Sunday, July 09, 2006

Cindy Sheehan: Also In the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy

Denounced by none other than Comrade Dylan himself.

Update: Okay, if you don't like the VRWC, can we say that Cindy's supporting the Bush Administration's version of the Truth by her silence on the crucial issues of 9-11?

36 Comments:

At 09 July, 2006 21:35, Blogger roger_sq said...

can't we all just get along?

heheh...

By the way, I don't think anyone is using the "vast right wing" argument except you guys here. The collective "truther" demographic is nothing less than a disestablishmentarian third wing. They are going to consume your false dichotomy right before your eyes.

Alex Jones is as right wing as anyone out there, and the "Cindy Sheehan is Michael Moore with a vagina" should show you how dinsinterested they are with cheering on the darlings of the left.

It's a group of people who realize they have been brainwashed into a bullshit paradigm since birth and are finally waking up... if they ever figure out the reality of the situation...oh boy, look out above.

 
At 09 July, 2006 21:48, Blogger MarkyX said...

Maybe Dylan Avery fails to realize that his joke of a film has no credible sources or facts behind it?

Nah, too easy. Not enough drama.

 
At 09 July, 2006 21:49, Blogger shawn said...

It's a group of people who realize they have been brainwashed into a bullshit paradigm since birth and are finally waking up... if they ever figure out the reality of the situation...oh boy, look out above.


Actually, there are folks on both left and right (the very extreme ends) who are antiestablishment. The extreme left wants the pure communism, where we all work as one and there's no leaders; the extreme right wants a type of anarchism where each person is self-sufficient.

They're don't transcend the spectrum (which is really more of a circle), they just fall at the ends.

 
At 09 July, 2006 22:06, Blogger shawn said...

One of the posters said she does it for the attention.

It's scary that I actually agree with this nuts on occasion.

 
At 09 July, 2006 22:14, Blogger shawn said...

these*

 
At 09 July, 2006 22:25, Blogger Killtown said...

Um, where does Dylan say or suggest she's "also in the vast right-wing conspiracy"?

 
At 09 July, 2006 22:27, Blogger Pat said...

Roger, I think all of the "right-wingers" in the Truther movement are either a) Libertarians or b) general crackpots or c) both the above.

Now, I will admit that the folks pushing the Mena airport stuff and the Clinton death list were right wingers with the exception of some fringe wackos on the left.

 
At 09 July, 2006 22:28, Blogger Killtown said...

And Pat and James B, care to take the challenge of explaining the missing 757 tail section at the Pentagon?

 
At 09 July, 2006 22:28, Blogger shawn said...

Um, where does Dylan say or suggest she's "also in the vast right-wing conspiracy"?

How ignorant are you? Hillary Clinton once said there was a vast right-wing conspiracy (as in a Republican system of control in politics/media). What pat and james are doing is mocking that phrase.

a) Libertarians

Hey, we're not all truthers.

 
At 09 July, 2006 22:29, Blogger shawn said...

And Pat and James B, care to take the challenge of explaining the missing 757 tail section at the Pentagon?

Christ on a cracker, pal, it's a non-point. Get that through your thick skull.

 
At 09 July, 2006 22:42, Blogger Killtown said...

So they are distorting what Dylan said. Isn't exposing distortions one of the reasons this blog got started?

 
At 09 July, 2006 23:31, Blogger Murdervillage said...

I'm glad you're still here, Killtown. I promised people I would send them to your interviews of the "crash scene" investigators, but I still can't find them.

I know you said you did those interviews. 30 or 40 people, wasn't it?

Pleeeeeeease help me out here! I don't want to be made a fool of!

 
At 09 July, 2006 23:37, Blogger Killtown said...

Murdervillage, you are already a fool.

 
At 09 July, 2006 23:48, Blogger Pat said...

Killtown, it's pretty simple. You're focusing the attention on the wrong area of the Pentagon.

The building was struck lower and to the left of where you claim the hole is. Once you adjust for this and look around for some photos you won't wonder what happened to that tail fin.

 
At 09 July, 2006 23:50, Blogger Pat said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 09 July, 2006 23:52, Blogger Pat said...

Shawn, you are right. I may feel that all Truther "right-wingers" are libertarian or general crackpots, but I certainly do not argue that all libertarians are Truthers. Crackpots maybe.

