Excerp: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Page 13

Jim Marrs: 9/11 Truth in 10 Minutes

Thanks for the publicity Bill

Very sad indeed. To see the Crucifixion of individuals doing no more than expressing their right to freedom of speech, actually.

And still not one word in explanation of HOW a massive steel structure can apparently 'melt' like chocolate, when firefighters have been recorded as saying the fires were under control (high up inside the building), and that just a couple more hoses will put out the last flames. And that there were many survivors, and those survivors were even filmed inside the worst wreckage, hailing for help...

None of this is apparently worth mentioning!

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Land of freedom, land of Democracy, land of Hope...
And the one place in the whole wide world where anyone could get up and say anything (I mean they even shout each other down in debates for crying in a bucket!).

And now this?
This more than anything is a sad confirmation of the awful Truth! For if Sheen and others were just spewing out any cock and bull, then why such a fuss hey!

After all, if I happened to own a football league and I also funded a film that suggested that Bush was in reality a Lizard. Well these same news presenters would probably laugh at me, mock me, but I very much doubt they would make an upfront announcement "This is not a threat: but you will never work in again, and you and your father are both idiots!"

No, no, this is America. Land of the Free! And 'my books' about Lizard-Dom would probably be launched in 5th Ave. NY, by Publishers who understood the value of notoriety. Just good business hey.

Abraham Lincoln must be turning in his grave!

Joseph McCarthy must be coming back from his. This is the beginning of the black balling McCarthyism all over again. Damn those Communist sympathizers.

I liked how Sean Hannity described Sheen. What sounded like a somber relflection on the issue was to Sean, "raving like a lunatic".

Ya. I see what you mean now...
(And for those of you, like me, who perhaps didn't quite get the relevance of McCarthy) A quote from Wikipedia:

quote:

---

Barely a month after McCarthy's Wheeling speech, the term "McCarthyism" was coined by Washington Post cartoonist Herbert Block. Block and others used the word as a synonym for demagoguery, baseless defamation and mudslinging. Later, it would be embraced by McCarthy and some of his supporters. "McCarthyism is Americanism with its sleeves rolled," McCarthy said in a 1952 speech, and later that year he published a book entitled McCarthyism: The Fight for America.

McCarthy was also physically violent toward his critics on at least one occasion. In 1950 he assaulted journalist Drew Pearson in the cloakroom of a Washington club, reportedly kneeing him in the groin.

---

Odd the way History has a way of repeating itself hey.

Does that mean people just have short memories?
Or that they are just too busy trying to get on with their own lives to even notice the presence of danger?

quote:

---

Does that mean people just have short memories?
Or that they are just too busy trying to get on with their own lives to even notice the presence of danger?

---

All of the above plus the important factor that will keep it this way.

We are being lied to. No one has access to any information they can call irrefutable. Every piece of history current and past has two opposing "credible" sources or more, even issues of science and religion face this, take global warming and religion in general.

And since people suffer the sin of pride, if you will, they will not admit what they don't know and what they cannot trust, the first steps needed to find some truth.

The next step being to hold those who lie accountable.

It is an extremely sad day in America when the average worker has no job security or benefits and can be judged and fired on daily performance, but a lying warmonger literally getting away with murder, fully acknowledged as either treasonous or incompetent, can be "re-elected" while you can be deemed a traitor for questioning him and his policy.

I know I posted this elsewhere, but it seemed so fitting given the above clips.

Excerpt: 9/11 and the Evidence

Paul Craig Roberts
V Dare
Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Professor David Ray Griffin is the nemesis of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory. In his latest book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking, Griffin destroys the credibility of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and Popular Mechanics reports, annihilates his critics, and proves himself to be a better scientist and engineer than the defenders of the official story.

Griffin's book is 385 pages divided into four chapters and containing 1,209 footnotes. Without question, the book is the most thorough presentation and examination of all known facts about the 9/11 attacks. Griffin is a person who is sensitive to evidence, logic, and scientific reasoning. There is no counterpart on the official side of the story who is as fully informed on all aspects of the attacks as Griffin.

At the outset, Griffin points out that the reader's choice is between two conspiracy theories: One is that Muslim fanatics, who were not qualified to fly airplanes, defeated the security apparatus of the US and succeeded in three out of four attacks using passenger jets as weapons. The other is that security failed across the board, not merely partially but totally, because of complicity of some part of the US government.

Griffin points out that there has been no independent investigation of 9/11. What we have are a report by a political commission headed by Bush administration factotum Philip Zelikow, a NIST report produced by the Bush administration's Department of Commerce, and a journalistic account produced by Popular Mechanics. Various scientists who work for the federal government or are dependent on government grants have issued speculative statements in behalf of the official conspiracy theory, but have not produced meaningful evidence in its behalf.

The relevant skeptics of the official story are approximately 100 independent researchers consisting of experts and professors whose careers have required them to deal with evidence and its analysis. Their individual contributions to 9/11 analysis can be found online.

Griffin has undertaken to absorb the arguments and evidence for the official account and the arguments and evidence against it. In his latest book, which has just been released, he presents the case for the official account and its evidential failure.

Polls show that 36% of Americans do not believe the official story. Setting aside the 25% of the public that is so uninformed or uninvolved as to believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attack, leaves 39% of the public who believe the official story. However, this 39% is essentially relying on the mainstream media's endorsement of the official story. Griffin believes, perhaps naively, that truth can prevail, and it is his commitment to truth that has motivated him to shoulder the enormous task.

