Refuting the Hollow Arguments of the So-called 9/11 Debunkers & Truthers
Showing posts with label new 9/11 investigation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label new 9/11 investigation. Show all posts
Friday, October 2, 2015
Wednesday, August 26, 2015
#Declassify ACTION ALERT: Sign White House Petition for Release of 28 Pages
ACTION ALERT: Sign White House Petition for Release of 28 Pages:
http://28pages.org/2015/08/26/action-alert-sign-white-house-petition-for-release-of-28-pages/
#Declassify:
http://911blogger.com/news/2014-08-21/declassify
http://www.infowars.com/declassify-campaign-to-reveal-the-28-censored-pages-of-the-911-commission-report/
The Reasons Why Thousands Of Victims' Families Want a New 9/11 Investigation:
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2014/03/thousands-of-victims-family-members.html
Source Videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBsR2N81E_s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-n3ayDFUXI0
Friday, September 16, 2011
Massachusetts 9/11 Ballot Initiative Press Conference
911truth.org
September 16, 2011
September 16, 2011
Former Georgia Rep. Cynthia McKinney:
Former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel:
Senator Mike Gravel, a native of Massachusetts, along with Massachusetts 9/11 Truth activists, launched its campaign for a 2012 ballot initiative which seeks the creation of a Citizens' 9/11 Commission, by holding a press conference held on September 13, 2011 on the steps of the Massachusetts State House in Boston. The ballot question was submitted in August and was certified by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley on September 7. According to the Massachusetts initiative law, supporters must collect a minimum of nearly 70,000 valid signatures from registered voters by early December of 2011.
Gravel will be working closely with the statewide alliance to create awareness of the initiative. The Senator will personally head the funding effort, which will be a worldwide campaign.
Senator Gravel will be supported in the state by a coalition of Massachusetts 9/11 advocacy groups and local concerned citizens led by Rich McCampbell, a Cambridge-based biotech engineer, and Rich Aucoin, former Libertarian candidate for lieutenant governor who has worked in senior positions in three previous initiative campaigns. The group's slogan is "9/11--Never Forget."
If the 9-11cc petition campaign succeeds in getting its measure on the Massachusetts ballot, and if it is approved by Massachusetts voters in November of 2012, the primary work of the "Citizens' 9/11 Investigation Commission," once it is funded and seated, will be to engage in a fair and impartial investigation of the circumstances of the attacks of September 11, 2001.
The Commission, supported by its staff, will call or subpoena witnesses and hold evidentiary hearings under oath. It will also be empowered to inquire into events leading up to 9/11, as well as those occurring in its aftermath, and will re-examine the findings of any previous investigations.
The Commission established by the initiative law will consist of at least 15 members. Commissioners will be selected by the Citizens' 9/11 Commission Campaign steering committee from a screened list of nominations submitted by the public and also from among its own internally compiled list of distinguished citizens. The newly seated commissioners will then elect an executive director who will hire staff. The final report on the Commission's findings, due no later than January 1, 2015, can be used by a state or federal prosecutor to issue indictments if and when appropriate.
"The previous 9/11 Commission report," noted Aucoin, "did not hold any U.S. government officials responsible for possible negligence or for intended or unintended missteps that led to the events of 9/11. Well-established rules of evidence were never applied to the original Commission's finding, which alleged that Osama bin Laden and a list of co-conspirators committed the crimes. The intent of our approach, by contrast, is to hold all parties to this tragedy accountable under the criminal laws of the State of Massachusetts or the laws of any other state that joins our effort."
Notably, other states and even cities and towns may enter into a "joint-powers' agreement with Massachusetts if the initiative law passes. The authorized powers of the new commission can be extended to any state, city or town that enters into this agreement for cooperation. "The Citizens' 9/11 Investigation Commission created by the Massachusetts law may exercise all investigatory powers of each state that has entered into the joint powers agreement," explained Gravel, "including but not limited to the power of subpoena in that state and the power to take testimony under oath."
Using several different state initiative laws to create one citizens' commission, thereby creating a de facto national effort, is without precedent, but has already been legally accepted in principle by the offices of legislative counsel of the states of California and Oregon. "The law now submitted to Massachusetts," said Gravel, "was in fact drafted by me in cooperation with Oregon's State Office of Legislative Counsel. I then slightly altered it for introduction in Massachusetts. We will file the Oregon document shortly. Our intent is to keep the Oregon and Massachusetts texts -- and that of any other state initiative that we file -- as similar as possible."
Massachusetts Media Contact: Rich Aucoin, 781-956-6013, RichAucoin@comcast.net
Monday, August 8, 2011
9/11 Attacks Ten Years Later - Be a Part of History on September 11, 2011
Posted by John-Michael P. Talboo
9/11 "debunker" Ryan Owens has declared that the 9/11 truth movement is dead. Please join blog contributor Adam Taylor and myself in New York City this upcoming September 11th and help prove that he is dead wrong.
Immortal Technique - What A Patriot Does
http://www.groundzero2011.com/
Please share this video far and wide. Comment, hit the like button, and please subscribe. Be a part of history on September 11, 2011. Come to New York City and stand with us. It's time to unite in the streets and demand a new investigation.
9/11, Ten Years
We Are Change.org
August 7, 2011
Questions, questions, questions that still after ten years is unanswered. This is a problem, that people are still unaware of. To paraphrase what Dan Dicks from Press For Truth, an alternative media group based in Toronto said in one of his films; in order for change to come, people must first realize there is a problem.
The ten-year anniversary for 9/11 is coming up soon. I am sure everyone is wondering what are the plans. They will form in time as in previous years, but here are some important points. The anniversary is on Sunday, leaving Saturday to travel, so if you could not get time off, you could still make it. Next year 9/11 falls on a Tuesday. That’s why I feel it is so important to show our numbers for Sunday in whatever is planned. This is the tenth-year anniversary, if we don’t do it now it may not be done on the eleventh, twelfth, or thirteenth anniversary. Since it is on a Sunday, I would highly recommend things be very peaceful, and simple.
So let’s show people there is a problem with unanswered questions, by strength, in our numbers at Ground Zero on Sunday.
Come to NYC for the tenth-year anniversary, I would love to get the best photographs ever!
Scott
WAC Photographer
Source URL:
http://www.infowars.com/911-ten-years/
Related Info:
Click here for details.
AE911Truth 10th Anniversary Activities
9/11 "debunker" Ryan Owens has declared that the 9/11 truth movement is dead. Please join blog contributor Adam Taylor and myself in New York City this upcoming September 11th and help prove that he is dead wrong.
Immortal Technique - What A Patriot Does
http://www.groundzero2011.com/
Please share this video far and wide. Comment, hit the like button, and please subscribe. Be a part of history on September 11, 2011. Come to New York City and stand with us. It's time to unite in the streets and demand a new investigation.
9/11, Ten Years
We Are Change.org
August 7, 2011
Questions, questions, questions that still after ten years is unanswered. This is a problem, that people are still unaware of. To paraphrase what Dan Dicks from Press For Truth, an alternative media group based in Toronto said in one of his films; in order for change to come, people must first realize there is a problem.
The ten-year anniversary for 9/11 is coming up soon. I am sure everyone is wondering what are the plans. They will form in time as in previous years, but here are some important points. The anniversary is on Sunday, leaving Saturday to travel, so if you could not get time off, you could still make it. Next year 9/11 falls on a Tuesday. That’s why I feel it is so important to show our numbers for Sunday in whatever is planned. This is the tenth-year anniversary, if we don’t do it now it may not be done on the eleventh, twelfth, or thirteenth anniversary. Since it is on a Sunday, I would highly recommend things be very peaceful, and simple.
So let’s show people there is a problem with unanswered questions, by strength, in our numbers at Ground Zero on Sunday.
Come to NYC for the tenth-year anniversary, I would love to get the best photographs ever!
Scott
WAC Photographer
Source URL:
http://www.infowars.com/911-ten-years/
Related Info:
Click here for details.
AE911Truth 10th Anniversary Activities
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
The Year in Duh-Bunking: March
Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog has published the March installment of his "Year In Troof" series. Faith summed up the major point he is raising quite well on this blog back on March 6th, stating:
Scootle had this to say on March 5th:
After Pat called the Pentagon shooter a "nutbar", Scootle came up with this artist rendering of the assailant on March 6th, with a reminder of what I told Pat he should do with such a sweet nutty treat:
"Pat Curley needs to put a nutbar in his pie hole!"
Pat also states in his new blog post that, "The Washington Post slammed Japanese Troofer Fujita. Fujita tried to weasel out of it."
Fujita is a member of the Democratic Party of Japan. At the time I pointed out that the Washington Post was right about a few things. That being said, Fujita didn't weasel out of anything. His strongest opinion voiced during his speech to the Japanese Parliament concerned the damage to the Pentagon, which he later stated was an issue the Bush administration could put to rest "simply by showing videos that show the plane that hit the Pentagon." On the other matters he was more agnostic, citing the doubts and information of "very influential people" about 9/11 and stating that the information has "not been properly investigated." So while Fujita was angry at the Washington Post for their characterization of his 9/11 views and for publishing comments made during an informal chat about 9/11 as opposed to the hour long interview he gave them on immigration, he did not withdrawal his request for a new 9/11 investigation.
As was also demonstrated in Pat's February "Year in Troof" post, 9/11 truth remained "a mainstream political reality" in 2010.
Pat notes that, "The Troofers managed to get propositions on the ballot in six tiny New Hampshire towns, and went 1-5."
