Sugar silo on fire proof 911 was an inside job

[Helios]

Taking ignorance one step beyond.

All I'm asking for is actual evidence 'you stupid fucker'. You didn't answer a single quesiton instead choosing to go on your "you're brainwashed".

Why is it so hard to believe that a bunch of islamists hijacked the plane considering they hate us, and bin laden claimed responsibility?

The video has long been classified as "fake" evidence. Try to keep up.

Why is so hard to beleive when there is video evidence everywhere and eyewitnesses that saw the planes hit those buildings?

Umm... who is denying that 9/11 happened? People are merely denying HOW it was EXPLAINED.

You keep telling everyone to be objective. Maybe it's time you do the same. Start thinking about how well this woudl have had to have been planned to accomplish this goal. Start thinking whether or not your dislike for Bush and his administration has anything to do with your opinion.

Hmm... I'll have to go with "not."

Start thinking about the leap that a Presdient decided he had to murder 3000 people to accomplish what, exactley?

For "reasons we entered the Iraq War" >
http://usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=52323

Start thinking about you are blaming this on an administratio n that in every other facet you claim is dumber than a box of rocks.

I have to admit Bush would lose against a box of rocks, but maybe he could take on one or two of them.

Start thinking about how well this would have had to be orchestrated for this to be an inside job.

Done. What next?

Again you tell us to think objectively. Time for you quacks to start to walking the walk. Perhaps a long one off a short pier.

Brilliant finish! Umm although no one is debating planes hitting buildings, most people are just concerned with how the investigation was handled. I mean there are some things that just didn't match up. The building falls completely symmetrically and evenly down. That's not how it's supposed to look... except in controlled demolitions.

 

[Lookout]

So it is your claim that you aren't able to live your life the way you want to? that or our government (the one at the same time you claim is so stupid) is so brilliant they have duped you into thinking you're doing what you want. Forget the tinfoil hats. Start checking the back of your head for plugs.

So dude, can you please answer the question? did you see loose change or terrorstorm or endgame or police state 2000? How far have you researched it. Have you given Alex Jones a fair shake?

 

[Lookout]

In all fairness, whats your evidence for it happening exactly as the govt. says it did other than..."Its what the govt said and I believer it!"
The objective in looking at any arguement is to view all info available and look at the coin from all 3 sides and make a determination based on all the evidence, is it not? I did not believe it until recently and it was at first hard to swallow for me, but after digging and digging into the overwhelming evidence, I, with a deep breath and sorrow in my heart am convinced that the worst is probably true. Not just 911, but the rest as well. Do you really think I like to think I live in a country that is so utterly twisted or where our govt is so currupt? I do not want to believe this stuff, but I now after countless weeks of research have no choice. So it is begrudgingly and with heavy heart that I conceid and draw my conclusions with all the evidence.

 

[nibor]

In all fairness, whats your evidence for it happening exactly as the govt. says it did other than..."Its what the govt said and I believer it!"
The objective in looking at any arguement is to view all info available and look at the coin from all 3 sides and make a determination based on all the evidence, is it not? I did not believe it until recently and it was at first hard to swallow for me, but after digging and digging into the overwhelming evidence, I, with a deep breath and sorrow in my heart am convinced that the worst is probably true. Not just 911, but the rest as well. Do you really think I like to think I live in a country that is so utterly twisted or where our govt is so currupt? I do not want to believe this stuff, but I now after countless weeks of research have no choice. So it is begrudgingly and with heavy heart that I conceid and draw my conclusions with all the evidence.

What if Iraq is not even the MAINSTAGE and is merely an extreme diversion tactic.................................to a much bigger play..................we're watching it but NOT realizing........................>

 

[Toro]

Brilliant finish! Umm although no one is debating planes hitting buildings, most people are just concerned with how the investigation was handled. I mean there are some things that just didn't match up. The building falls completely symmetrically and evenly down. That's not how it's supposed to look... except in controlled demolitions.

Sure it is. Experts explain it. You choose to ignore it.

 

[Toro]

In all fairness, whats your evidence for it happening exactly as the govt. says it did other than..."Its what the govt said and I believer it!"

Turn the argument on its head. Why do you take the side of

"Its what the government said and I never believe it!"

 

[Toro]

Dude. It's the internet. I could be Elvis Presley if I said so. Sure, I see a 5th grade level site, but I certainly didn't see his diplomas anywhere.

Its also a web site hosted by the University of Denver

Associate Professor Emeritus of Engineering, University of Denver
Registered Professional Engineer, State of Colorado No.12317

If you think the guy is lying, then send an email to the University of Denver telling them that some guy is pretending to be a professor emeritus. I'm sure they'd be more than happy to remove a fraudulent site. Or call them. This is their phone number - 303-871-2102. And contact the state of Colorado and tell them a guy who claims to be an engineer is not one. Email them. It won't take you more than 30 seconds. Otherwise, we'll assume he is whom he says he is.

