PDA

View Full Version : MORE Experts Say Chimpy And Co. Need TO Come Clean About 9/11



Hardrock69
01-31-2006, 09:54 AM
Duluth, MN (PRWEB) January 30, 2006 -- A group of distinguished experts and scholars, including Robert M. Bowman, James H. Fetzer, Wayne Madsen, John McMurtry, Morgan Reynolds, and Andreas von Buelow, have concluded that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11.

They have joined with others in common cause as members of "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" (S9/11T), because they are convinced, based on their own research, that the administration has been deceiving the nation about critical events in New York and Washington, D.C.

These experts suggest these events may have been orchestrated by elements within the administration to manipulate Americans into supporting policies at home and abroad they would never have condoned absent "another Pearl Harbor."

They believe that this White House is incapable of investigating itself and hope the possibility that Congress might hold an unaccountable administration accountable is not merely naive or wishful thinking.

They are encouraging news services around the world to secure scientific advice by taking advantage of university resources to verify or to falsify their discoveries. Extraordinary situations, they believe, require extraordinary measures.

If this were done, they contend, one of the great hoaxes of history would stand naked before the eyes of the world and its perpetrators would be clearly exposed, which may be the only hope for saving this nation from ever greater abuse.

They hope this might include The New York Times, which, in their opinion, has repeatedly failed to exercise the leadership expecedt from our nation's newspaper of record by a series of inexplicable lapses. It has failed to vigorously investigate tainted elections, lies leading to the war in Iraq, or illegal NSA spying on the American people, major unconstitutional events. In their view, The Times might compensate for its loss of stature by helping to reveal the truth about one of the great turning-point events of modern history.

Stunning as it may be to acknowledge, they observe, the government has brought but one indictment against anyone and, to the best of their knowledge, has not even reprimanded anyone for incompetence or dereliction of duty. The official conspiracy theory--that nineteen Arab hijackers under control of one man in the wilds of Afghanistan brought this about--is unsupportable by the evidential data, which they have studied. They even believe there are good reasons for suspecting that video tapes officially attributed to Osama bin Laden are not genuine.

They have found the government's own investigiation to be severely flawed. The 9/11 Commission, designated to investigate the attack, was directed by Philip Zelikow, part of the Bush transition team in the NSA sector and the co-author of a book with Condoleezza Rice. A Bush supporter and director of national security affairs, he could hardly be expected to conduct an objective and impartial investigation.

They have discovered that The 9/11 Commission Report is replete with omissions, distortions, and factual errors, which David Ray Griffin has documented in his book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. The official report, for example, entirely ignores the collapse of WTC7, a 47-story building, which was hit by no airplanes, was only damaged by a few small fires, and fell seven hours after the attack.

Here are some of the kinds of considerations that these experts and scholar find profoundly troubling:

* In the history of structural engineering, steel-frame high-rise buildings have never been brought down due to fires either before or since 9/11, so how can fires have brought down three in one day? How is this possible?

* The BBC has reported that at least five of the nineteen alleged "hijackers" have turned up alive and well living in Saudi Arabia, yet according to the FBI, they were among those killed in the attacks. How is this possible?

* Frank DeMartini, a project manager for the WTC, said the buildings were designed with load redistribution capabilities to withstand the impact of airliners, whose effects would be like "puncturing mosquito netting with a pencil." Yet they completely collapsed. How is this possible?

* Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700*F, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800*F under optimal conditions, and UL certified the steel used to 2,000*F for six hours, the buildings cannot have collapsed due to heat from the fires. How is this possible?

* Flight 77, which allegedly hit the building, left the radar screen in the vicinity of the Ohio/Kentucky border, only to "reappear" in very close proximity to the Pentagon shortly before impact. How is this possible?

* Foreign "terrorists" who were clever enough to coordinate hijacking four commercial airliners seemingly did not know that the least damage to the Pentagon would be done by hitting its west wing. How is this possible?

* Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, in an underground bunker at the White House, watched Vice President Cheney castigate a young officer for asking, as the plane drew closer and closer to the Pentagon, "Do the orders still stand?" The order cannot have been to shoot it down, but must have been the opposite. How is this possible?