On March 13th Pat stated that, "And you won't hear about it anywhere else other than here and at JREF." However, on March 12th 911blogger.com posted the an article entitled "Richmond, New Hampshire Passes Resolution For New 9/11 Investigation," which stated:
Here is an important year in review item from March that Pat missed.
Super-Duper Thermite: A Year in Review
Related Info:
9/11 Truth Movement: Year in Review (2009-2010)
The Year in Duh-Bunking: January
The Year in Duh-Bunking: February
Out of the thousands of people who believe that we were fed a load of bull from the government in the official conspiracy theory of 9/11...There are three or four out of those thousands that have bi-polar disorders or anger issues from being screwed by the government. (What are the odds)Faith should have said millions of people!
For "them" to insinuate that we "Truthers" in whole, as a movement, are a danger to anyone, makes as much sense as me saying that since both of those who recently went over the edge in a violent manner were software techs, then all software techs are unstable and prone to violence.
It is clear that there are many sane software techs and a couple of over the edge software techs do not represent the majority of software techs. So if we follow this thought procession logically,... then a couple of people reacting in a over the edge manner (who believe that we have been lied to by our government in regards to 9/11 Truth,) do not represent the majority of Truthers.
Scootle had this to say on March 5th:
...The idea of demonizing an entire movement just because one apple goes rotten is completely illogical. Charles Manson was a Beatles fan, does that mean all Beatles fans are mass murderers? And Michael Jackson was a suspected paedophile, does that mean he was a bad musician? Does that mean all popstars are paedophiles? You see what I'm saying here? 9/11 truth is generally a peaceful movement and they know it. But of course, that's not going to stop the pathetic debunkers and media whores from having a field day over this.Pat also employs this type of argument by pointing out Holocaust deniers in the movement.
After Pat called the Pentagon shooter a "nutbar", Scootle came up with this artist rendering of the assailant on March 6th, with a reminder of what I told Pat he should do with such a sweet nutty treat:
"Pat Curley needs to put a nutbar in his pie hole!"
Pat also states in his new blog post that, "The Washington Post slammed Japanese Troofer Fujita. Fujita tried to weasel out of it."
Fujita is a member of the Democratic Party of Japan. At the time I pointed out that the Washington Post was right about a few things. That being said, Fujita didn't weasel out of anything. His strongest opinion voiced during his speech to the Japanese Parliament concerned the damage to the Pentagon, which he later stated was an issue the Bush administration could put to rest "simply by showing videos that show the plane that hit the Pentagon." On the other matters he was more agnostic, citing the doubts and information of "very influential people" about 9/11 and stating that the information has "not been properly investigated." So while Fujita was angry at the Washington Post for their characterization of his 9/11 views and for publishing comments made during an informal chat about 9/11 as opposed to the hour long interview he gave them on immigration, he did not withdrawal his request for a new 9/11 investigation.
As was also demonstrated in Pat's February "Year in Troof" post, 9/11 truth remained "a mainstream political reality" in 2010.
Pat notes that, "The Troofers managed to get propositions on the ballot in six tiny New Hampshire towns, and went 1-5."
On March 13th Pat stated that, "And you won't hear about it anywhere else other than here and at JREF." However, on March 12th 911blogger.com posted the an article entitled "Richmond, New Hampshire Passes Resolution For New 9/11 Investigation," which stated:
To our disappointment seven other towns voted down the resolutions, though the overall percentage of votes in favor (in towns where exact results were recorded) was 23%. In referendums on social issues that depend more on values than awareness of the facts, 77% to 23% might be a landslide. However, because of the painful implications of 9/11 not being what we were told, and the media blackout on critical examination of the official 9/11 account, about 1 in 4 voters calling for a new 9/11 investigation is an accomplishment we can be proud of – it shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that questioning 9/11 is anything but fringe.I think these are all great points, but Pat probably disagrees because the bottom line is that the numbers prove most people don't agree with us and therefore we are wrong. But as FOX News has pointed out, "A majority of the public believes the assassination of President John F. Kennedy was part of a larger conspiracy." Does Pat agree? Will Pat change his mind if and when the numbers shift to our favor? Not a chance, because he's a goalpost moving duh-bunker.
Here is an important year in review item from March that Pat missed.
Super-Duper Thermite: A Year in Review
Related Info:
9/11 Truth Movement: Year in Review (2009-2010)
The Year in Duh-Bunking: January
The Year in Duh-Bunking: February
Charles Lewis
So, Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog seems to have taken Scootle's advice and did some further reading on Charles Lewis, who says that he overheard radio chatter at Los Angeles International Airport on 9/11 saying that "NORAD had not responded, because it had been 'ordered to stand down'"
In a previous post Pat stated, "But what time was the Pentagon hit? Around 9:38 in the morning, right? What time is that in LA? So now we're supposed to believe that an LA building inspector was at work at LAX before 6:30 in the morning?"
To which Scootle replied, "Now I know Pat read my post on the program, he mentions it in his article, but he obviously did not read the 911truth.org article I linked to. According to his testimony, he was at work around 6:30AM."
Now Pat has this to say:
To say that Lewis was there to "fix certain parts of a guard shack" is a misrepresentation of what he says in the aritcle. As he points out, "'LAX Security' involves the Los Angeles World Airport Police Department, the Los Angeles Police Department, and sometimes the FBI and/or the California Highway Patrol." Lewis states that he was "one of only a few persons who would know how to fix certain parts of the new security systems if problems developed," and that he "managed the design changes and construction" for the systems at Guard Post II. Thanks for reading though, Pat.
Blog contributor AdamT. had this to say:
He could possibly get in contact with the individuals mentioned and I will try to do just that. Nevermind the fact that if Lewis were lying it doesn't make sense for him to suggest ways his story could not just be proved, but disproved as well.
In a previous post Pat stated, "But what time was the Pentagon hit? Around 9:38 in the morning, right? What time is that in LA? So now we're supposed to believe that an LA building inspector was at work at LAX before 6:30 in the morning?"
To which Scootle replied, "Now I know Pat read my post on the program, he mentions it in his article, but he obviously did not read the 911truth.org article I linked to. According to his testimony, he was at work around 6:30AM."
Now Pat has this to say:
He went out there to be available to fix certain parts of a guard shack? And I'm sorry, I don't find his claims of being at the Hilton at 6:30 AM very credible. At the end he provides several ways in which his story could be corroborated, but you can guess the next part. David Ray Griffin (who made the post at 911 truth dot org) made no attempt to confirm the guy's story.How about giving Scootle a tip of the hat? Don't want to admit that you didn't look into the issue at all before making a comment?
To say that Lewis was there to "fix certain parts of a guard shack" is a misrepresentation of what he says in the aritcle. As he points out, "'LAX Security' involves the Los Angeles World Airport Police Department, the Los Angeles Police Department, and sometimes the FBI and/or the California Highway Patrol." Lewis states that he was "one of only a few persons who would know how to fix certain parts of the new security systems if problems developed," and that he "managed the design changes and construction" for the systems at Guard Post II. Thanks for reading though, Pat.
Blog contributor AdamT. had this to say:
"And I'm sorry, I don't find his claims of being at the Hilton at 6:30 AM very credible." -PatPat states that David Ray Griffin should have followed up on the recommendations Lewis made to corroborate his story. How is he supposed to obtain video from LAX security cameras and audio of the phone conversations, radio transmissions, and radio broadcast at LAX? I think a new 9/11 investigation would be better suited to do that.
Wow. You know, I hope for Pat's sake that if a crime is ever committed against him, the police don't use his method of investigation.
He could possibly get in contact with the individuals mentioned and I will try to do just that. Nevermind the fact that if Lewis were lying it doesn't make sense for him to suggest ways his story could not just be proved, but disproved as well.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Action Alert: Send This Letter to Any Architects and Engineers You Can Find!
As AE911Truth has stated before, "Its easy! Just look them up in the phone book or on the Internet and send them an email (like the one below)." Just type "architectural firms" or "engineering firms" followed by any state or country and you will find plenty of results. Make sure to check their site for the latest number as it is perpetually growing much to the chagrin of the so-called debunkers.
Subject:
1,450 architectural and engineering professionals calling for a new 9/11 investigation
Letter:
Hello,
As a credentialed building professional you can assist in putting an end to the War on Terror by signing a petition that calls for a new investigation into the attacks of September 11. Already the war has killed many thousands of innocent civilians and US military personnel. With no end in sight it is imperative that people with expertise stand up and question the physics defying official explanation into the collapse of the 3 World Trade Centre Buildings on 9/11. Please visit http//ae911truth.org, but first take a look at some of the individuals you will find amongst their ranks.
Dwain Deets appointed as NASA Dryden Aerospace Projects Director
February 28, 1996
Release: 96-10
...In 1986 Deets received the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics Award. Among his other awards are the NASA Exceptional Service Award, presented in 1988. He was included in "Who's Who in America" for 1990-91 and "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" from 1993 to the present.
He was the 1988-90 chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers. He has also been a member of the AIAA technical committee on Society and Aerospace Technology from 1990 to 1995. He is a 1961 graduate of Occidental College, Los Angeles. He earned a master of science degree in physics from San Diego State College in 1962 and then a master of science degree in engineering, as part of the Engineering Executive Program, at UCLA in 1978.
Source:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/NewsReleases/1996/96-10.html
Excellent radio interview with former NASA Engineering Executive and AE911Truth active member Dwain Deets
Here is an article from AE911Truth showcasing 60 of their aerospace engineers.
You will also find people like Alfred Lee Lopez, who is "a structural engineer with 48 years of experience in all types of buildings."