Besides, you haven't refuted the article. Refute the article, or link something that does.

 

[Bern80]

Umm... when did I say any of that ^? Did you just *poof* and pull all that out your ass? Impressive, I had no idea you could keep so much in there. I never even said ANY of that. And you're bitching to the wrong person about the sugar silo, I personally think that's a weak comparison.

But I do believe a reexamination of the evidence and a completely new investigation is in order, given the fallibility and capricious nature of previous "investigations." I'm not even saying the government had anything to do with 9/11, although I wouldn't put it past our beloved leaders. It's American tradition to create a staged incident to get the country on the "war bandwagon."

And WHAT does the PA have to do with ANY of this? You got your shit so confused I don't even know where to begin. I thought we were talking about 9/11 here.

Some conspiracy theorists have said the inside job that was 9/11 was needed as an excuse to get the PA passed.

P.S. the only conspiracy theory that I watched (so far) was loose change which was far from convincing, but is probably the most heavily cited. Been a while since I watched but i believe that was the one Popular Mechanics did most of it's debunking story on. Now if we're being all objective and such you should be able to follow the argument chain. Government and media tells us this is what happened -----> Loose change says nope, it didnt' happen that way -----------> Popular Mechanics (as well as other independant agencies) explain why conspiracy theories are scientifically incorrect -------> ? You should be able to figure out what the next step is. If you want to prove your case the next thing we should be doing is gathering evidence as to why the material that debunks the conspiracy theorists must be wrong. Preferably scientific explanations, not I think they were bought by the government BS, which I have heard several times before (not by you).

 

[eots]

Some conspiracy theorists have said the inside job that was 9/11 was needed as an excuse to get the PA passed.

P.S. the only conspiracy theory that I watched (so far) was loose change which was far from convincing, but is probably the most heavily cited. Been a while since I watched but i believe that was the one Popular Mechanics did most of it's debunking story on. Now if we're being all objective and such you should be able to follow the argument chain. Government and media tells us this is what happened -----> Loose change says nope, it didnt' happen that way -----------> Popular Mechanics (as well as other independant agencies) explain why conspiracy theories are scientifically incorrect -------> ? You should be able to figure out what the next step is. If you want to prove your case the next thing we should be doing is
gathering evidence as to why the material that debunks the conspiracy theorists must be wrong. Preferably scientific explanations, not I think they were bought by the government BS, which I have heard several times before (not by you).

let go of popular mechanics for god sakes

Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_070820_former_chief_of_nist.htm

 

[Bern80]

let go of popular mechanics for god sakes

Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_070820_former_chief_of_nist.htm

Your link has nothing to do with the popular mechanics article. And again you have provided nothing that state the conclusions reached by that article are incorrect.

I did however read your link in full. I'm really curious if you did based on your assertions. Ironically I don't think Dr. Quintiere would agree with your position in the slightest even though you offer him as support for your conspiracy theory. I took a few notes:

This is the most important one given your assertion this was an inside job:

Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NIST’s conclusions and its investigatory process, he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives.

What he seems distressed about is that the NIST did not do thorough or rigorous enough investigation. He offers only one other actual theory as to why the building collapsed which only differs slighlty from the NIST account which was that the fire seared off fire insulation. Quintiere suggest that the insulation was insufficient in the first place.

This is a concept called critical comprehension eots. Make sure something actually says what you think it says, first.

 

[eots]

Your link has nothing to do with the popular mechanics article. And again you have provided nothing that state the conclusions reached by that article are incorrect.

I did however read your link in full. I'm really curious if you did based on your assertions. Ironically I don't think Dr. Quintiere would agree with your position in the slightest even though you offer him as support for your conspiracy theory. I took a few notes:

no I offer him as proof the investigation is completely flawed and needs peer review and appears to be so because uncooperative sources within the government..regardless of any alternative theories i may hold

This is the most important one given your assertion this was an inside job

:

I find these other statements far more important. how can he even reach a conclusion on wtc 7 when not even authorised to examine it.and evidence is withheld questions unanswered .he is not stupid or ill informed and is very aware of the research and opinions of his peers

What he seems distressed about is that the NIST did not do thorough or rigorous enough investigation. He offers only one other actual theory as to why the building collapsed which only differs slighlty from the NIST account which was that the fire seared off fire insulation. Quintiere suggest that the insulation was insufficient in the first place.

his main distress is clearly the magnitude of omissions and obstacles in the investigation and that wtc 7 was simply omitted

This is a concept called critical comprehension eots. Make sure something actually says what you think it says, first.[/

QUOTE]

ya back at ya and then there is a thing called fear especially in today's climate and a thing called the bigger picture in his position he can only say so much one would also be wise to see what his respected peers ,the people are joining in this petitions opinions are

Dr. Quintiere also expressed his frustration at NIST’s failure to provide a report on the third skyscraper that collapsed on 9/11, World Trade Center Building 7. “And that building was not hit by anything,” noted Dr. Quintiere. “It’s more important to take a look at that. Maybe there was damage by the debris falling down that played a significant role. But other than that you had fires burning a long time without fire department intervention. And firefighters were in that building. I have yet to see any kind of story about what they saw. What was burning? Were photographs taken? Nothing!”






