Ross). The paradox is easily resolved by the
explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly remove lower-floor material
including steel support columns and allow near free-fall-speed collapses (Harris, 2000).

http://www.wtc7.net/articles/WhyIndeed09.pdf

[truedelphi]

63. WTC 7 was pulled. there doesn't even need to be any discussion of that

The owner of the building had it pulled.

The media knows that - they don't mention the fact too much because the fall of WTC 7 is a perfect mimic of the fall of the Two Towers.

The media also never questioned why- why- why! there would be demolitions in place in the structure such that it could be pulled on that day. (I mean let's face it - with NYC on fire, wht demolition company in its right mind would send a truck with demolitions into NYC and then to have their people go into a building already burning - nah ain't gonna happen.)

So how come the media never even speculates over this most strange of demolitions ever!

[truedelphi]

56. I've been waiting for someone to use Jenga to put the issue to rest

JENGA! JENGA! JENGA!

What convinced me that something had to be wrong about the 9/11 deal was the testimony of the witnesses called before the Commission. The Generals and others said some of the fishiest statements a person could contrive, and no one on the Commission batted an eye. I was able to watch and tape part of the hearings on C-Span, and whenever I want a good laugh I just re-play that tape.

"We couldn't send the Air Force fighters from Andrews (edit: eleven miles from the White House and Pentagon) because we didn't have the phone number."

Commission response, while never batting an eye: "Oh that's exactly right - only the Secret Service can call out the fighters at Andrews."

So the fighters were sent out from Langley -some 130 miles away and according tot estimony at the Commission they HAD to fly out over the Ocean first - because they were programmed in the days of the cold war to head to Russia if anything went wrong.

Jeesh!

Luckily they didn't have these protocols about the cold war in place the day that golfer Payne Stewart's plane went out of control -we had fighters on his butt within eleven minutes!

[DrewL]

69. No we weren't

many people repeat this but it is not true, it is claimed becuase they forget the time change moved everything back an hour, it actually took 1 hr and 16 minutes to intercept the plane.


"At 0933:38 EDT (6 minutes and 20 seconds after N47BA acknowledged the previous clearance), the controller instructed N47BA to change radio frequencies and contact another Jacksonville ARTCC controller. The controller received no response from N47BA. The controller called the flight five more times over the next 4 1/2 minutes but received no response.

About 0952 CDT,7 a USAF F-16 test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Florida, was vectored to within 8 nm of N47BA. About 0954 CDT, at a range of 2,000 feet from the accident airplane and an altitude of about 46,400 feet, the test pilot made two radio calls to N47BA but did not receive a response".
www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/AAB0001.htm

Looks good at first, but read it carefully and you'll notice a change of time zone, from Eastern to Central time. CDT is one hour on from EDT, so contact was regarded as lost at around 09:38, and the fighter didn't get to within 2000 feet of Stewart’s jet until 10:54. That's roughly 76 minutes from the controllers realising there’s a problem, to intercept taking place.

[truedelphi]

75. Whoah! I appreciate being enlightened. Thanks! n/t

[tridim]

59. Actually Jenga does tip over if you remove a side piece on the lower 1/3rd.

It stays in one unit as it falls over (not down) and starts breaking apart as gravity weakens the friction on the top pieces.

[Old and In the Way]

13. Good observation.

That collapse was just too perfect.

[KansDem]

25. On February 7 (last month) I attended a forum called "9/11 Truth: Awakening Our World"

It was moderated by Dr. Ed Kendrick...

Outside, protesters shout and shake signs that read "9/11 was an inside job." They hand out copies of the low-budget films to commuters stuck at traffic lights.

"Steel buildings don't just fall down," shouts Ed Kendrick, a heavyset dentist with a practice on Independence Avenue. Kendrick believes that the buildings actually collapsed because of what he calls a "controlled demolition" from bombs already set inside the towers.

Inside, the lobby resembles a traveling carnival. Tables are littered with pamphlets and petitions that go as far as advocating presidential impeachment. A giant American flag dominates the faux-Mediterranean interior. The mingling conspiracy theorists, some dressed in tie-dyed clothing, refer to one another in religious terms — "brothers" or "believers" who spread "the word." In a corner of the room, a man talks about the 40 astrological signs that keep us from understanding our inner impulses. A cell-phone ring tone emits The X-Files' theme song.

http://civillibertarian.blogspot.com/2006_11_01_archive.html

...who supplied us with free DVDs that contained a compilation of YouTube videos of Building 7 coming down. In the audience were a middle-aged man who described himself as a construction contractor and an older man who said he had 30 years of demolation experience (military? civilan? he didn't say). Both attendees said the building's collaspe looked like a controlled implosion.

They both sounded sure of themselves with regard to their assessment. The videos were played over and over, and in slow motion, with both men pointing out certain characteristics of a controlled demolition that they saw in these videos.

[CrazyOrangeCat]

31. Kendrick is my dentist.

Definitely working hard to expose the lies. I wish I had some of his energy . . .