Source:
http://www2.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=991403
Robert F. Marceau, who:
Worked for 30 years as a structural engineer in New Jersey, Colorado, and Nevada. Designed as project engineer a variety of structures including Bridges, High-rise office commercial buildings, parking structures, Project Manager Mirage hotel (Las Vegas) , Part of team on Bank One Ballpark Pheonix, Arizona, and many other structural related projects
Source:
http://www2.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=989952
And Ron Brookman, who:
Received his M.S. in Structural Engineering (1986) from the University of California at Davis, following a B.S. in Civil Engineering from the same school in 1984. He has over 23 years experience in structural analysis, design, evaluation and rehabilitation of buildings in northern California.
Here is an article by Brookman which "Dismantles the NIST Analysis of WTC 7."
And although they are not signatories at AE911Truth "two professors of structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo Bachmann) said that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition."
Source:
Prominent Structural Engineers Say Official Version of 9/11 "Impossible" "Defies Common Logic" "Violates the Law of Physics"
Here is an article from AE911Truth showcasing 29 of their structural/civil engineers.
Here is an article from an Englewood Florida paper about the experiments of AE911Truth civil engineer Jonathan Cole, he states, "I am looking for someone to prove me wrong. I would love for someone to prove me wrong."
Here is AE911Truth mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti on the show "Geraldo At Large" on FOX News.
Then of course there are the architects where you will find people like 40-year Architect Stephen Barasch:
High-Rise Architect with Transamerica Building Design Experience Signs AE911Truth Petition
Here is a video interview with Mr. Barasch.
And Robert E. McCoy:
Project Architect-Director for many high and low rise steel structures including the 34 story 1.7 Million SF Headquarters Building for Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Francisco, 44 story Citicorp Building San Francisco, 44 story 575 Market street Building, San Francisco (A Standard Oil Company Headquarters Building), St. Mary's Hospital and Medical Center, San Francisco, and the 1 Million SF Tom Bradley International Terminal at LAX.
Source:
http://www2.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=986416
Here is a video interview with Mr. McCoy.
It must also be pointed out that among the other signatories of the AE911Truth petition are many highly credentialed people in other fields equally as relevant to the issue. Petition signers include physicists, firefighters, metallurgists, explosives experts, and controlled demolition technicians.
One of the controlled demolition technicians is Tom Sullivan. He is a former photographer and explosive-charge placement technician for Controlled Demolition, Inc.; a company that was a major player in the removal and recycling of the steel at Ground Zero. While working with CDI Sullivan personally placed hundreds of explosive charges at the Kingdome demolition site in Seattle Washington, which set a world record for the largest structural implosion by volume. He also held a FDNY issued Powder Carrier licence; a position that is just one step down from being "the most highly qualified person at the blasting site."
Please give the information presented by these individuals careful consideration before making a decision and make sure not to miss this video interview with AE911Truth chemical engineer Mark Basile regarding the forensic evidence.
Here is their entire membership list.
For refutations of so-called debunkers visit this site.
Sincerely,
YOUR NAME
Subject:
1,450 architectural and engineering professionals calling for a new 9/11 investigation
Letter:
Hello,
As a credentialed building professional you can assist in putting an end to the War on Terror by signing a petition that calls for a new investigation into the attacks of September 11. Already the war has killed many thousands of innocent civilians and US military personnel. With no end in sight it is imperative that people with expertise stand up and question the physics defying official explanation into the collapse of the 3 World Trade Centre Buildings on 9/11. Please visit http//ae911truth.org, but first take a look at some of the individuals you will find amongst their ranks.
Dwain Deets appointed as NASA Dryden Aerospace Projects Director
February 28, 1996
Release: 96-10
...In 1986 Deets received the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics Award. Among his other awards are the NASA Exceptional Service Award, presented in 1988. He was included in "Who's Who in America" for 1990-91 and "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" from 1993 to the present.
He was the 1988-90 chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers. He has also been a member of the AIAA technical committee on Society and Aerospace Technology from 1990 to 1995. He is a 1961 graduate of Occidental College, Los Angeles. He earned a master of science degree in physics from San Diego State College in 1962 and then a master of science degree in engineering, as part of the Engineering Executive Program, at UCLA in 1978.
Source:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/NewsReleases/1996/96-10.html
Excellent radio interview with former NASA Engineering Executive and AE911Truth active member Dwain Deets
Here is an article from AE911Truth showcasing 60 of their aerospace engineers.
You will also find people like Alfred Lee Lopez, who is "a structural engineer with 48 years of experience in all types of buildings."
Source:
http://www2.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=991403
Robert F. Marceau, who:
Worked for 30 years as a structural engineer in New Jersey, Colorado, and Nevada. Designed as project engineer a variety of structures including Bridges, High-rise office commercial buildings, parking structures, Project Manager Mirage hotel (Las Vegas) , Part of team on Bank One Ballpark Pheonix, Arizona, and many other structural related projects
Source:
http://www2.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=989952
And Ron Brookman, who:
Received his M.S. in Structural Engineering (1986) from the University of California at Davis, following a B.S. in Civil Engineering from the same school in 1984. He has over 23 years experience in structural analysis, design, evaluation and rehabilitation of buildings in northern California.
Here is an article by Brookman which "Dismantles the NIST Analysis of WTC 7."
And although they are not signatories at AE911Truth "two professors of structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo Bachmann) said that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition."
Source:
Prominent Structural Engineers Say Official Version of 9/11 "Impossible" "Defies Common Logic" "Violates the Law of Physics"
Here is an article from AE911Truth showcasing 29 of their structural/civil engineers.
Here is an article from an Englewood Florida paper about the experiments of AE911Truth civil engineer Jonathan Cole, he states, "I am looking for someone to prove me wrong. I would love for someone to prove me wrong."
Here is AE911Truth mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti on the show "Geraldo At Large" on FOX News.
Then of course there are the architects where you will find people like 40-year Architect Stephen Barasch:
High-Rise Architect with Transamerica Building Design Experience Signs AE911Truth Petition
Here is a video interview with Mr. Barasch.
And Robert E. McCoy:
Project Architect-Director for many high and low rise steel structures including the 34 story 1.7 Million SF Headquarters Building for Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Francisco, 44 story Citicorp Building San Francisco, 44 story 575 Market street Building, San Francisco (A Standard Oil Company Headquarters Building), St. Mary's Hospital and Medical Center, San Francisco, and the 1 Million SF Tom Bradley International Terminal at LAX.
Source:
http://www2.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=986416
Here is a video interview with Mr. McCoy.
It must also be pointed out that among the other signatories of the AE911Truth petition are many highly credentialed people in other fields equally as relevant to the issue. Petition signers include physicists, firefighters, metallurgists, explosives experts, and controlled demolition technicians.
One of the controlled demolition technicians is Tom Sullivan. He is a former photographer and explosive-charge placement technician for Controlled Demolition, Inc.; a company that was a major player in the removal and recycling of the steel at Ground Zero. While working with CDI Sullivan personally placed hundreds of explosive charges at the Kingdome demolition site in Seattle Washington, which set a world record for the largest structural implosion by volume. He also held a FDNY issued Powder Carrier licence; a position that is just one step down from being "the most highly qualified person at the blasting site."
Please give the information presented by these individuals careful consideration before making a decision and make sure not to miss this video interview with AE911Truth chemical engineer Mark Basile regarding the forensic evidence.
Here is their entire membership list.
For refutations of so-called debunkers visit this site.
Sincerely,
YOUR NAME
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Iraq Inquiry: your opportunity to demand a new 9/11 investigation
28 September 2010
From Reinvestigate 911
YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO DEMAND A NEW 9/11 INVESTIGATION
Reinvestigate 911 is asking 9/11 truth activists worldwide to write to the Iraq Inquiry in London in support of our submission. Please forward this email to any politicians or journalists who may be interested.
Our letter is copied in full below. Since Tony Blair confirmed in his testimony that 9/11 "changed the calculus of risk" when it came to invading Iraq, the Iraq Inquiry must now consider whether we have been told the whole truth about the 9/11 attacks.
Please go to this page and fill in the response box.
http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/contact/submission-form.aspx
Please say you are supporting the letter from Reinvestigate911 (below) and then add your own comments, polite and factual of course, mentioning any experience or expert knowledge you may have to support your views.
Better still write a letter to
Sir John Chilcot, Iraq Inquiry, 35 Great Smith Street, London SW1P 3BG.
If you are a UK qualified lawyer please get in touch if you can offer any time pro bono to pursue either our letter to Chilcot (eg is there a judicial review option if Chilcot refuses our requests?), or matters related to the forthcoming 7/7 inquest.
KEY POINTS
If you write from outside the UK, please explain that there has never been a full independent inquiry into the 9/11 events in the US. The 9/11 Conmmission, run by White House insider Phillip Zelikow, has been criticised by its own members and the trial of alleged 9/11 ringleader Khaled Sheikh Mohammed seems to be postponed indefinitely.
The Inquiry's remit starts in summer 2001 when, according to the 9/11 Commission, many warnings of the impending 9/11 attacks were being disregarded in Washington.
Iraq Inquiry has written to campaigners as follows:
"The attribution of responsibility for the 9/11 bombings is outwith the terms of reference for this Inquiry, EXCEPT INSOFAR AS IT IMPACTS ON THE UK'S INVOLVEMENT IN IRAQ. We are nevertheless very grateful for the information and sources of further information provided in your letter and hope you will continue to follow the Inquiry's progress on our website." (our emphasis)
Commentators agree that 9/11 made the invasion of Iraq politically possible and Tony Blair specifically told the Inquiry that the 9/11 attacks changed the "calculus of risk" in respect to Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction. Hence they must look at 9/11 as a major element in the decision to invade Iraq, the matter which is at the heart of their terms of reference.