"I have over 35 years of fire research in my experience. I worked in the fire program at NIST for 19 years, leaving as a division chief. I have been at the University of Maryland since. I am a founding member and past-Chair of the International Association for Fire Safety Science—the principal world forum for fire research. ...

"All of these have been submitted to NIST, but never acknowledged or answered. I will list some of these.


1. Why is not the design process of assigning fire protection to the WTC towers fully called out for fault? ...

2. Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do? ...

3. Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error?

4. NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that.

5. Testing by NIST has been inconclusive. Although they have done fire tests of the scale of several work stations, a replicate test of at least & [sic] of a WTC floor would have been of considerable value. Why was this not done? ...

6. The critical collapse of WTC 7 is relegated to a secondary role, as its findings will not be complete for yet another year. It was clear at the last NIST Advisory Panel meeting in September [2005] that this date may not be realistic, as NIST has not demonstrated progress here. Why has NIST dragged on this important investigation?"

[The full text of Dr. Quintiere’s statement to the Science Committee can be found at
Dec. 4, 2007 - Eight Senior Republican Appointees Challenge Official Account of 9/11 - “Not Possible”, “a Whitewash”, “False” featured statements by
Paul Craig Roberts, PhD, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Ronald Reagan
Catherine Austin Fitts, Assistant Secretary of Housing under President George H.W. Bush
Morgan Reynolds, PhD, Chief Economist of the U.S. Department of Labor under current President George W. Bush
Col. Ronald D. Ray, U.S. Marine Corps (ret), Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan
Mary Schiavo, JD, Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Transportation under Presidents George H.W. Bush and William Clinton
Barbara Honegger, Special Assistant to the Chief Domestic Policy Adviser to President Ronald Reagan and White House Policy Analyst
Edward Peck, Deputy Director of the White House Task Force on Terrorism under President Ronald Reagan. Former Deputy Coordinator, Covert Intelligence Programs at the U.S. State Department. Former U.S. Ambassador and Chief of Mission in Iraq
Morton Goulder, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Warning under Presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter
Sept. 23, 2007 - Seven CIA Veterans Challenge 9/11 Commission
December 4, 2007 at 1130

Eight Senior Republican Appointees Challenge Official Account of 9/11 - "Not Possible", "a Whitewash", "False"

by Alan Miller

http://www.opednews.com




December 4, 2007 – Eight former senior Republican administration appointees have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and several have called for a new investigation. "I find the facts against the official story of the [WTC] buildings' collapse more compelling than the case that has been made in behalf of the official story. I would like to see the issue debated by independent scientists and engineers," wrote Paul Craig Roberts, PhD, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Ronald Reagan. "A real investigation is needed to find an explanation consistent with the evidence, even if it doesn't reassure the public," said Dr. Roberts [1], frequently referred to as the "Father of Reagonomics."





Paul Craig Roberts, PhD

"Over the past six years, the ranks of distinguished skeptics of the 9-11 storyline have grown enormously. The ranks include distinguished scientists, engineers and architects, intelligence officers, air traffic controllers, military officers and generals, including the former commanding general of U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, former presidential appointees and members of the White House staff in Republican administrations, Top Gun fighter pilots and career airline pilots who say that the flying attributed to the 9-11 hijackers is beyond the skills of America's best pilots, and foreign dignitaries." [2]
Dr. Roberts currently serves as Chairman of the Institute for Political Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. Previously he was the William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy, at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University. He also served as a Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and as Associate Editor of The Wall Street Journal.

In a 2004 interview by Dennis Bernstein on the Flashpoints radio show, Catherine Austin Fitts, former Assistant Secretary of Housing under President George H.W. Bush (41) said "The official story could not possibly have happened. In other words, what the administration has put forward is essentially a conspiracy theory that does not conform to the facts. It's not possible. It's not operationally feasible ... The Commission was a whitewash." [3]
Catherine Austin Fitts Prior to her appointment to the first Bush administration, Ms. Fitts served as Managing Director and Member of the Board of Wall Street investment bank, Dillon, Read & Co. She previously was President of The Hamilton Securities Group.

In a 2004 essay, Ms. Fitts wrote, "Much has transpired since September 11, 2001. ... We have emerged deeply disturbing unanswered questions of 9-11 through global Internet media. We have worked with [Paul Thompson's Complete] 911 Timeline and realized that the official explanation of events is conspiracy theory, not conforming to documented fact.