* A former Inspector General for the Air Force has observed that Flight 93, which allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania, should have left debris scattered over an area less than the size of a city block; but it is scattered over an area of about eight square miles. How is this possible?

* A tape recording of interviews with air traffic controllers on duty on 9/11 was deliberately crushed, cut into very small pieces, and distributed in assorted places to insure its total destruction. How is this possible?

* The Pentagon conducted a training exercise called "MASCAL" simulating the crash of a Boeing 757 into the building on 24 October 2000, and yet Condoleezza Rice, among others, has repeatedly asserted that "no one ever imagined" a domestic airplane could be used as a weapon. How is this possible?

Their own physics research has established that only controlled demolitions are consistent with the near-gravity speed of fall and virtually symmetrical collapse of all three of the WTC buildings. While turning concrete into very fine dust, they fell straight-down into their own footprints.

These experts and scholars have found themselves obliged to conclude that the 9/11 atrocity represents an instance of the approach--which has been identified by Karl Rove, the President's closest adviser--of "creating our own reality."


http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2006/1/emw339303.htm

knuckleboner
01-31-2006, 10:15 AM
Originally posted by Hardrock69

These experts suggest these events may have been orchestrated by elements within the administration to manipulate Americans * A former Inspector General for the Air Force has observed that Flight 93, which allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania, should have left debris scattered over an area less than the size of a city block; but it is scattered over an area of about eight square miles. How is this possible?



* A former Inspector General for the Air Force has observed that Flight 93, which allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania, should have left debris scattered over an area less than the size of a city block; but it is scattered over an area of about eight square miles. How is this possible?





ummm...i'm confused...so let me get this straight:

these guys think that:
1) the U.S. government was somehow involved in setting up 9/11
2) that flight 93 did not crash, but was presumably shot down by the U.S. government
3) the same U.S. government, who started 9/11, shot down one of it's own components, but is now covering up that it shot down what it started.

man, my head is hurting...

Hardrock69
01-31-2006, 10:46 AM
Shouldn't surprise you....

Even if they had no complicity, they probably do know who did it...

If they have such an airtight story, why are they going to such great lengths to cover it up?


This is along the same lines as the JFK assassination.

The Secret Service cleaned the limo up spotless the very day that JFK was shot...BEFORE ANY forensic examination could be made....and not long thereafter they took the limo out into the Atlantic Ocean and dumped it into the Atlantic Ocean's Puerto Rico Trench which is 28,374 feet deep.

Why go to all that trouble unless there is something dangerously in need of being kept hidden from the public?

DLR'sCock
01-31-2006, 11:31 AM
Well whether or not any of these allegations are true or not, these people have a huge uphill battle ahead of them as I am sure they have had.


Facts are facts whatever the facts are and in time the truth is revealed or not.

Hardrock69
01-31-2006, 11:51 AM
I agree.

FORD
01-31-2006, 12:17 PM
Many eyewitnesses in PA saw another plane in the sky, described as a "white jet" without any markings. The description actually sounds a lot like the unmanned drone plane that was used recently in Pakistan in the unsuccessful attempt to kill Al Zawahari.

And before someone calls this a "liberal conspiracy", I should tell you that Fascist Nut Daily (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30682) ran the story.

Vinnie Velvet
01-31-2006, 12:55 PM
Interesting.

I just watched the A&E made for TV movie on "Flight 93".

We know what the passengers tried to do. God rest their souls.
There is also a feature movie coming out in April - "Flight 93".

Guitar Shark
01-31-2006, 01:02 PM
I think it is possible that the military shot down Flight 93 to prevent it from hitting its target. As for the rest of it - total conspiracy bullshit. :)

Vinnie Velvet
01-31-2006, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by Guitar Shark
I think it is possible that the military shot down Flight 93 to prevent it from hitting its target. As for the rest of it - total conspiracy bullshit. :)

I can't say much about the rest of the stuff hardrock posted, but I also believe 93 was shot down to prevent it from hitting Capitol Hill or the White House.