OUR LETTER TO THE INQUIRY
From: Ian Henshall and others
Hove BN3 7NQ
To Sir John Chilcot,
The Iraq Inquiry,
35 Great Smith Street, London SW1P 3BG
Your ref Alastair Seaton, IE0054
27 September 2010
Dear Sir John Chilcot,
Thank you for your recent letter in which you state:
"Thank you for your further letter of 27 July, in which you urge the Committee to challenge the conclusion that the 911 bombings were perpetrated by Al Qaeda. The attribution of responsibility for the 9/11 bombings is outwith the terms of reference for this Inquiry, except insofar as it impacts on the UK's involvement in Iraq. We are nevertheless very grateful for the information and sources of further information provided in your letter and hope you will continue to follow the Inquiry's progress on our website."
We welcome your agreement that the attribution of responsibility for 9/11 is relevant insofar as it impacts the UK's involvement in Iraq. Blair made clear that 9/11 was indeed a major factor in the invasion of Iraq while the official paper trail shows that the attribution of responsibility, which includes the failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks, is murkier than first appeared.
It is noteworthy that your terms of reference start in summer 2001 when, we now know, warnings of the 9/11 attacks were flooding into Washington.
1. BLAIR'S EVIDENCE AND THE QUESTIONS IT RAISES
In case there can be any doubt as to the central role of the 9/11 attacks in the decision to invade Iraq, please recall that Blair made his "shoulder to shoulder" speech in the weeks after 9/11 and as we now know decided effectively to subordinate UK foreign policy to the Bush White House at that time. As he explained to you very clearly and repeatedly in his testimony, 9/11 was a major factor in the decision to invade Iraq because it changed the "calculus of risk". This confirms what commentators across the political spectrum have been saying: that the invasion of Iraq was made politically possible by 9/11.
Assuming Al Qaeda carried out the attacks independently of any other organisation, an extremely important question remains: how were the attacks able to succeed and hence to change the "calculus of risk"?
2. DANGER OF PUBLIC DISSATISFACTION IF WASHINGTON'S EXPLANATION NOT EXAMINED
We accept it is not up to your Inquiry to determine what happened on 9/11, but we contend the public will not be satisfied unless you examine whether the explanation of the causes, offered to London by Washington, of this massive US defence failure was reliable. Given the anger that now exists in many quarters over the weapons of mass destruction allegations and the "dodgy dossiers" in the run-up to the Iraq invasion, we submit that the public will expect you to look into this with great concern and investigate whether the official 9/11 story is wrong, self-exculpatory, misleading, or simply not adequately substantiated. If Washington's explanation is unreliable we contend your report should state that further investigation is needed.
3. MISLEADING MEDIA REPORTS AND OFFICIAL STATEMENTS
A review of the media reports at the time confirms that the initial 9/11 account was indeed seriously wrong and that this is the version on which Tony Blair seems to have based his decision making. Politicians and commentators said that Al Qaeda succeeded in this unprecedented, audacious and well-planned attack because they had immense resources and, in the words of Condoleeza Rice, that in the US government "nobody could imagine" that such an attack might occur. Blair made similar comments.
However we now know that the main features of the 9/11 attacks had all been built into various Pentagon war games in the months before 9/11, that Rice had ignored multiple warnings from top officials and foreign governments, and that the failure of the CIA to co-operate with FBI investigations into the presumed 9/11 hijackers was a major factor in the success of the attacks. The 9/11 Commission chair said at one point that the attacks "could and should" have been prevented. There is much further evidence to support this view. It may be noteworthy too that the CIA's Inspector General later gave George Tenet, CIA director at the time, a severe reprimand over 9/11 on grounds that remain secret.
4. INADEQUACY OF INFORMATION SUPPLIED TO LONDON
If you agree with the consensus view now, that failings of the US authorities, glossed over at the time, were a significant factor in the success of the 9/11 attacks, and if London was trusting information supplied by Washington rather than carrying out their own checks, this has a major bearing on the UK decision to invade Iraq.
It would mean that the alternative policy to war was not properly evaluated. This would have been to avoid launching the invasions, deal with terrorism in the ways that had always been followed up to then, and deal with the causes of the intelligence failings at home.
5. WAS 9/11 ADEQUATELY INVESTIGATED PRIOR TO WAR?
We are not asking you to mount an entirely new investigation into the 9/11 attacks, but we hope you will agree that judgement by media acclamation and White House press release is not a sufficient basis to launch two wars. Therefore we submit that you should note in your final report that the 9/11 attacks have never been fully investigated by a well resourced and independent body prepared to consider a range of ideas on what the full story might be. Many people in the US, including many of the bereaved and members of the 9/11 Commission itself, emphasise the lack of a thorough investigation. The 9/11 Commission was starved of funds, given a very tight timescale and was refused access to key evidence. See note below for some more failings of the 9/11 Commission. The promised trial of alleged ringleader Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the only person ever indicted for a central role in the 9/11 attacks, seems to have been postponed indefinitely.
6. NEED FOR A NEW INVESTIGATION
A new 9/11 investigation, and particularly a sharing of the mountain of still secret evidence with the public, is all the more important in the light of the many details which still have not been satisfactorily explained. For instance there is so far no official explanation for the recent discovery by associate Professor Niels Harrit of uncombusted high energy artificial nanothermite particles in the dust at Ground Zero, which indicate the possibility that the collapse of the buildings was some sort of a controlled demolition which could explain the rapid and symmetrical downward collapse of the three (sic) multistorey WTC buildings. Official sources insist the collapses all happened spontaneously in a way unforeseen by any expert before the event, but independent experts have not been given access to the evidence or the computer models which government scientists rely on. Hundreds of architects, engineers and demolition experts have spoken out publicly calling for a new investigation.
Another reason for a further investigation is that the 9/11 Commission discovered the CIA had a top secret 80 strong Osama Bin Laden unit working on projects in the months before 9/11. This contrasts with the explanation proffered by many politicians and commentators that Washington had lost interest in Afghanistan. The CIA reportedly refused to talk to the 9/11 Commission about vast areas of what the OBL unit was up to.
Similarly no details have been given of the Pentagon's anti-hijack exercise running, apparently by sheer coincidence, at the exact time of the 9/11 attacks and which we now know interfered with the response from air traffic control and the Pentagon. Even the flight manifests for the hijacked planes are still secret.
7. QUESTIONS THAT NEED TO BE ASKED
As well as the more general recommendations mentioned above concerning the preventabilty of the 9/11 attacks and the failure to investigate the whole affair in any depth, we submit that you should ask some specific questions to Tony Blair. Before he gave his almost unconditional support to the Bush White House, did he task MI6 or any other UK agency to make an independent assessment of the 9/11 attacks, of who was behind them, and of how they came to be carried out so successfully? Did anyone mention to him that the Oklahoma bomb was at first wrongly blamed by Washington on Islamic extremists? Did he and his advisors discuss the possibility the attacks were successful as a result of failings in the US? Did they inquire if 9/11 resulted, as now seems possible, from a CIA sting operation gone wrong?
8. WHAT WE CAN OFFER
Finally we submit that you should take adequate evidence from us and make appropriate recommendations in your report, not only because the decision to invade Iraq is at the heart of your inquiry but also out of respect for the rights of the bereaved and other victims of many nationalities in both the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Please take public testimony from Paul Warburton on the general legal issues, Niels Harrit on the nanothermite at the World Trade Centre, and Ian Henshall for an overview on how the official 9/11 story has changed and whether it is reliable. Other experts could probably be made available including retired FBI and CIA officers.
Ian Henshall (co-ordinator Reinvestigate 911, author 911 The New Evidence)
Paul Warburton (barrister)
Niels Harrit (associate professor of Chemistry University of Copenhagen, nanotechnology specialist)
Noel Glynn (Convenor Quakers for Truth on Terrorism)
NOTE
The only official attempts to investigate 9/11 were the FBI probe that was ended prematurely and run by Bush appointee Michael Chertoff (later Homeland security chief in charge of the Hurricane Katrina disaster), and the 9/11 Commission. The latter was severely underfunded, short of time, and stuffed with Washington insiders. It never considered any scenario other than the official story. Its executive Director Phillip Zelikow was caught reporting regularly in secret to the White House, while Senator Max Cleland resigned angrily denouncing the process as a whitewash. Later the chief investigator John Farmer wrote that there was an agreement in the White House or the Pentagon to lie to investigators. The Commission failed to clarify the role of the CIA's top secret Osama Bin Laden unit and its refusal to pass on important information to the FBI prior to the attacks. It failed to investigate the collapse of the three World Trade Center buildings one of which was not struck by a plane and which we now know fell at free fall speed. For the chaos and manipulation of the 911 Commission by Zelikow and the Bush White House, see the book The Commission by Phil Shenon the New York Times specialist on the subject.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"9/11 THE NEW EVIDENCE"
pub Sept 2007 Constable (UK) ISBN 978-1-84529-514-1
http://www.amazon.co.uk/11-New-Evidence-Ian-Henshall/dp/1845295145/
"9/11 Revealed: The New Evidence"
pub Oct 2007 Carroll & Graf (US) ISBN-10: 0786720417
http://www.amazon.com/9-11-Revealed-New-Evidence/dp/0786720417/
Ian Henshall is also proprietor of Coffee Plant ( www.coffee.uk.com)
and chair of INK, trade organisation for UK alternative print media (www.ink.uk.com)
Ian Henshall's email is crisisnewsletter@pro-net.co.uk
My Letter:
Hello,
I am writing to voice my support for the letter from Reinvestigate911 below. Let there be no doubt that these two issues are inescapably intertwined. President Bush's March 18, 2003 letter to Congress authorizing the use of force against Iraq, includes the following paragraph.