We have watched the U.S. government suppress facts and restrict of the 9-11 Commission's access to information. We have watched the 9-11 Commission fail to answer the unanswered questions and concede to official suppression of information. We have watched the leaders of the national security infrastructure richly rewarded for their failure to protect America on 9-11. We have noted the material omissions of the corporate media. Something does not add up. Someone has something to hide. ... The Administration has something to hide. Rather than lose time and resources getting lost in the White House fog, let's follow the alleged advice of one of the 9-11 Commissioners, Fred Fielding ..."Follow the Money." [4]


Morgan Reynolds, PhD In a 2006 video interview with Alex Jones, Morgan Reynolds, PhD, former Chief Economist of the U.S. Department of Labor under current President George W. Bush said, "I first began to suspect that 9/11 was in inside job when the Bush-Cheney Administration invaded Iraq. ... We can prove that the government's story is false." [5] Prior to his appointment to the Bush administration, Dr. Reynolds was Director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis. He is also Professor Emeritus of Economics, Texas A&M University. And in a 2005 essay, Dr. Reynolds wrote, "It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause(s) of the collapse of the Twin Towers [each 1300+ feet tall, 110 stories] and Building 7. If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely [to] prove to be sound." [6]

WTC Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories. It would have been the tallest building in 33 states. Although it was not hit by an airplane, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 7 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11. However, no mention of its collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks." Watch the collapse video here. And six years after 9/11, the Federal government has yet to publish its promised final report that explains the cause of its collapse.

Another senior Republican appointee who has questioned the official account of 9/11 is Col. Ronald D. Ray, U.S. Marine Corps (ret), who served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan. He's a highly decorated Vietnam veteran (two Silver Stars, a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart). He was also appointed by President George H. W. Bush to serve on the American Battle Monuments Commission (1990 – 1994), and on the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces. He was Military Historian and Deputy Director of Field Operations for the U.S. Marine Corps Historical Center, Washington, D.C. (1990 – 1994).


Col. Ronald D. Ray In an interview on Alex Jones' radio show on June 30, 2006 [7], Col. Ray described the official account of 9/11 as "the dog that doesn't hunt", meaning it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. In response to Alex Jones' question, "Is it safe to say or is the statement accurate that you smell something rotten in the state of Denmark when it comes to 9/11?" Col. Ray replied, "I'm astounded that the conspiracy theory advanced by the administration could in fact be true and the evidence does not seem to suggest that that's accurate. That's true."

Another senior Republican appointee who has questioned the official account of 9/11 is Mary Schiavo. Appointed under the administration of President George H. W. Bush, Ms. Schiavo served as the Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Transportation from 1990 - 1996. Ms. Schiavo and her staff secured more than 1,000 criminal convictions and uncovered billions in waste and abuse at the U.S. DOT. Since leaving the Transportation Department, Ms. Schiavo has represented passenger and crew families in every major U.S. air crash, as well as pilots and passengers on private planes.


Mary Schiavo In an article written by Gail Sheehy that appeared in the New York Observer on Feb. 16, 2004, Ms. Sheehy wrote, "Ms. Schiavo sat in on the commission's hearing on aviation security on 9/11 and was disgusted by what it left out. 'In any other situation, it would be unthinkable to withhold investigative material from an independent commission,' she told this writer. 'There are usually grave consequences. But the commission is clearly not talking to everybody or not telling us everything.' " [8]


In a press conference on June 10, 2002 regarding the events of 9/11, Ms. Schiavo stated, "First of all, the question is not 'What they [the U.S. government] should have known?' And I believe I can show you in just a few seconds the question is, 'What did they know?' And believe me, they knew a lot. The second thing to emphasize is that in every single aviation disaster, whether there was intervening criminal activity or not, in every single one in the course of modern aviation history it has been followed by, not only were it necessary, a criminal investigation, but also a National Transportation Safety investigation into what went wrong in the aviation system. And the reason for that is so that it never happens again."

Ms. Schiavo continued, "This is the first time, and this is the worst disaster, but this is the first time that families have been attempted to be silenced through a special fund, which I believe is about silence more so than about money. Why? ... And from my rounds on the Hill to find these facts and others, I found that the airlines approached members of Congress and the Senate to get their bailout and their immunity and their protection starting on 9/11. They sent their first lobbyist up to the Hill on 9/11. And this has been confirmed to me personally by Senators and members of Congress. Now to me that's very shocking but to me it raises another question, Why? Why did they have to rush to the Hill to change the law? ... So in the wake of September 11, 2001, when we heard the carriers and governments alike saying, 'Oh, no one could have foreseen this. No one knew that this was coming. No one knew that there was any risk like this in the world,' is absolutely false. ... In the last thirty years we have had 682 hijackings. 682. Here's an interesting statistic. When we had the United States saying, 'Oh, we couldn't have known this.' " [9]


Barbara Honegger Another critic of the official account of 9/11 is Barbara Honegger, who served as Special Assistant to the Chief Domestic Policy Adviser to President Ronald Reagan and as a White House Policy Analyst. "The US military and intelligence community, not al Qaeda, had the sustained access weeks before 9/11 to also plant controlled demolition charges throughout the superstructures of WTC 1 and WTC 2, and in WTC 7, which brought down all three buildings on 9/11," she wrote. [10]

"A US military plane, not one piloted by al Qaeda, performed the highly skilled, steep, high-speed 270- to 330-degree dive towards the Pentagon that Dulles Air Traffic Controllers were sure was a military plane as they watched it on their screens that morning. Only a military aircraft, not a civilian plane flown by al Qaeda, would have given off the "Friendly" signal needed to disable the Pentagon's anti-aircraft missile batteries as it approached the building. Only the US military, not al Qaeda, had the ability to break all of its Standard Operating Procedures to paralyze its own emergency response systems on 9/11."