(That is--all crackpots may be Truthers, not all libertarians are crackpots--sheesh, this generalizing stuff is tough!)

 
At 10 July, 2006 00:13, Blogger Killtown said...

Pat said...Killtown, it's pretty simple. You're focusing the attention on the wrong area of the Pentagon.

The building was struck lower and to the left of where you claim the hole is. Once you adjust for this and look around for some photos you won't wonder what happened to that tail fin.


My claim? You mean the GOVT'S claim. You saying their scale is wrong? If you're saying it hit lower, that would mean the fuselage would hit the ground before the building and go under those two unbroken widows hanging on the 2nd story next to the 2nd story hole.

 
At 10 July, 2006 04:30, Blogger Avery Dylan said...

Like, hey man, PMS!

I mean Peace Mother Sheehan, like, could you see her now in like, Loose Change 66? She can talk about the pods and stuff, if they are still in there, and how those french guys, the Naudet Brothers, and stuff teamed up to get me and Jason, and we could get her to wear a shirt that says 9/11 was a pull it job.

Can you see that? I mean, I'm just asking questions.

 
At 10 July, 2006 04:44, Blogger Avery Dylan said...

Maybe Dylan Avery fails to realize that his joke of a film has no credible sources or facts behind it?


Who's the leader of the cult that's made for you and me?

Avery
Avery

Oh you s-o-b!

 
At 10 July, 2006 04:48, Blogger Chad said...

But Daddy... I want a golden goose NOW!

 
At 10 July, 2006 05:38, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

"Left" and "Right" are too confused today. Libertarians for example, seem to exist on both ends of the political spectrum. Other than that I don't see a lot of difference between mainstream democrats and republicans, other than disagreements on social policy. I should also point out that most anarchists are to the left of Communists. Rightists are also a confusing lot, because one can count Fascists on the far right, while there are also libertarian rightists who are very anti-Fascists(see the JBS).

It may be that the traditional Left-Right spectrum may have become woefully outdated at this point.

 
At 10 July, 2006 06:58, Blogger Alex said...

Libertarians are for the most part centrist. At least the ones I know are. We generaly beleive in as little government interference as possible, next to no taxes, and maximum liberty. Those are the basics. All the ones I know are however also strongly in favour of social charity - we just don't think it should be organized and controlled by the government.

 
At 10 July, 2006 10:24, Blogger undense said...

Like, hey man, PMS!

I mean Peace Mother Sheehan, like, could you see her now in like, Loose Change 66? She can talk about the pods and stuff, if they are still in there, and how those french guys, the Naudet Brothers, and stuff teamed up to get me and Jason, and we could get her to wear a shirt that says 9/11 was a pull it job.

Can you see that? I mean, I'm just asking questions.


Don't forget Loose Change 69. It's the porno edition of Loose Change. It starts with a scene of Cindy and Hugo Chavez going at it doggy style, though it's hard to tell who is barking. The next clip is Dylan solo-ing while thumbing through Vanity Fair. Then it's stills of Gypsy. The end is an amateur video montage of various CTs humping dead people.

 
At 10 July, 2006 10:40, Blogger JoanBasil said...

Re Left/Right - I don't know what it means. On the "Right" are Republicans who want to drive this country into catastrophic fiscal ruin with giveaways to the wealthiest and to corporations just because . . . well, just because. There's no ideological underpinning; its just Republicans competing with each other to be the most irresponsible.

On the "Left" there is, apparently, no way to sell the voters on something being in everyone's interest rather than a special interest. Therefore, its too hard to do anything about healthcare even though we are spending too much for it.

One real interesting thing happened in California when voters voted down a referendum for universal pre-school paid with taxes only on the rich. The voters know that once there's a program, it will be enriched and new taxes to pay for that. Eventually, it will be funded by everyone, not just the rich.

What is "left and right" in America that we can understand is about principles?

 
At 10 July, 2006 11:24, Blogger Alex said...

On the "Right" are Republicans who want to drive this country into catastrophic fiscal ruin with giveaways to the wealthiest and to corporations just because . . . well, just because.

Put down the Bong lady. There's a reason why the economy generaly runs better under Republican leadership. This whole "republicans-are-eeeeevil!" nonsense is getting rather old.

There's no ideological underpinning; its just Republicans competing with each other to be the most irresponsible.

Congratulations, you just accurately described the CT movement!