(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Sincerely,
John-Michael P. Talboo
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com
Letter from Debunking the Debunkers blog contributor Steve Weathers:
There are frightening consequences for failing to act upon the evidence showing that the attacks of September 11 involved an element of US Government complicity:
Dear Reader, this submission to the Inquiry is in support of the letter from Reinvestigate911. (This document should already be on file with your investigation.)
As you are probably well aware, there is a direct connection to the illegal invasion of Iraq and the attacks of 911.
Put simply: the threat of future 911 style terror attacks provided a "justification" for the preemptive War.
However, such a justification is totally undermined by damning material evidence that has come to light indicating the 911 attacks involved a huge degree of "inside help".
I will not go over the evidence here suffice to say that other submissions to your inquiry will have covered the forensic evidence that proves the official story is a lie. (Visit: http://www.ae911truth.org and for counter disinformation material http://911debunkers.blogspot.com)
My task here is to alert the Inquiry to the serious implications of ignoring this evidence.
It should be noted that:
1. Failure to recognise the staged nature of 911 helps to prolong the false paradigm, held in the minds of policy makers and the general public, that the War on Terror and the invasion of Iraq (and Afghanistan), can be somewhat justified as reaction to a heinous crime committed by Muslim extremists.
2. that; failure to recognise the hard evidence here places the population of many Western countries under threat of draconian anti-terror legislation, physical harm and continued psychological damage. Most troubling of all is the fact we are susceptible to further false flag incidents that may involve the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. My fear is that new terror attacks being planned by elements from within "our own side" will involve biological, chemical or nuclear devices.
3. that; failure to address the false flag nature of 911 leaves the door open for those war obsessed elements of US and European governments to attack countries like Iran that do not pose a threat and have not broken any International Laws.
Dear Reader, it does not matter how many real terrorists are caught or captured if elements of our own Governments and intelligence services have a hand in committing terrorist atrocities.
Please take action on the evidence that proves US complicity in 911 so we can see an end to the War in Iraq and an end to the wider War on Terror.
Thanks for you attention
Steven Weathers
Related Info:
Thank You Mr Curley: "Debunker" PROMOTES the "Building What?" Campaign & Pushes Discredited Material (again) to Discredit Himself.
From Reinvestigate 911
YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO DEMAND A NEW 9/11 INVESTIGATION
Reinvestigate 911 is asking 9/11 truth activists worldwide to write to the Iraq Inquiry in London in support of our submission. Please forward this email to any politicians or journalists who may be interested.
Our letter is copied in full below. Since Tony Blair confirmed in his testimony that 9/11 "changed the calculus of risk" when it came to invading Iraq, the Iraq Inquiry must now consider whether we have been told the whole truth about the 9/11 attacks.
Please go to this page and fill in the response box.
http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/contact/submission-form.aspx
Please say you are supporting the letter from Reinvestigate911 (below) and then add your own comments, polite and factual of course, mentioning any experience or expert knowledge you may have to support your views.
Better still write a letter to
Sir John Chilcot, Iraq Inquiry, 35 Great Smith Street, London SW1P 3BG.
If you are a UK qualified lawyer please get in touch if you can offer any time pro bono to pursue either our letter to Chilcot (eg is there a judicial review option if Chilcot refuses our requests?), or matters related to the forthcoming 7/7 inquest.
KEY POINTS
If you write from outside the UK, please explain that there has never been a full independent inquiry into the 9/11 events in the US. The 9/11 Conmmission, run by White House insider Phillip Zelikow, has been criticised by its own members and the trial of alleged 9/11 ringleader Khaled Sheikh Mohammed seems to be postponed indefinitely.
The Inquiry's remit starts in summer 2001 when, according to the 9/11 Commission, many warnings of the impending 9/11 attacks were being disregarded in Washington.
Iraq Inquiry has written to campaigners as follows:
"The attribution of responsibility for the 9/11 bombings is outwith the terms of reference for this Inquiry, EXCEPT INSOFAR AS IT IMPACTS ON THE UK'S INVOLVEMENT IN IRAQ. We are nevertheless very grateful for the information and sources of further information provided in your letter and hope you will continue to follow the Inquiry's progress on our website." (our emphasis)
Commentators agree that 9/11 made the invasion of Iraq politically possible and Tony Blair specifically told the Inquiry that the 9/11 attacks changed the "calculus of risk" in respect to Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction. Hence they must look at 9/11 as a major element in the decision to invade Iraq, the matter which is at the heart of their terms of reference.
OUR LETTER TO THE INQUIRY
From: Ian Henshall and others
Hove BN3 7NQ
To Sir John Chilcot,
The Iraq Inquiry,
35 Great Smith Street, London SW1P 3BG
Your ref Alastair Seaton, IE0054
27 September 2010
Dear Sir John Chilcot,
Thank you for your recent letter in which you state:
"Thank you for your further letter of 27 July, in which you urge the Committee to challenge the conclusion that the 911 bombings were perpetrated by Al Qaeda. The attribution of responsibility for the 9/11 bombings is outwith the terms of reference for this Inquiry, except insofar as it impacts on the UK's involvement in Iraq. We are nevertheless very grateful for the information and sources of further information provided in your letter and hope you will continue to follow the Inquiry's progress on our website."
We welcome your agreement that the attribution of responsibility for 9/11 is relevant insofar as it impacts the UK's involvement in Iraq. Blair made clear that 9/11 was indeed a major factor in the invasion of Iraq while the official paper trail shows that the attribution of responsibility, which includes the failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks, is murkier than first appeared.
It is noteworthy that your terms of reference start in summer 2001 when, we now know, warnings of the 9/11 attacks were flooding into Washington.
1. BLAIR'S EVIDENCE AND THE QUESTIONS IT RAISES
In case there can be any doubt as to the central role of the 9/11 attacks in the decision to invade Iraq, please recall that Blair made his "shoulder to shoulder" speech in the weeks after 9/11 and as we now know decided effectively to subordinate UK foreign policy to the Bush White House at that time. As he explained to you very clearly and repeatedly in his testimony, 9/11 was a major factor in the decision to invade Iraq because it changed the "calculus of risk". This confirms what commentators across the political spectrum have been saying: that the invasion of Iraq was made politically possible by 9/11.
Assuming Al Qaeda carried out the attacks independently of any other organisation, an extremely important question remains: how were the attacks able to succeed and hence to change the "calculus of risk"?
2. DANGER OF PUBLIC DISSATISFACTION IF WASHINGTON'S EXPLANATION NOT EXAMINED
We accept it is not up to your Inquiry to determine what happened on 9/11, but we contend the public will not be satisfied unless you examine whether the explanation of the causes, offered to London by Washington, of this massive US defence failure was reliable. Given the anger that now exists in many quarters over the weapons of mass destruction allegations and the "dodgy dossiers" in the run-up to the Iraq invasion, we submit that the public will expect you to look into this with great concern and investigate whether the official 9/11 story is wrong, self-exculpatory, misleading, or simply not adequately substantiated. If Washington's explanation is unreliable we contend your report should state that further investigation is needed.
3. MISLEADING MEDIA REPORTS AND OFFICIAL STATEMENTS
A review of the media reports at the time confirms that the initial 9/11 account was indeed seriously wrong and that this is the version on which Tony Blair seems to have based his decision making. Politicians and commentators said that Al Qaeda succeeded in this unprecedented, audacious and well-planned attack because they had immense resources and, in the words of Condoleeza Rice, that in the US government "nobody could imagine" that such an attack might occur. Blair made similar comments.
However we now know that the main features of the 9/11 attacks had all been built into various Pentagon war games in the months before 9/11, that Rice had ignored multiple warnings from top officials and foreign governments, and that the failure of the CIA to co-operate with FBI investigations into the presumed 9/11 hijackers was a major factor in the success of the attacks. The 9/11 Commission chair said at one point that the attacks "could and should" have been prevented. There is much further evidence to support this view. It may be noteworthy too that the CIA's Inspector General later gave George Tenet, CIA director at the time, a severe reprimand over 9/11 on grounds that remain secret.
4. INADEQUACY OF INFORMATION SUPPLIED TO LONDON
If you agree with the consensus view now, that failings of the US authorities, glossed over at the time, were a significant factor in the success of the 9/11 attacks, and if London was trusting information supplied by Washington rather than carrying out their own checks, this has a major bearing on the UK decision to invade Iraq.
It would mean that the alternative policy to war was not properly evaluated. This would have been to avoid launching the invasions, deal with terrorism in the ways that had always been followed up to then, and deal with the causes of the intelligence failings at home.
5. WAS 9/11 ADEQUATELY INVESTIGATED PRIOR TO WAR?
We are not asking you to mount an entirely new investigation into the 9/11 attacks, but we hope you will agree that judgement by media acclamation and White House press release is not a sufficient basis to launch two wars. Therefore we submit that you should note in your final report that the 9/11 attacks have never been fully investigated by a well resourced and independent body prepared to consider a range of ideas on what the full story might be. Many people in the US, including many of the bereaved and members of the 9/11 Commission itself, emphasise the lack of a thorough investigation. The 9/11 Commission was starved of funds, given a very tight timescale and was refused access to key evidence. See note below for some more failings of the 9/11 Commission. The promised trial of alleged ringleader Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the only person ever indicted for a central role in the 9/11 attacks, seems to have been postponed indefinitely.