Ms. Honegger also served as Project Director of the Attorney General's Anti-Discrimination Federal Law Review at the U.S. Department of Justice in Reagan's administration. She is a graduate of the Naval War College master's program in National Security Decision Making and for over 12 years has served as Senior Military Affairs Journalist at the Naval Postgraduate School, the U.S. Navy's and the Defense Department's premier science, technology and national security affairs university.

Ms. Honegger has become a prominent critic of the official account of 9/11 as a private researcher, author and speaker at conferences. This is not Ms. Honegger's first experience with allegations of serious executive branch misconduct. In 1983, she resigned from the Reagan administration in protest to planned domestic policy decisions. In 1989, she authored the pioneering Irangate expose October Surprise, which led to a full-subpoena-power U.S. House of Representatives investigation. Her book alleged that prior to the 1980 Presidential election, members of the Reagan campaign cut a secret deal with Iran to delay the release of the 52 American hostages, in order to prevent President Jimmy Carter from arranging their release and prevent him from winning the November election. The hostages were released on the day of Ronald Reagan's inauguration, after 444 days in captivity.


Edward Peck Shortly after the release of the 9/11 Commission Report, a group of over 100 prominent Americans signed a petition [11] urging Congress to immediately reinvestigate 9/11. In addition to four prominent former CIA officials [12], the signers included Catherine Austin Fitts (mentioned above), Edward Peck, and Morton Goulder.

Edward Peck served as Deputy Director of the White House Task Force on Terrorism under President Ronald Reagan. Mr. Peck, a 32-year veteran of the U.S. Foreign Service also served as Deputy Coordinator, Covert Intelligence Programs at the State Department and as U.S. Ambassador and Chief of Mission in Iraq (1977 - 1980).

Morton Goulder Morton Goulder was appointed Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Warning under President Richard Nixon and continued in that capacity under Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. In World War II, he served as a Lt. Commander in the U.S. Navy. He is a co-founder of Sanders Associates, a billion dollar defense contractor, now a division of BEA Systems.


The petition stated, in part, "We want truthful answers to questions such as:

1. Why were standard operating procedures for dealing with hijacked airliners not followed that day?

2. Why were the extensive missile batteries and air defenses reportedly deployed around the Pentagon not activated during the attack?

3. Why did the Secret Service allow Bush to complete his elementary school visit, apparently unconcerned about his safety or that of the schoolchildren?

4. Why hasn't a single person been fired, penalized, or reprimanded for the gross incompetence we witnessed that day?

5. Why haven't authorities in the U.S. and abroad published the results of multiple investigations into trading that strongly suggested foreknowledge of specific details of the 9/11 attacks, resulting in tens of millions of dollars of traceable gains?"

These questions and many others still remain unanswered three years after the petition was submitted and six years after the terrible events of 9/11. As the statements of these eight senior Republican Administration appointees show, the need for a new thorough, and independent investigation of 9/11 is not a matter of partisan politics, nor the demand of irresponsible, mentally ill, or disloyal Americans. It is instead a matter of the utmost importance for America's security and the future of the entire world.

Statements questioning the official account of 9/11 and calls for a new investigation by more than 800 credible individuals can be found at http://PatriotsQuestion911.com

Additional information on skeptics of the official account of 9/11 can be found in the author's other articles on this subject.

Sept. 23, 2007 - Seven CIA Veterans Challenge 9/11 Commission Report - Official Account of 9/11 a "Joke" and a "Cover-up" featured statements by CIA veterans Raymond McGovern, William Christison, Melvin Goodman, Robert Baer, Robert David Steele, Lynne Larkin, and David MacMichael.

Sept. 5, 2007 - U.S. Navy 'Top Gun' Pilot Questions 9/11, featured the statement of Commander Ralph Kolstad, U.S. Navy 'Top Gun' pilot.

Sept. 4, 2007 - Former Congressional Office of Technology Assessment Senior Staff Member Calls for New Investigation of 9/11 featured the statement of Joel S. Hirschhorn, Ph.D., who served for 12 years as a Senior Staff Member of the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and later as Director of Environment, Energy and Natural Resources for the National Governors Association.

Aug. 27, 2007 - National Academy of Sciences Member Calls for New 9/11 Investigation featured the statment of Lynn Margulis, Ph.D., world renowned scientist.

Aug. 21, 2007 - Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation featured the statement of James Quintiere, Ph.D., one of the world's leading fire science researchers.