Or maybe the MSM?

Probably both.

 
At 10 July, 2006 18:41, Blogger shawn said...

Joan, does it take effort to be as dumb as you?

 
At 10 July, 2006 18:51, Blogger shawn said...

Libertarians are for the most part centrist.

Technically speaking, we libertarians are reactionary, which places us firmly in the right-wing.

(Reactionary because those of us who are Americans want the old America.)

 
At 10 July, 2006 19:13, Blogger Alex said...

I guess that depends on how you draw the lines. I deffinitely wouldn't say "firmly right wing", but I definitely tend to lean more to the right than to the left.

Even more so after a few beers :p

 
At 11 July, 2006 02:57, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

Well, there's just one problem- statistics show that the economy ISN'T better under Republican leadership. Sure it is for the richest minority- but not the country as a whole.

 
At 11 July, 2006 05:52, Blogger Alex said...

You CAN'T be serious. Unemployment and inflation figures are almost always lower under republicans. How is that only better for the rich? I'm thinking the socialist dogma might be swaying your opinions a bit :)

 
At 11 July, 2006 17:16, Blogger shawn said...

You CAN'T be serious. Unemployment and inflation figures are almost always lower under republicans. How is that only better for the rich? I'm thinking the socialist dogma might be swaying your opinions a bit :)

Apart from the 9/11 conspiracy denouncing, he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.

 
At 12 July, 2006 04:11, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

Care to cite some sources there Alex? I've cited sources for every controversial statement I've made on here, be it on the subject of the Korean War, Al Qaeda, etc.

Your turn.

 
At 12 July, 2006 04:16, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

Shawn, let's talk about "dogma" for a second. You speak of wanting America to be like the "old America". First of all, how old are you anyway? How much of that Old America did you personally experience? Granted there were a lot of good things about old America, particularly in the pre-Capitalist era. At the same time, there was also oppression, Civil War, abuse of workers, etc. Granted, I am of the belief that these things, no matter how horrible, were absolutely necessary for the future success of America. But my question to you is if I can see past propaganda and look at the "big picture" as to America's history, why can't you take into context the history of the Soviet Union, which was at its inception suffered from many disadvantages that didn't exist in places like England or the United States?

As for "Old America", I wouldn't hold your breath. The values of Old America, no matter how sound or noble, simply have no economic benefit, ergo the capitalist system will continue to break them down until they are negligible, assuming they aren't already.

 
At 12 July, 2006 09:13, Blogger shawn said...

Granted there were a lot of good things about old America, particularly in the pre-Capitalist era.

Do you know anything of American history? There was no "pre-capitalist" America. And if you didn't have your head shoved so far up your ass you'd know that instead of being the great equalizer, socialism causes more poverty and economic stagnation.

why can't you take into context the history of the Soviet Union, which was at its inception suffered from many disadvantages that didn't exist in places like England or the United States?


It also didn't have any of the advantages. American and England never had massive gulag systems for political dissidents. You weren't shot for speaking out against the head of state. You weren't tortured because you happened to know somebody who knew somebody. The United States, even at her worst, was a joke compared to the Soviet Union.

 
At 12 July, 2006 09:43, Blogger shawn said...

And what I mean by "old America" is pre-New Deal (which you probably liked, as it was socialist) America - limited government, free markets, rule of law, respect for contracts and individual rights.

 
At 24 July, 2006 17:03, Blogger William Douglas said...

Exposing the 9/11 Conspiracy Wingnuts

by William Edward Douglas, guest columnist for publications worldwide includine The Kansas City Star, and The Business Journal


I began researching the mainstream media coverage of the controversy regarding the attacks of 9/11/2001, when reading an article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Newspaper, dated June 29th, 2006. It was titled, "Sept. 11 claim stirs UW probe -- Instructor says U.S. planned the attacks to provoke war." This led to my discovery of some wild conspiracy theorists that endanger our government and media establishments, with quite frankly insane assertions. I'll address this in full in the final paragraph.

Then by using a "google video 9/11" search, I recently viewed a FOX News interview on Hannity and Colmes with an Arab Studies teacher from the University of Wisconsin named Kevin Barrett. I had earlier seen an interview with another, a professor named James Fetzer, University of Minnesota Duluth. A few weeks earlier I had seen an interview on MSNBC Scarborough country interviewing a Mike Berger representing 911Truth.org.