6. NEED FOR A NEW INVESTIGATION
A new 9/11 investigation, and particularly a sharing of the mountain of still secret evidence with the public, is all the more important in the light of the many details which still have not been satisfactorily explained. For instance there is so far no official explanation for the recent discovery by associate Professor Niels Harrit of uncombusted high energy artificial nanothermite particles in the dust at Ground Zero, which indicate the possibility that the collapse of the buildings was some sort of a controlled demolition which could explain the rapid and symmetrical downward collapse of the three (sic) multistorey WTC buildings. Official sources insist the collapses all happened spontaneously in a way unforeseen by any expert before the event, but independent experts have not been given access to the evidence or the computer models which government scientists rely on. Hundreds of architects, engineers and demolition experts have spoken out publicly calling for a new investigation.
Another reason for a further investigation is that the 9/11 Commission discovered the CIA had a top secret 80 strong Osama Bin Laden unit working on projects in the months before 9/11. This contrasts with the explanation proffered by many politicians and commentators that Washington had lost interest in Afghanistan. The CIA reportedly refused to talk to the 9/11 Commission about vast areas of what the OBL unit was up to.
Similarly no details have been given of the Pentagon's anti-hijack exercise running, apparently by sheer coincidence, at the exact time of the 9/11 attacks and which we now know interfered with the response from air traffic control and the Pentagon. Even the flight manifests for the hijacked planes are still secret.
7. QUESTIONS THAT NEED TO BE ASKED
As well as the more general recommendations mentioned above concerning the preventabilty of the 9/11 attacks and the failure to investigate the whole affair in any depth, we submit that you should ask some specific questions to Tony Blair. Before he gave his almost unconditional support to the Bush White House, did he task MI6 or any other UK agency to make an independent assessment of the 9/11 attacks, of who was behind them, and of how they came to be carried out so successfully? Did anyone mention to him that the Oklahoma bomb was at first wrongly blamed by Washington on Islamic extremists? Did he and his advisors discuss the possibility the attacks were successful as a result of failings in the US? Did they inquire if 9/11 resulted, as now seems possible, from a CIA sting operation gone wrong?
8. WHAT WE CAN OFFER
Finally we submit that you should take adequate evidence from us and make appropriate recommendations in your report, not only because the decision to invade Iraq is at the heart of your inquiry but also out of respect for the rights of the bereaved and other victims of many nationalities in both the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Please take public testimony from Paul Warburton on the general legal issues, Niels Harrit on the nanothermite at the World Trade Centre, and Ian Henshall for an overview on how the official 9/11 story has changed and whether it is reliable. Other experts could probably be made available including retired FBI and CIA officers.
Ian Henshall (co-ordinator Reinvestigate 911, author 911 The New Evidence)
Paul Warburton (barrister)
Niels Harrit (associate professor of Chemistry University of Copenhagen, nanotechnology specialist)
Noel Glynn (Convenor Quakers for Truth on Terrorism)
NOTE
The only official attempts to investigate 9/11 were the FBI probe that was ended prematurely and run by Bush appointee Michael Chertoff (later Homeland security chief in charge of the Hurricane Katrina disaster), and the 9/11 Commission. The latter was severely underfunded, short of time, and stuffed with Washington insiders. It never considered any scenario other than the official story. Its executive Director Phillip Zelikow was caught reporting regularly in secret to the White House, while Senator Max Cleland resigned angrily denouncing the process as a whitewash. Later the chief investigator John Farmer wrote that there was an agreement in the White House or the Pentagon to lie to investigators. The Commission failed to clarify the role of the CIA's top secret Osama Bin Laden unit and its refusal to pass on important information to the FBI prior to the attacks. It failed to investigate the collapse of the three World Trade Center buildings one of which was not struck by a plane and which we now know fell at free fall speed. For the chaos and manipulation of the 911 Commission by Zelikow and the Bush White House, see the book The Commission by Phil Shenon the New York Times specialist on the subject.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"9/11 THE NEW EVIDENCE"
pub Sept 2007 Constable (UK) ISBN 978-1-84529-514-1
http://www.amazon.co.uk/11-New-Evidence-Ian-Henshall/dp/1845295145/
"9/11 Revealed: The New Evidence"
pub Oct 2007 Carroll & Graf (US) ISBN-10: 0786720417
http://www.amazon.com/9-11-Revealed-New-Evidence/dp/0786720417/
Ian Henshall is also proprietor of Coffee Plant ( www.coffee.uk.com)
and chair of INK, trade organisation for UK alternative print media (www.ink.uk.com)
Ian Henshall's email is crisisnewsletter@pro-net.co.uk
My Letter:
Hello,
I am writing to voice my support for the letter from Reinvestigate911 below. Let there be no doubt that these two issues are inescapably intertwined. President Bush's March 18, 2003 letter to Congress authorizing the use of force against Iraq, includes the following paragraph.
(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Sincerely,
John-Michael P. Talboo
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com
Letter from Debunking the Debunkers blog contributor Steve Weathers:
There are frightening consequences for failing to act upon the evidence showing that the attacks of September 11 involved an element of US Government complicity:
Dear Reader, this submission to the Inquiry is in support of the letter from Reinvestigate911. (This document should already be on file with your investigation.)
As you are probably well aware, there is a direct connection to the illegal invasion of Iraq and the attacks of 911.
Put simply: the threat of future 911 style terror attacks provided a "justification" for the preemptive War.
However, such a justification is totally undermined by damning material evidence that has come to light indicating the 911 attacks involved a huge degree of "inside help".
I will not go over the evidence here suffice to say that other submissions to your inquiry will have covered the forensic evidence that proves the official story is a lie. (Visit: http://www.ae911truth.org and for counter disinformation material http://911debunkers.blogspot.com)
My task here is to alert the Inquiry to the serious implications of ignoring this evidence.
It should be noted that:
1. Failure to recognise the staged nature of 911 helps to prolong the false paradigm, held in the minds of policy makers and the general public, that the War on Terror and the invasion of Iraq (and Afghanistan), can be somewhat justified as reaction to a heinous crime committed by Muslim extremists.
2. that; failure to recognise the hard evidence here places the population of many Western countries under threat of draconian anti-terror legislation, physical harm and continued psychological damage. Most troubling of all is the fact we are susceptible to further false flag incidents that may involve the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. My fear is that new terror attacks being planned by elements from within "our own side" will involve biological, chemical or nuclear devices.
3. that; failure to address the false flag nature of 911 leaves the door open for those war obsessed elements of US and European governments to attack countries like Iran that do not pose a threat and have not broken any International Laws.
Dear Reader, it does not matter how many real terrorists are caught or captured if elements of our own Governments and intelligence services have a hand in committing terrorist atrocities.
Please take action on the evidence that proves US complicity in 911 so we can see an end to the War in Iraq and an end to the wider War on Terror.
Thanks for you attention
Steven Weathers
Related Info:
Thank You Mr Curley: "Debunker" PROMOTES the "Building What?" Campaign & Pushes Discredited Material (again) to Discredit Himself.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Don't be a Slacktivist! [Updated]
Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog writes today:
So, NYC CAN was much more successful than Pat states and by his own admission should have had their initiative on the ballot. They've had weekly campaigns focused on raising awareness of WTC 7 since back in March, so it would not be surprising if the numbers have lessened, but there is no doubt that the total letters sent number in the thousands.
Here is a fax that I sent back in March to a few of the NYC Council members which destroys "debunker" talking points about Building 7. Here is an easy site from which to send free faxes. And here is a recent blog I did debunking Pat on the issue of WTC 7 foreknowledge.
The fact of the matter is, poll numbers indicate that 100 million Americans question the official 9/11 story, sometimes it's just a matter of getting people motivated. So, are we gonna let the "debunkers" get away with this!? Don't engage in slacktivism!
CHANNEL YOUR VOICE!
Update 6/15/10:
Fellow Advocates,
Thank you and congratulations! Together we finished Week 2 with 217 letters sent to the District Attorney's office.
In Week 3 let's make it our minimum goal to reach 500 letters, and in Week 4, 1000 letters! How do we do it?
If you haven't sent a letter yet, now is the time to join. You've never had an easier opportunity to take action and be heard. If you have been participating - in addition to sending your letter for Week 3 - make it your personal to goal to get just one friend to send a letter by forwarding this action alert and urging them to take action. There must be one person you can get to send a letter with you. If you can get that one person to send a letter, we will reach 500 letters this week and 1000 next week!
To help you get more people in your networks involved, the instructions have been refined, the action alert and letter are now posted on NYC CAN's Channel Your Voice page (the link is http://nyccan.org/join.php), and a Word file has been posted there for download/print.
Let's do our best to reach 500 letters this week and 1000 letters next week. The DA's office is listening!
Sincerely,
Ted Walter
Update 6/23/10:
Fellow Advocates!
Together we finished Week 3 with 221 letters sent to the District Attorney's office! It may not be 1000, but it's downright amazing when you think about the message 221 letters must send to the folks in the Special Prosecutions Bureau. 221 letters this week, on top of 217 letters last week, on top of 133 letters the week before. Wow!
The letter for Week 4 is our most important and most powerful one yet. Read it, and you'll agree. If there's one route the DA will most likely take to revealing the truth about September 11, 2001, it's the destruction of physical evidence at the WTC site.
Now is the time to take action if you haven't yet! Don't have a fax machine, an envelope or a stamp? NO PROBLEM! Go to FaxZero.com and send a fax for free by uploading your letter. The letter is only three pages so you can fax it for free!
And, in case it was unclear before, no matter where you live you can send a letter!
Thank you for never giving up hope.