July 16, 2007 - Former California Seismic Safety Commissioner Endorses 9/11 Truth Movement featured the statement of J. Marx Ayres, former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council and former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission.



Endnotes

[1] Is American Democracy Too Feeble to Deal with 9/11? By Paul Craig Roberts, PhD on VDare.com Sept. 10, 2006 http://www.vdare.com/roberts/060910_911.htm

[2] 9/11, Six Years Later by Paul Craig Roberts, PhD on VDare.com Sept. 10, 2007 http://www.vdare.com/roberts/070910_911.htm

[3] Interview of Catherine Austin Fitts by Dennis Bernstein on the Flashpoints radio show Sept. 9, 2004 http://www.kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=4024

[4] 9/11 Profiteering by Catherine Austin Fitts on March 22, 2004 on GlobalResearch.ca http://globalresearch.ca/articles/FIT403A.html

[5] Video interview of Morgan Reynolds, PhD, by Alex Jones June 2, 2006 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8180123292618944278

[6] Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse? by Morgan Reynolds, PhD on LewRockwell.com June 9, 2005 http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html

[7] Radio interview of Col. Ronald D. Ray by Alex Jones, June 30, 2006 (Subscription required.) Summarized in July 1, 2006 article on propagandamatrix.com http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/july2006/010706doesnthunt.htm

[8] Stewardess ID'd Hijackers Early, Transcripts Show by Gail Sheehy, New York Observer, Feb. 15, 2004 http://www.observer.com/node/48805

[9] Press conference with Mary Schiavo June 10, 2002 Video: http://www.propagandamatrix.com/multimedia/mary_schiavo.html Transcript: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0206/S00159.htm#mary

[10] "The Pentagon Attack Papers" by Barbara Honegger, published in The Terror Conspiracy by Jim Marrs 2006 http://physics911.net/pdf/honegger.pdf

[11] Petition to Reinvestigate 9/11 Signed by Over 100 Prominent Americans Oct. 26, 2004 http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633

[12] Seven CIA Veterans Challenge 9/11 Commission Report by Alan Miller, Sept. 23, 2007 http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_070922_seven_cia_veterans_c.htm





Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper

 

[Lookout]

Some conspiracy theorists have said the inside job that was 9/11 was needed as an excuse to get the PA passed.

P.S. the only conspiracy theory that I watched (so far) was loose change which was far from convincing, but is probably the most heavily cited. Been a while since I watched but i believe that was the one Popular Mechanics did most of it's debunking story on. Now if we're being all objective and such you should be able to follow the argument chain. Government and media tells us this is what happened -----> Loose change says nope, it didnt' happen that way -----------> Popular Mechanics (as well as other independant agencies) explain why conspiracy theories are scientifically incorrect -------> ? You should be able to figure out what the next step is. If you want to prove your case the next thing we should be doing is gathering evidence as to why the material that debunks the conspiracy theorists must be wrong. Preferably scientific explanations, not I think they were bought by the government BS, which I have heard several times before (not by you).

Here is why...Just before the debunking by pop. mech. They fired all their top staff and hired Cousin chief of homeland security...Here is the link and article

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/100806popularmechanics.htm

Debunking Popular Mechanics' 9/11 Lies
Nepotism, bias, shoddy research and agenda-driven politics

Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | August 10 2006

Popular Mechanics has re-entered the media circus in an attempt to continue its 9/11 debunking campaign that began in March of last year. A new book claims to expose the myths of the 9/11 truth movement, yet it is Popular Mechanics who have been exposed as promulgating falsehoods while engaging in nepotism, shoddy research and agenda-driven politics.

It comes as no surprise that Popular Mechanics is owned by Hearst Corporation. As fictionalized in Orson Welles' acclaimed film Citizen Kane, William Randolph Hearst wrote the book on cronyism and yellow journalism and Popular Mechanics hasn't bucked that tradition.

The magazine is a cheerleader for the sophistication of advanced weaponry and new technology used by police in areas such as crowd control and 'anti-terror' operation. A hefty chunk of its advertising revenue relies on the military and defense contractors. Since the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq and in the future Iran all cite 9/11 as a pretext, what motivation does the magazine have to conduct a balanced investigation and risk upsetting its most coveted clientele?

Popular Mechanics' March 2005 front cover story was entitled 'Debunking 9/11 Lies' and has since become the bellwether reference point for all proponents of the official 9/11 fairytale.

Following the publication of the article and its exaltation by the mainstream media as the final nail in the coffin for 9/11 conspiracy theories, it was revealed that senior researcher on the piece Benjamin Chertoff is the cousin of Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

This means that Benjamin Chertoff was hired to write an article that would receive nationwide attention, about the veracity of the government's explanation of an event that led directly to the creation of Homeland Security, a body that his own cousin now heads.

This is unparalleled nepotism and completely dissolves the credibility of the article before one has even turned the first page.