Does anyone know the actual procedure in trying to intercept a hijacked plane in the air??

FORD
01-31-2006, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by Vinnie Velvet


Does anyone know the actual procedure in trying to intercept a hijacked plane in the air??

According to Cheney in the article linked above, they would send up F-16's to intercept the plane and an AWACS plane for radar purposes. Also tanker support, if it's likely that the planes will be in the air a long time. Shooting a plane down is absolutely the last resort and is only to be done by direct order of the president.

Cheney admitted to the decision being authorized on that day without specifically mentioning Flight 93. In either case, I doubt it was Chimpy who gave the order, as he was busy running away at the time. But then, Cheney's the "real" pResident anyway.

diamondD
01-31-2006, 01:30 PM
I can't say that there's ever been that kind of scenario over US skies, so I don't know.


I believe Flight 93 was shot down as well. Since they were going to die anyway, I don't think it was unreasonable. I'd rather it be official and not kept a secret tho.

FORD, were those witnesses as far away as the Fox reporter you like to bring up?

diamondD
01-31-2006, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by FORD
According to Cheney in the article linked above, they would send up F-16's to intercept the plane and an AWACS plane for radar purposes. Also tanker support, if it's likely that the planes will be in the air a long time. Shooting a plane down is absolutely the last resort and is only to be done by direct order of the president.

Cheney admitted to the decision being authorized on that day without specifically mentioning Flight 93. In either case, I doubt it was Chimpy who gave the order, as he was busy running away at the time. But then, Cheney's the "real" pResident anyway.

I thought Al Gore was the real president? Get your delusions straight!

Nickdfresh
01-31-2006, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by Guitar Shark
I think it is possible that the military shot down Flight 93 to prevent it from hitting its target. As for the rest of it - total conspiracy bullshit. :)

Amen! Except for the FL93 being shot down by USAF/USANG fighters stuff...

That part is conspiracy bullshit too.:)

The only possible conspiracy thing that I'll except is that members of the Administration may have had reason to believe that a (conventional) hijacking was likely to occur, but chose to ignore it in order to "wag the dog" for the already-then sagging BuSH-league pResidency...

FORD
01-31-2006, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by diamondD
I thought Al Gore was the real president? Get your delusions straight!

Notice I put "real" in quotations? ;)

That's to differentiate "one who is actually in power" from one who was legally elected. Dick is the former, Gore is the latter. Chimp is neither.

FORD
01-31-2006, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Amen! Except for the FL93 being shot down by USAF/USANG fighters stuff...

That part is conspiracy bullshit too.:)

The only possible conspiracy thing that I'll except is that members of the Administration may have had reason to believe that a (conventional) hijacking was likely to occur, but chose to ignore it in order to "wag the dog" for the already-then sagging BuSH-league pResidency...

And what about the PNAC manifesto, written by the bastards who would become Chimpy's cabinet, which specifically calls for a "new Pearl Harbor" being neccessary in order to swindle the American public into supporting their agenda?

They either had to "let" such an event happen by deliberately ignoring the warnings, or otherwise they were involved themselves in the planning and execution of the attacks.

We know the warnings were ignored. About 55 times, if I remember correctly. But is there evidence of direct involvement.?

Yes. The fact that "drills" were scheduled for that very morning, drills which resulted in the ordinary military response to the WTC and Pentagon being delayed, strongly suggests that the exact date of the attacks were known in advance and that the drills were neccessary to allow the attack to proceed, as an aborted attack would not have the same psychological impact on the nation.

Cheney was the one in charge of the drills. He should be interrogated about that. Abu Ghraib style, if neccessary.

DR CHIP
01-31-2006, 02:45 PM
I agree that Kennedy and 9/11 have several things to be desired when it comes to the facts getting out....

BUT

In my humble opinion, it takes more to believe in a gov't cover up than it does to believe that Oswald shot Kennedy and 9/11 was what it was.....