Sincerely,
Ted Walter
Update 8/11/2010:
Fellow Advocates,
Thank you for all your hard work, and congratulations on a job well done! We finished Week 4 of "Wake up the DA" with 408 letters sent, bringing our grand total above 1,000 letters. Now that so many seeds have been planted with the City Council and DA - and NYC CAN continues to water them - it's time to shift our collective focus to creating the kind of political climate where those seeds can grow. Let's start with a major public awareness campaign, which we are proud to be joining several other leaders and organizations in supporting. Here it is.
Very Truly Yours,
Ted Walter
Related Info:
New Action Page at "BuildingWhat?"
NYC CAN, AE911Truth ask NYC city council to investigate WTC Building 7
Thank You Mr Curley: "Debunker" PROMOTES the "Building What?" Campaign & Pushes Discredited Material (again) to Discredit Himself.
Building What? is up...
133... That's how many people sent in letters/faxes to the NYC District Attorney requesting an investigation of WTC-7, per the request from NYC-CAN. One hundred and thirty-three. I mean, let's put that in perspective. NYC-CAN claimed to have gathered 30,000 or so signatures for their ballot initiative, right? Not really quite enough to qualify for the ballot, but close.First off Pat, it was not 30,000 signatures they gathered, it was 80,000, so no, you are not right.
This is 1/226th of that. And it gets worse, much worse, because that's an unfair comparison; nothing in the NYC-CAN current push says you have to live in the Big Apple.
Following on the heels of last week's idiotic attempt to get the DA to look at some videos of WTC-7's collapse, this week the Troofers are highlighting the supposed "countdowns" and "foreknowledge" as lines of investigation, featuring, no kidding, Kevin McPadden and Indira Singh.
So, NYC CAN was much more successful than Pat states and by his own admission should have had their initiative on the ballot. They've had weekly campaigns focused on raising awareness of WTC 7 since back in March, so it would not be surprising if the numbers have lessened, but there is no doubt that the total letters sent number in the thousands.
Here is a fax that I sent back in March to a few of the NYC Council members which destroys "debunker" talking points about Building 7. Here is an easy site from which to send free faxes. And here is a recent blog I did debunking Pat on the issue of WTC 7 foreknowledge.
The fact of the matter is, poll numbers indicate that 100 million Americans question the official 9/11 story, sometimes it's just a matter of getting people motivated. So, are we gonna let the "debunkers" get away with this!? Don't engage in slacktivism!
CHANNEL YOUR VOICE!
Update 6/15/10:
Fellow Advocates,
Thank you and congratulations! Together we finished Week 2 with 217 letters sent to the District Attorney's office.
In Week 3 let's make it our minimum goal to reach 500 letters, and in Week 4, 1000 letters! How do we do it?
If you haven't sent a letter yet, now is the time to join. You've never had an easier opportunity to take action and be heard. If you have been participating - in addition to sending your letter for Week 3 - make it your personal to goal to get just one friend to send a letter by forwarding this action alert and urging them to take action. There must be one person you can get to send a letter with you. If you can get that one person to send a letter, we will reach 500 letters this week and 1000 next week!
To help you get more people in your networks involved, the instructions have been refined, the action alert and letter are now posted on NYC CAN's Channel Your Voice page (the link is http://nyccan.org/join.php), and a Word file has been posted there for download/print.
Let's do our best to reach 500 letters this week and 1000 letters next week. The DA's office is listening!
Sincerely,
Ted Walter
Update 6/23/10:
Fellow Advocates!
Together we finished Week 3 with 221 letters sent to the District Attorney's office! It may not be 1000, but it's downright amazing when you think about the message 221 letters must send to the folks in the Special Prosecutions Bureau. 221 letters this week, on top of 217 letters last week, on top of 133 letters the week before. Wow!
The letter for Week 4 is our most important and most powerful one yet. Read it, and you'll agree. If there's one route the DA will most likely take to revealing the truth about September 11, 2001, it's the destruction of physical evidence at the WTC site.
Now is the time to take action if you haven't yet! Don't have a fax machine, an envelope or a stamp? NO PROBLEM! Go to FaxZero.com and send a fax for free by uploading your letter. The letter is only three pages so you can fax it for free!
And, in case it was unclear before, no matter where you live you can send a letter!
Thank you for never giving up hope.
Sincerely,
Ted Walter
Update 8/11/2010:
Fellow Advocates,
Thank you for all your hard work, and congratulations on a job well done! We finished Week 4 of "Wake up the DA" with 408 letters sent, bringing our grand total above 1,000 letters. Now that so many seeds have been planted with the City Council and DA - and NYC CAN continues to water them - it's time to shift our collective focus to creating the kind of political climate where those seeds can grow. Let's start with a major public awareness campaign, which we are proud to be joining several other leaders and organizations in supporting. Here it is.
Very Truly Yours,
Ted Walter
Related Info:
New Action Page at "BuildingWhat?"
NYC CAN, AE911Truth ask NYC city council to investigate WTC Building 7
Thank You Mr Curley: "Debunker" PROMOTES the "Building What?" Campaign & Pushes Discredited Material (again) to Discredit Himself.
Building What? is up...
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Friday, August 7, 2009
A Culture in Denial
WeAreChangeChicago
YouTube.com
August 01, 2009
A compilation of 911 truth in the news, as portrayed by the mainstream media.
"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum."
-Noam Chomsky
Related Info:
Cognitive Dissonance Avoidance, Denial, & Rationalization
Cognitive Dissonance Meets 9/11 Truth
911review.com: Media and Propaganda
9/11 Truth: Mainstream U.S. Media Suppresses 9/11 Questions
Mainstream Media Silently Screams for New 9/11 Investigation
Nanothermite Demolishes 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
9/11 "Truthers" or "Twoofers"? You Decide...
YouTube.com
August 01, 2009
A compilation of 911 truth in the news, as portrayed by the mainstream media.
"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum."
-Noam Chomsky
Related Info:
Cognitive Dissonance Avoidance, Denial, & Rationalization
Cognitive Dissonance Meets 9/11 Truth
911review.com: Media and Propaganda
9/11 Truth: Mainstream U.S. Media Suppresses 9/11 Questions
Mainstream Media Silently Screams for New 9/11 Investigation
Nanothermite Demolishes 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
9/11 "Truthers" or "Twoofers"? You Decide...
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Some thoughts on 9/11, debunkers, truthers, etc.
Scroll down past the "video" for commentary...
One thing that is great about the internet is that it gives the average man a voice, and therefore a chance to break the corporate stranglehold on the media, but it is also a double-edged sword. Uninformed and not so well thought out opinions are just as bad, or worse, when they come from citizen journalists.
From the Video..
"Alex Jones, the guy is a nut."
Reply...
This opinion is not really expanded upon, so the best defense for Jones I can offer is to point out that this is simply an ad hominem attack, and to note his achievements, and praise...
"This guy is a national treasure, a light breaking through the electronic Berlin Wall of the US media establishment."
- BBC Reporter Greg Palast
"Alex Jones is a true patriot, a genuine hero." - Actor/Director Charlie Sheen
Also noteworthy is that he admits he has only watched a small section of one of Alex's videos.
From the Video...
"Let's just say the government did it OK? Here is the problem, truthers are never going to prove it, because it's been how long, that's right, 8 years! I doubt all of the sudden they are going to find the evidence that they supposedly haven't found yet."
One thing that is great about the internet is that it gives the average man a voice, and therefore a chance to break the corporate stranglehold on the media, but it is also a double-edged sword. Uninformed and not so well thought out opinions are just as bad, or worse, when they come from citizen journalists.
From the Video..
"Alex Jones, the guy is a nut."
Reply...
This opinion is not really expanded upon, so the best defense for Jones I can offer is to point out that this is simply an ad hominem attack, and to note his achievements, and praise...
"This guy is a national treasure, a light breaking through the electronic Berlin Wall of the US media establishment."
- BBC Reporter Greg Palast
"Alex Jones is a true patriot, a genuine hero." - Actor/Director Charlie Sheen
Also noteworthy is that he admits he has only watched a small section of one of Alex's videos.
From the Video...
"Let's just say the government did it OK? Here is the problem, truthers are never going to prove it, because it's been how long, that's right, 8 years! I doubt all of the sudden they are going to find the evidence that they supposedly haven't found yet."
Reply...
And contrary to what the person who put this "video" together thinks, there is still ongoing research by truthers that involves new evidence...
Finally, there is also something to be said for people having knowledge, despite anything that happens in an official sense, I'm a sucker for the truth of an adage. Knowledge = Power. How do we know another 9/11 hasn't already been averted? As is pointed out in the book 9/11 Synthetic Terror - Made in the USA by Webster Griffin Tarpley (Note: I don't agree with all of his conclusions, or past allegations against other activists)...
"The open secret about drills is that they often hide the real thing."...
"Activists soon discovered Sudden Response 05, based on a 10-kiloton nuclear explosion in the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina. The websites mentioned (http://team8plus.org/ http://total411.info/) raised such a hue and cry about this drill, forcing an article in the main local newspaper trying to calm worried people down. The exposure worked well enough to cause the drill to be shut down before its completion. This was followed by a terror drill involving explosions in San Francisco Bay: a strange blast in the financial district at the end of this drill sent a woman to the hospital in critical condition. Then cam Granite Shadow/Power Geyser in Washington DC, with weapons of mass destruction and overtones of a military coup. All of these exercises were made more sinister by the shift of the official US strategic nuclear posture from deterrence and retaliation to global strike, meaning nuclear sneak attack, under CONPLAN 8022-22."
From the Video...
"Let's just drop this debate and move on to something more important because there's a lot more shit going on around the world that needs to have our attention now. We gotta move on."