[KansDem]

90. Really?!

I have need of a regular dentist, perhaps I'll look him up and see if he's taking any new patients.

Trips to Dr. Kendrick could be more interesting! Imagine what conversations one could have with a progressive dentist:

Old Dr. with hands in my mouth: "So, how 'bout them Royals?"
Me: mm...mmm...mm...mmm...mm...

Dr. K with hands in my mouth: "So, how 'bout that Building 7?"
Me: MM...MMM...MM...MMM...MM...!!!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

15. that's what I thought

[Vincardog]

57. Oh MonkeyFunk I thought your were serious. You should really not forget

to use the :sarcasm: thing when you make jokes like that.

[TrogL]

45. Don't start that again

What part of "gravity works" don't you understand?

[smoogatz]

49. So, what fatally damaged the steel core of WTC 7?

Not hit by a plane. No jet-feul explosions. Only a few relatively small, relatively cool fires and limited debris damage. Why would it "implode," as the FEMA report states?

[truedelphi]

54. Oh Boy! I knw about WTC 7 - but thought it would have HAD to have been covered

Somewhere in the report...

Guess I was smokin' crack thinking that!

[donsu]

7. thank you Dennis - have someone watch your back

he is always on the job

[Rosa Luxemburg]

12. Thank you Dennis

I need to know who really did these attacks.

[zulchzulu]

21. Not a fan on his recent vote, but this is promising if doable

Someone has to get the ball rolling on the 9/11 Report.

[file83]

27. There are dozens of aspects of the 9/11 report to be investigated...

...but maybe Kucinich just wants to start by tugging on a single thread and see what unravels from there.

[Czolgosz]

42. GO DENNIS GO!

[babsbunny]

55. YAY!

:bounce:

[HamdenRice]

58. Go Dennis! K&R nt

[AnOhioan]

60. K&R Here is hoping the facts see the light of day

[soulcore]

61. Kucinich is searching for truth and will get my vote.

And it's about damn time someone in a position of authority began formal proceedings on this. Every bit helps, once it starts to unravel, it's all over.

Say it with me, Nine-Eleven was an inside job.

[The Sushi Bandit]

62. K&R

[dailykoff]

64. Hope it doesn't stay narrow

but anything's better than nothing! K&R!

[wildbilln864]

65. kick!

.

[Lena inRI]

68. My SINCERE THANKS, REP KUCINICH. . .

I've been waiting and hoping and searching and wondering WHO would grab the DEVIL by the tail. . .how could I overlook you, Dennis, a statesman from the ole school. . .classical arete. . .someone who is a warrior for us commoners.

I'll be watching and supporting your sub-committee's fight for the most crucial truth about 9/11 murders.

:kick: :loveya: :kick: :loveya: :kick:

[salib]

70. You mean someone who is running for President

Is NOT afraid to bring up the important issues?

[John Q. Citizen]

80. AMazing what some folks are talking about. And what some folks aren't talking about.

[Divine Discontent]

71. awesome!!!!!

I love hearing this! Dennis, you rock!
www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <<--- top 08 stickers & stuff

[cosmicdot]

73. knr

:yourock: :patriot:

:kick:

[Wednesdays]

74. I say, "Follow the money!"

We can debate WTC-7 and Jenga and the effect of jet fuel on steel until doomesday, but no one can argue against investigating just who was behind it all...who put up the money for it and everything. That is the one question the 911 Commission refused to ask!

[pauldp]

76. Yup. The 911 commission said it was of no practical importance.

They never mentioned the ISI connection.
911 funds came from the Pakistan...

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?msid=107432

[And the Oscar goes]

85. And what about the anonymous put options on the shares?

And the fact that Silverstain was friends with Netanyahu and Sharon? And the fact that Silverstein made billions out of the insurance - and employed a Bushco security company on the WTC buildings?

[coznfx]

77. Good on ya, Mr. Kucinich. K & R

You'll be doing the one small thing the original 9/11 Commission neglected to do - investigate.

Watch your back.

[godless]

81. Oh yeah. That's a fence that needs a fresh coat of white wash.

[Faux pas]

82. Go Dennis! He may not be pleasing to the 'mainstream' Dems,

but to me, he's a HERO.

[And the Oscar goes]

84. Such as why some of the WTC central columns

had been diagonally cut in a straight line by thermite charges. I'd say that's a discrepancy in the public record.

[petgoat]

86. Thanks to everyone that commented. Thanks to the mods,

for keeping this in the open. And thanks to Dennis for his
courage and respect for truth.

While I'm personally inclined to consider and defend even the
wildest theories as theories, I recognize that ultimately we
don't know and can't know. With all the suppression and
destruction of evidence, maybe we'll never know.

I'll settle for the widows' questions answered. Why is that
too much to ask?

[lonestarnot]

88. Yessssssss Dennis!

:applause:

[Norrin Radd]

91. kick