Some of these guests referred to an organization called "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" with a website www.st911.org, which offered a physics research paper questioning the official explanation of the events of 9/11/2001. While visiting this site, I read that they pointed to the temperatures of the fires in the WTC buildings, and construction of the buildings, and the speed they fell, as evidence they claimed proved that what we saw on 9/11/2001 when the towers fell had to have been the result of a controlled demolition. Like the ones we've seen with Las Vegas hotels being brought down. Their claim was that the WTC buildings could not have been caused solely by the aircraft hitting the WTC buildings that day.

Then, I contacted the office of a Wisconsin State Legislator, Rep. Stephen Nass (R-Whitewater), and asked to speak to someone in the office who could speak on this issue. I asked if he was familiar with the Scholars for 9/11 Truth website, and he replied they had learned of it this week. I asked him if he and the Representative could comment on the charge that the fires on 9/11/2001 in the WTC buildings did not burn hot enough to bring down the buildings, and if he'd read the scholars organization's charge that thermate traces had been found on debris from the fallen towers (thermate indicating demolition type explosives were involved). The gentleman responded that no, they had not looked at this information, and this would not be something they would look at, further indicating that anyone who made such charges was blinded by their hatred of President Bush.

Which leads back to the interviews of guests on the three television news programs. The main theme of all three of the guests on these programs appeared to be concern of the physical evidence of 9/11/2001, mentioned above and particularly regarding the collapse of three of the World Trade Center buildings on that day.

The main themes of the interviewers on these programs appeared to be two-fold:
1) The guests were representing a fringe movement, and most Americans do not dispute the official 9/11 explanation of the 19 hijackers defeating US military and intelligence forces on 9/11/2001.
2) The guests and those they speak for, who question the official 9/11/2001 account, are of questionable sanity

This motivated me to do some research. First I looked at the fringe movement issue that the majority of Americans disagreed with the programs guests and accept the official explanation, and secondly, the sanity and expertise of people like their guests who question the official story of 9/11/2001.

First, regarding the fringe issue, asserting that the guests questioning the events of 9/11 reflected a small minority of American opinion. I looked at the only polls I could find on these questions, and the results were surprising. A CNN viewers poll, which is not scientific, held Wednesday, November 10th, 2005, asked, "Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11?" 89% replied "Yes," they did believe there was a cover-up by the U.S. Government (9,441 votes), while only 12% felt there was no cover-up. In a national Zogby poll, of May 2006, found that 45%, of the American public felt a new 9/11 investigation should be launched because "so many unanswered questions about 9/11 remain that Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success." An earlier Zogby poll of New York City residents, from August of 2004, found that Half (49.3%) of New Yorkers felt that U.S. government officials "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act." While 66% of New Yorkers called for a new probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York’s Attorney General.

Now to the second issue the television media interviewers were most concerned with, which was the expertise and sanity of the people demanding a new 9/11 investigation, and some even suggesting possible U.S. government complicity in the attacks of 9/11/2001. Again, a simple google "video 9/11" search, provided a wealth of information. This too yielded some surprising results.

One of the loudest advocates of the most damning charge that "members of the U.S. government actually orchestrated the events of 9/11 to fool the nation into unpopular wars", was not a tree-hugging Green Party activist, but rather a prominent Republican, in fact a Former Chief Economist under George Bush, and professor at Texas A&M,

“Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapses of WTC 1 (North Tower), WTC 2 (South Tower), and the much-overlooked collapse of the 47-story WTC building 7 at 5:21 pm on that fateful day . . . If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an "inside job" and a government attack on America would be compelling.”
-- Morgan Reynolds. http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html

Google research of the growing list of other 9/11 skeptics of the official story, some "convinced of U.S. government involvement," while others not going that far, but pointing out that"the official story is highly questionable and demands further investigation," yielded surprising results. Including a host of high level Republican administration officials, defense experts, intelligence experts, and respected scholars, as well as well known celebrities who are now adding the spotlight of their names to the issue of 9/11. Among them were:

Former Director of Advanced Space Programs Development for the U.S.
Air Force, under President Reagan, and combat fighter pilot