The arguments presented in the article have been widely debunked by the 9/11 truth community as an example of a straw man hatchet job - whereby false arguments are erected, attributed to 9/11 skeptics, and then shot down.

One of the most glaring errors in the Popular Mechanics hit piece appears in the 'Intercepts Not Routine' section where it is claimed that, "In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999."

As Jim Hoffman points out in his excellent rebuttal, "This bold assertion flies in the face of a published report of scramble frequencies that quotes the same Maj. Douglas Martin that is one of PM's cited experts!"

"From Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols 462 times, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001, Martin said."

The article also makes no mention whatsoever of the numerous war games scheduled for the morning of 9/11 which confused air defense personnel as to the true nature of the attack as it unfolded, as is documented by the recent release of the NORAD tapes.

A section on the collapse of the World Trade Center fails to address firefighters and other individuals who reported numerous explosions before the towers fell, squibs of debris seen shooting out of the towers well below the collapse point, and the fact that the towers fell only slightly slower than absolute free fall.

The article was released before analysis conducted by BYU physics Professor Steven Jones discovered traces of thermite in steel samples taken from the World Trade Center.

"Using advanced techniques we're finding out what's in these samples - we're finding iron, sulphur, potassium and manganese - these are characteristic of a variation of thermite which is used to cut through steel very rapidly, it's called thermate," said Professor Jones.

The article regurgitates pancake and truss theories yet fails to acknowledge the comments of WTC construction manager Frank DeMartini (below) who before 9/11 stated that the buildings were designed to take multiple airliner impacts and not collapse.



The article also completely fails to answer why pools of molten yellow metal were found underneath both towers and Building 7 subsequent to the collapses.

The classic crimp implosion of Building 7, which was not hit by a plane, is glossed over as the piece again tries to mislead its readers into believing that over engineered steel buildings collapse from fire damage - an event unprecedented in world history aside from three examples in one single day.

Commenting on his own interview for the magazine piece, Alex Jones said that initially he thought it was a fake interview or a crank call. Jones has given hundreds of TV and print interviews and thousands of radio interviews but his experience with Benjamin Chertoff was like no other.

"People from school newspapers sound more credible and serious," said Jones.

Jones had to call Popular Mechanics' office and verify that Chertoff actually worked for them. In the course of doing so he was erroneously told by Editor in Chief James Meigs that the story was not going to be a hit piece and that it was simply intended to explore the different theories surrounding 9/11.

In addition, Popular Mechanics highlighted an article that Jones had posted on his website about incendiary devices in the World Trade Center.

Jones' websites feature a cross-section of mainstream and alternative media articles. An article written by Jones himself is clearly labeled as such.

The magazine had contacted the individuals featured in the article who told them that they had never spoken to Jones. The article was clearly attributed to its orginal author - Randy Lavello - and not Alex Jones. When Jones asked Popular Mechanics if they were going to contact the individuals again and ask if they had spoken with the original author, they dropped the subject.

As part of a PR campaign to sell its newly packaged dross, the book 'Debunking 9/11 Lies,' Popular Mechanics' James Meigs appeared on the O'Reilly Factor (watch below).



Meigs and O'Reilly need to be reminded that constantly parroting the word "fact," without presenting any actual evidence, does not make something a fact.

Meigs contradicts himself completely in claiming that, "No one had ever seen a one hundred plus story building collapse to the ground before," and yet less than two minutes later agrees with O'Reilly's comment that nothing unexpected about the impact of the planes or the collapses surprised analysts.

Meigs concurs that it's an unprecedented event and yet claims that analysts knew exactly what was going to happen. How could they have known the ins and outs of an event that had never happened before?

Meigs calls the WTC implosion, "The most closely studied collapse in world history," yet fails to address the fact that 50,000 tons of steel from the WTC, a supposed crime scene, was shipped to Asia and a further 10,000 tons to India, preventing a detailed analysis.

Meigs, citing opinions of engineers, bizarrely states that, "The real surprise is that the building stood up as long as it did."

In February 2005, The Windsor building in Madrid (pictured) burned for over 24 hours as shooting flames engulfed almost the entire structure and yet the building did not collapse. The core of the WTC was exponentially more robust than the Windsor building. So we have one building that burned incessantly for over 24 hours and did not fall, compared to two buildings which were structurally far superior, burned briefly from limited fires, and yet both collapsed within an average time of 79 minutes - and Meigs claims they should have collapsed sooner!



Meigs claims that Popular Mechanics' investigation is "not political," and yet the foreword to their book is written by none other than GOP darling Senator John McCain.

In the foreword McCain re-hashes an abhorrent amount of Neo-Con detritus that relies solely on 9/11 having happened exactly as the government claims it did.

"We liberated Afghanistan from the murderous rule of the Taliban, our attackers' proud hosts. We chased Al Qaeda around the globe," barks McCain.