Reply...
Well I for one can chew gum, rub my stomach, and pat my head at the same time. Furthermore, I think that anyone who makes such a statement hasn't thought the issue through. The implications of 9/11 being an inside job are massively important when we live in a post-9/11 world. Suggested reading...
Why We Need a New Investigation of 9/11 NOW!
We Can't "Move Forward" Without Truth and Justice
Zinn: 9/11 Truth Is For “Fanatics”, Has “No Practical Political Significance”
Monday, January 12, 2009
9/11 Truthers or Twoofers? You Decide...
By: FaithMichaels and John-Michael P. TalbooEver since people started questioning the facts about 9/11 they have encountered huge resistance from others. It is almost like people do not want to know the truth. It is like they are angry at us for not just swallowing down the official story and going along. They seem to be very upset that we dared to say "wait a minute" the story you are telling me does not match the evidence on the scene, or their own recorded facts of the incident. The official explanation does not add up when one starts looking at scientific and historical facts. The official government 9/11 committee's "facts" do not match a vast number of experts in the field; experts like architects, engineers, firefighters, and people who do demolition for a living. The 9/11 truthers have been insulted with repeated ad hominem attacks, told to go and take our medications, verbally threatened, called conspiracy nuts, kooks, etc. and cussed at.
Recently, Debunking the Debunkers blog contributor Stewart Bradley compiled various videos made by "debunkers" in an attempt to showcase their lack of lack of eloquence, venomous nature, and dependence on a priori objections and fallacious arguments. Sadly, and hilariously, they didn't get it. Upon finding and reposting Stewart's video, Pat Curley, of the "debunking" blog Screw Loose Change, commented that, "The best part is that the guy who put it together is a Troofer!" Of course "troofer," or "twoofer" is a derogatory term akin to calling someone a conspiracy nut, so right off the bat, Pat had proven Stewart's point! Instead of denouncing the people in the video for their lack of intelligent discourse, or proclaiming them to be the lowest common denominator of the "debunking" world, they were instead proud. The calls in the video for people to "put a bullet to their head" and "just kill yourself please" were not even decried. No, these people were apparently considered brethren of the highest order.
Surely Pat did not think it was funny when British man Kevin Whitrick hung himself live on the internet with 100 chatroom users watching, with one commenting “Fucking do it. Get on with it.” Who is to say some disturbed person doesn't take the advice offered in the "debunking" video? Granted, these are very different scenarios, but telling people that they should kill themselves isn't funny, or admirable, period.
After being shown that his video had been posted on the Screw Loose Change blog Stewart noted that, "They don't even get that the video is mocking them! One guy even posted that I don't understand irony. Don't that beat all!"
None of this is to say that members of the 9/11 truth movement, or this blog, always conduct themselves in the most saintly of ways. However, there is a difference between the proverbial straw that broke the camels back, and having one's modus operandi consist of flinging around insults. To put it another way, how many hundreds of "troofers" equals one "fuck you"?
After all, we are all conspiracy theorists when it comes to this issue, this fact is solidly demonstrated in the introduction to Professor David Ray Griffin's book, "Debunking 9/11 Debunking", in an essay entitled, Conspiracy Theories, General, Rational, and Irrational. It is pointed out for instance that when Matthew Rothschild, the editor of The Progressive, began his essay Enough of the 9/11 Conspiracies, Already by stating:
"Here's what the conspiracists believe: 9/11 was an inside job. Members of the Bush Administration ordered it, notOsama bin Laden. Arab hijackers may not have done the deed... [T]he Twin Towers fell not because of the impact of the planes and the ensuing fires but because [of] explosives.... I'm amazed at how many people give credence to these theories."
He did not have a paragraph saying:
Here's what the government's conspiracists believe: 19 hijackers with box-cutters defeated the most sophisticated defense system in history. Hani Hanjour who could barely fly a Piper Cub, flew an astounding trajectory to crash Flight 77 into the Pentagon, the most well-protected building on earth. Other hijacker pilots, by flying planes into two buildings of the World Trade Center, caused three of them to collapse straight down, totally, and at virtually free-fall speed.... I'm amazed at how many people give credence to these theories."
We have been told that the "burden of proof" is on our side. Yet no matter how many testimonies we provide, no matter how much evidence we collect, no matter how many documentaries are made showing that people in power KNEW months and even years before , or how many "smoking guns" are collected, compiled and presented , 9/11 Truthers are still told " it is not enough evidence." OK, then how much evidence do we need and what kind of evidence would matter? There is more than enough evidence to raise reasonable doubt here already. People have been arrested and thrown in jail on far less facts than these. Guantanamo Bay was full of people who were arrested, kept in prison and tortured on way less evidence than what has been collected from 9/11 families and truthers. Murder cases have been thrown out of court and known rapists have walked free, on way less reasonable doubt evidence than what 9/11 truthers have put together. People have been convicted and sentenced to death and executed on way less evidence than the 9/11 truthers have collected. So again we ask: how much evidence will be enough to open a new 9/11 investigation? The people who verbally attack us, harass us, stalk us through-out the internet, will not tell us the answer to that question. It seems that all they have as an answer is to name call and try to cast doubt as to our sanity. What they are trying to do is cast doubt as to our credibility. Indeed that seems to be ALL they have to work with.The people who question our sanity, our patriotism, etc. are the ones foaming at the mouth, spitting in your face, getting in your face, pointing fingers, using foul language, name calling, character assassinating and trying to push a person beyond any normal human tolerance level with actions and language that would test and sorely try the patience of even Mother Teresa.
These people behave like cyber bullies. They come to our blog site, YouTube channel, read?, and leave childish and foul profane insults. They behave in a complete out of control manner and appear to be people with deep anger issues. They speak as if they have no morals, no ethics, no home training, no compassion, and seem unable to have an intelligent fact-filled debate, or leave a sane comment.
All we have ever said is that there is enough evidence that counters the official story to open a new 9/11 investigation. One would have thought that we had asked for something sociably reprehensible and unforgivable.
These cyber bullies crawled out from under whatever cyber rock they were hiding and commenced to demonize, harass, and internet stalk anyone who dared to question our government's official party line.
They have been soooo dedicated to this demonizing, that one can't help but to wonder about THEIR sanity. Or to wonder; who are these people and if they are a tool of the government propaganda machine? They can't be "normal people" "normal people" do not behave this way, do they? Is this what happens to everybody who dares to question?
Look back in history; how many times have people been rejected and tormented by the "public perception of the world of the times" and official government ideology of the times"? Many of these people are well known. The name list includes; Einstein, Newton, Galileo, Jesus, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, etc.
Were our Founding Fathers called kooks, insane, etc. by the people of their times? What say you Mark Twain?
History has proven the above named people correct, and we believe that history will also prove the 9/11 truthers to be correct as well. We believe that it will show the 9/11 truthers to be true patriots, who helped to keep the Founding Fathers dream of this Republic and the people's dream of freedom and liberty alive and well for our children's children to enjoy.
History will show the governmental propaganda, party-line, fanatics to be just that, fanatics and spin-doctor propaganda people, that attempted to hide and distort the truth.
If you care about this country, if you just want to shut us truthers up, then give us a new investigation into 9/11. Of course Pat Curley of the ScrewLooseChange blog doesn't think it will result in us calling it a day, as he states, "the problem with the 'we just want a new investigation' people" is that, "Any new investigation will come to virtually the same conclusions as the original investigations, and the Troofers will yell "coverup" again. There may be some minor changes; a new investigation might come down a little harder on Bush and Tenet, but of course that will not be enough to satisfy 99% of the movement."
However, if we were to have a new investigation into 9/11 and the Bush administration by a panel of independent, non-government appointed experts, as opposed to the Bush administration investigating itself, we are positive his figure of 99% is a farce.
After all, the investigation was compromised with Executive Director Philip Zelikow having "deep, lasting ties to several members of both the Bush I and Bush II administrations." Not to mention the fact that he had co-authored a book with Condoleeza Rice, was a part of the Bush II transition team, participated in White House briefings on al-Qaeda in 2000 and 2001, and sat on Bush's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.
According to an unnamed source on the Commission Zelikow was "calling the shots" and "skewing the investigation and running it his own way." If these are not the epitome of a conflict of interest, then we are truly living in a comic book bizzaro world.
Even one of the first commission members, Max Cleland, resigned and called the investigation a "white wash."
We believe the only reason the government would not support and help institute a new independent investigation, is that they fear there is a strong possibility that the truthers have a lot of things correct regarding the happenings on 9/11.
If you are new to this please research both sides of this matter for yourself. If it is more research than you want to do/or is overwhelming and TMI, consider this: If the governments official explanation of 9/11 is the "truth" then the Bush administration at best is guilty of gross negligence; at worst it is guilty of treason and war-crimes. Perhaps it was Bush and his administration, or a rogue element within our government that needs to be exposed and rendered incapable of enabling and enacting these human atrocities ever again, perhaps none of the above, but we need a new 9/11 investigation to find out.
Pat can rest assured that we are not as concerned about being right as he thinks we are however, as the semi-serious book "The A-Z of Conspiracy Theories by Kate Tuckett" points out:
Of course, one can argue that obsession with conspiracy theories serves only to demonstrate the lunatic paranoia running rife in the twentieth century. Much talk about conspiracies is dismissed as paranoia and much of it is paranoia. But in reality, history has proved all too well that politicians lie, presidents lie and bureaucrats lie. Almost everyone lies to a degree. If we continue to be gullible and believe everything that is presented to us, the truth never comes out. It becomes not only interesting and revealing but an absolute priority to question authority and question the authoritarians.
Related Info:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)