By the way there is a great program on the Kennedy Assasination played on the history channel. Some dudes from Aust. re-do the shot exactly as it was through two bodies from the same distance etc....believe it or not the bullet basically does what the magic bullet theory says happened....

bobgnote
01-31-2006, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by knuckleboner
ummm...i'm confused...so let me get this straight:

these guys think that:
1) the U.S. government was somehow involved in setting up 9/11
2) that flight 93 did not crash, but was presumably shot down by the U.S. government
3) the same U.S. government, who started 9/11, shot down one of it's own components, but is now covering up that it shot down what it started.

man, my head is hurting...
---------------------

ONE:
The US deregulated its power oligopoly at fraud to keep hemp and genetic engineered crops OUT with all biodiesel, in the mid-90s. California went deregulated in 1996, RIGHT AFTER the US practically TOLD the Israeli right it could hit Yitzhak Rabin and bust the Oslo Accords, when Israel should have been glad to survive, where it does not belong in any role of authority.

TWO:
You do NOT get to keep EITHER your inflationary, post-deregulation power deals, OR the Israeli power play, to end Oslo, without 9/11/01.

THREE:
You do NOT get to fund Iraq and Afghan Wars, with the illegal deals in, which undermine ALL US FUNDING, in terrible detail, and assert Israel, which was formerly Israel or Judea in the are of the West Bank. Look at modern, Orthodox religious state ISRAEL. It is NOT neatly in the area of the West Bank, and it belongs nowhere in Palestine. Yet first the British with the League of Nations then the US with the UN has over-asserted ISRAEL, spawned by corrupt British military industry and its awful Victorian anti-diplomacy to the Mid-East.

FOUR:
The recent Dr. al-Zawahiri tape acknowledges that the GW regime does NOT intend to get along with Al Queda, Islam, or anybody not chatteled actually or virtually to the US. We may get hit with a barrage.

FIVE:
You should have seen that the burning Towers were like our current situation, where Israel is like the North Tower, we in the US are like the South Tower, hit second but going down, FIRST. WE DO NOT GET TO HAVE OUR ILLEGAL, INFLATIONARY POWER DEALS, before they drag us down to hell of murders and acquisitions, AND ISRAEL FOLLOWS, soon enough.

SIX:
Add 9/11/2001 and then 5/8/2008 linearly, to 23, Mike Jordan's #. The progression is from
11/3/95, the Rabin hit
9/11/2001
7/7/2005, London
5/8/2008, Yom HaAzmaut, Israel's 60th

Of course, the Cinco de Maio right before is the 126th day of the 126th year, since the Euro-Zionists went into Palestine, in 1882.

Any idiot who thinks the US was NOT trying to INCITE the 9/11/2001 WTC attacks is a real IDIOT, an American Super******.

Any idiot who thinks he does not need to count to 7 real slow is a dumbshit in traffic, looking to get hit at the ballgame, May 2008, having helped all the other idiots, and there's LOADS, to hide TRUTH.

TRUTH is GW made it all go down from Clinton's handoff, and you assholes who hide the progression WHILE you hide the illegal power deals and their inflation probably have not figured out you can DIE for your stealing, and take everybody else with you, by angering Al Queda!

So HERE IT IS: You idiots with the wheel better pull over and show I.D.

Warham
01-31-2006, 05:16 PM
I got a good article to read for those of you who believe in these kinds of scenarios.

knuckleboner
02-01-2006, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by diamondD



I believe Flight 93 was shot down as well. Since they were going to die anyway, I don't think it was unreasonable. I'd rather it be official and not kept a secret tho.



i don't really see the benefit to a coverup.

i would think there's better PR for the government if they could say they were able to respond to 1 of 4 planes, rather than 0 for 4.

the downside would be if they actually shot down a non-hijacked plane. or one where the passengers weren't going to be killed anyways.

but, IF they shot it down, then by the time they would've released that knowledge to the public, the next day or so, they would've known that the plane was far off course, with its transponder turned off, and that 3 other similar planes were used as weapons.

if on 9/13 the government confirmed that they shot down flight 93, i believe it would've helped the administration.

i can't see why they would want to risk a coverup, when the actual action would've been largely viewed as a positive.