Afghanistan is now a failed narco-state run by tribal warlords and ex-Taliban kingpins, nowhere outside of Kabul is secure, malnutrition amongst children is the highest in the world outside Africa, and opium production is at record levels. Bellicose statements about chasing Al-Qaeda around the globe are somewhat contradicted by the fact that Al-Qaeda-Iraq links were proven to be fraudulent and outgoing CIA director AB “Buzzy” Krongard told the London Times that Bin Laden should stay free. Couple this with President Bush's view on Bin Laden - "I truly am not that concerned about him," and McCain's rhetoric falls flat on its face.

McCain also uses the callous tactic of saying that questioning the government's version of 9/11 insults the victims and this is also parroted in the Popular Mechanics magazine piece.

Let's hear what Bill Doyle, representative of the largest group of 9/11 family members has to say on this subject.

"If you want to believe what they want to snow you under on like the 9/11 Commission - that's a total fallacy," said Doyle.

"It looks like there was a conspiracy behind 9/11 if you really look at all the facts - a lot of families now feel the same way."

Doyle said that half of the family members - relatives of the 9/11 victims - he represents thought that the US government was complicit in 9/11.

Despite the efforts of Popular Mechanics to whitewash government complicity in 9/11 via a front page feature story and a new book, recent polls clearly show an increasing trend towards a rejection of the official version of events.

If we are to set aside the 30% of Americans that do not even know the year in which September 11 happened, then we are left with figures of around 36% who agree that the government was involved in the attack and only 34% of Americans who actually know in which year the attack took place that still think it was carried out solely by a rag-tag group of 19 incompetent morons who couldn't fly Cessna's at the behest of a man on a kidney dialysis machine.

Popular Mechanics are sure to make a tidy sum of money from their latest publication, but their credibility is certain to dwindle in light of the fact that they are willingly acting as collaborators by aiding the cover-up of a crime that resulted in the deaths of nearly 3,000 Americans on 9/11 and untold more to come as a result of how the attack changed US foreign policy.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Your link has nothing to do with the popular mechanics article. And again you have provided nothing that state the conclusions reached by that article are incorrect.

I did however read your link in full. I'm really curious if you did based on your assertions. Ironically I don't think Dr. Quintiere would agree with your position in the slightest even though you offer him as support for your conspiracy theory. I took a few notes:

This is the most important one given your assertion this was an inside job:



What he seems distressed about is that the NIST did not do thorough or rigorous enough investigation. He offers only one other actual theory as to why the building collapsed which only differs slighlty from the NIST account which was that the fire seared off fire insulation. Quintiere suggest that the insulation was insufficient in the first place.

This is a concept called critical comprehension eots. Make sure something actually says what you think it says, first.

You will discover if you actually find the whole text of most of Eots and that 9/11 site's supposed sources that they do NOT agree with nor postulate any of what the site does or Eots does.

 

[jillian]

Not to mention the supposed "experts" who don't come up in any google search...

 

[eots]

Not to mention the supposed "experts" who don't come up in any google search...

name one

 

[eots]

You will discover if you actually find the whole text of most of Eots and that 9/11 site's supposed sources that they do NOT agree with nor postulate any of what the site does or Eots does.

example ?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

example ?

You were JUST given one. And I gave you a couple a while back. Bagging you is a waste of time. Those that really want to know will actually check your "quotes" and then find what the person ACTUALLY said and not your tiny little cut and paste.

You know, they will do what you demand we all do, investigate YOUR claims.

 

[eots]

You were JUST given one. And I gave you a couple a while back. Bagging you is a waste of time. Those that really want to know will actually check your "quotes" and then find what the person ACTUALLY said and not your tiny little cut and paste.

You know, they will do what you demand we all do, investigate YOUR claims.

translation: no eots i can not provide a example. i am just pulling statements out of my ass as usual in a flailing attempt to distract from the fact i cant back my statement

 

[Nevadamedic]

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/sugar-...s/20080212152909990002?ncid=NWS00010000000001

This rickety old sugar silo has been on fire for days with temps as much as 4000 degrees and it hasn't collapsed...Wonder why that is???? I guess it was constructed much better than the twin towers. They must have taken into account that it might get hit by a nuclear weapon or something when they built it. I mean it must have some really important people and business in it to be built that strong!!! LOL I would say this pretty much snubs the govt's dammage control going on right now with the trial starting over the 9 at guatanamo, which they want to try all together instead of seperatly. As well as trying to explain the pyramid and the eye on the u.s. currency as being not the evil eye or anything...What a frickin joke!!!!

This has got to be the biggest bunch of bullshit our govt has put out for dammage control since the magic bullet theory!!!!

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/historians-unlock-us-seals-secrets/20080212093109990001

But hey, the government said it and it is in writing so it must be true...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA LOL

Ummmmm are you off your medication? If so I recommend going to the closest hospital asap. I have to warn you that they will definatly put you under some legal hold though.

 

[eots]

Not to mention the supposed "experts" who don't come up in any google search...

and what about you young lady care to provide a example of a non exisitent
un-googlable expert i have provided.......no i didint think so