Everyone who believes in the integrity of the US government or the Bush administration will find Griffin's book to be disturbing. Readers will have to confront such issues as why US authorities seized the forensic evidence resulting from the destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings, the attack on the Pentagon and the crashed airliner in Pennsylvania and prevented any forensic examination of any part of the 9/11 attacks.

Despite widespread belief that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the attack, the evidence we have is a suspect video declared to be "bogus" by Bruce Lawrence, perhaps the leading American expert on bin Laden. The US government has never produced the promised report on bin Laden's responsibility. When the Taliban offered to hand over bin Laden on presentation of evidence, the US government had no evidence to deliver; thus the invasion of Afghanistan.

The fragility of the NIST report is astonishing. The report succeeded because people accepted its assurances without examination.

Griffin shows that the Popular Mechanics report consists of special pleading, circular reasoning, appeals to the authority of the NIST report, straw men, and internal contradictions in the report itself.

There is not space in a review to present the evidence Griffin has mustered. A few highlights should suffice to alert readers to the possibility that the Bush administration has lied about more than Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

The two WTC towers did not collapse. They blew up and disintegrated, as did WTC 7. There is an enormous energy deficit in every account that rules out the use of explosives. Gravitational energy is insufficient to explain the pulverization of the buildings and contents and the severing of the 47 massive center core steel columns in each of the towers into convenient lengths to be picked up and loaded onto trucks; much less can gravitational energy account for the pulverization of the top floors of the towers and ejection of steel beams hundreds of feet horizontally just prior to the disintegration of the floors below.

Damage caused by airliners and short-lived limited fires cannot explain the disintegration of the buildings. The massive steel skeletons of the towers comprised a gigantic heat sink that wicked away whatever heat the limited fires produced.

NIST's final report stated that of the steel available to it for examination, "only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 degrees Celsius" (482 degrees Fahrenheit). The self-cleaning ovens in our home kitchens reach temperatures higher than this, and the ovens do not melt or deform.

Steel begins to melt at 1,500 degrees C or 2,800 degrees F. Temperatures of 250 degrees C would have no effect on the strength of steel. The explanation that the buildings collapsed because fire weakened the steel is speculative. Open air fires do not produce temperatures sufficient to deprive steel of its structural integrity. Steel framed buildings have burned 22 hours in raging infernos, and the steel skeletons remained standing. The WTC fires in the towers lasted about one hour and were limited to a few floors. Moreover, it is impossible for fire to account for the sudden, total and symmetrical disintegration of powerfully constructed buildings, much less at free fall speeds that are obtainable only with controlled demolition.

Griffin provides quotes from firefighters, police, and tenants, who heard and experienced a series of explosions prior to the disintegration of the towers. Such witness testimony is generally ignored by defenders of the official conspiracy theory.

Molten steel was found in underground levels of the WTC buildings weeks after the buildings' destruction. As everyone agrees that the fires did not approach the melting point of steel, a possible explanation is high explosives used in demolitions that produce 5,000 degree temperatures. The possibility that explosives were used remains unexamined except by independent researchers.

Contradictions in the official conspiracy theory leap off the pages and hit the reader in the face. For example, the evidence that Flight 77, a Boeing 757, crashed into the Pentagon is the government's claim to have obtained from the wreckage enough bodies and body parts to match the DNA for each person on the passenger list and flight crew. Simultaneously, the absence of passenger luggage, fuselage, wing and tail sections--indeed the absence of a 100,000 pound airliner--is attributed to the vaporization of the airplane due to the high speed crash and intense fire. The incompatibility of vaporized metal but recovered flesh and blood stood unnoticed until Griffin pointed it out.

Another striking inconsistency in the official conspiracy theory is the difference in the impact of airliners on the Pentagon and the WTC towers. In the case of the Pentagon, the emphasis is on why the airliner caused so little damage to the building. In the case of the WTC towers, the emphasis is why the airliners caused so much damage.

Perhaps it is merely a coincidence that just prior to 9/11 Cathleen P. Black, who has family connections to the CIA and Pentagon and is president of Hearst Magazines, the owner of Popular Mechanics, fired the magazine's editor-in-chief and several senior veteran staff members and installed James B. Meigs and Benjamin Chertoff, a cousin of Bush administration factotum Michael Chertoff. It was Meigs and Benjamin Chertoff who produced the Popular Mechanics report that Griffin has eviscerated.

In his conclusion Griffin reminds us that the 9/11 attack has been used to start wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, to plan an attack on Iran, to curtail constitutional protections and civil liberties in the US, to radically expand US military budgets and the power of the executive, and to enrich entrenched vested interests. Griffin is definitely correct about this regardless of whether a believable case can ever be made for the government's version of the 9/11 conspiracy.

Excerpt: Bill O'Reilly Is a JFK Truther

You Tube
Wednesday April 4, 2007

Bill O'Reilly, when he was on Inside Edition, reports on Oswald's association with the CIA.

Gee Bill, here you are spouting a conspiracy theory! That's unamerican. Why do you hate this country, you two-faced hypocrite?

I'm not saying that you should be fired. I'm saying that Fox News has a BIG problem.

Just when was it that you turned to the dark side?

In any other situation of legal enquiry anywhere in the world, such evidence of insider-type trading money deals, insurance scamming, and the destruction of evidence that would serve as evidence for a crime (both contained inside building 7 and in the rapid aftermath clean-up at ground zero) ...
can only be labeled as: MOTIVE!

It is heartening to see more Americans beginning to wake up and face the truth now. It would be so awful if they waited until it was too late, before they could still do anything about it...

I would also like to know more about the single helicopter that was circling the towers. Who sent it up, what was its specific purpose, who exactly was inside, and what was their specific function? Why have their observations and testimony not been documented?