“ . . . we’ve been lied to not only about the war, but about 9/11 itself. The Bush administration was warned. They were warned by the Clinton Administration during the transition period, they were warned by the intelligence agencies of eleven other nations, they were specifically warned by one FBI agent that Moussawi was planning on flying a hijacked airliner, “into the World Trade Center.” They ignored the warnings, more than that, we have mounting evidence that _at least_, they made it impossible for those planes to be intercepted.
. . . My sisters and brothers, that is treason!
-- Col. Robert Bowman (Caltech Phd in aeronautics and nuclear engineering). http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6900065571556128674
http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/bob_bowman_hanity_and_colmes.htm

Former CIA Intelligence Advisor to Reagan and George HW Bush and
founder of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity,

-- Ray McGovern is one of 100 signatories to a petition "which calls for immediate public attention to unanswered questions that suggest that people within the current administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war."
http://www.americanscholarssymposium.org/info/presenters.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Researchers_questioning_the_official_account_of_9/11

Former department head at UL (Underwriter Laboratories) the company which certified the steel which went into the WTCs upon their construction, and inspected it after the WTC collapses in 2001.
“ . . . the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.
. . . I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown [Dr. Hyman Brown] would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.”
-- Kevin Ryan
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451


Former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury Senior Research
Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Research Fellow at Stanford's Independent Institute, and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal,

"I guess the real story about 9/11 is about what the people are actually saying. I’ve gotten hundreds of emails in response to my columns and many of them talk about not getting the truth from the government or the media about what really happened at the World Trade Center. I know many qualified engineers and scientists have said the WTC collapsed from explosives. In fact, if you look at the manner in which it fell, you have to give their conclusions credibility."

-- Paul Craig Roberts
http://www.wanttoknow.info/050908insidejob911#roberts


Canadian National Defense Minister,

Why did the President just sit in the schoolroom when he heard the news? Why did he not acknowledge that he already knew what was going on? As a former Minister of National Defense, when the news came out I had to wonder. Why did airplanes fly around for an hour and a half without interceptors being scrambled from Andrews [Air Force Base]? . . . With a quick action alert they should have been there in five minutes or ten minutes. If not, as the Minister of National Defense, which in the United States is the Secretary of Defense, I would want to say "why not?" . . . I think the inquiry has been very shallow and superficial. And I would like to see a much tougher more in-depth inquiry. . . . why were some members of the Bin Laden family allowed to fly out of the United States? Why? There are so many questions. What is going wrong here? Or was there something going wrong? How much did they actually know? And you get into very deep territory . . . I would like to see someone in a position of authority ask these questions and insist on getting answers? At least to why some of the things happened that seem to be, for an ordinary person, inexplicable.

-- the Honourable Paul Hellyer
http://www.septembereleventh.org/kc/multimedia/movies/Hellyer.mov


Minister for the Environment, and Member of Parliament (United Kingdom)

Not a single fighter plane was scrambled to investigate from the US Andrews airforce base, just 10 miles from Washington DC, until after the third plane had hit the Pentagon at 9.38 am. Why not? There were standard FAA intercept procedures for hijacked aircraft before 9/11. Between September 2000 and June 2001 the US military launched fighter aircraft on 67 occasions to chase suspicious aircraft (AP, August 13 2002). It is a US legal requirement that once an aircraft has moved significantly off its flight plan, fighter planes are sent up to investigate.
. . . could US air security operations have been deliberately stood down on September 11? If so, why, and on whose authority? The former US federal crimes prosecutor, John Loftus, has said: "The information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defence of incompetence."

-- Michael Meacher
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8274552561914055825
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,1036687,00.html




National Minister of Defense (Germany). Also, served as Minister of Technology

Well, this is a big question because it happened in 2001 more than 60 times. That, fighter[s] went up to clear what has been done to airplanes that showed some irregularities. At 9 11, four planes for two hours were able to drive around, fly around even one hour in the direction going toward the west and then turn around and then comeback. The military air force was not able to interdict them. It’s [un]imaginable. And the whole story is totally unclear what happened between the Federal Aviation Agency (Administration) and NORAD . . . a covert operation. And this is a way to influence, to brainwash the American people into long, long, ongoing conflict with the Muslim world and all that you get to, for example the oil companies, the last oil reserves which we need for the next decades before the oil age is going out.

-- Andreas Von Buelow
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8274552561914055825



Former Chief of Staff of the Russian armed forces, and chief of the
department for General affairs in the Soviet Union 's ministry of Defense, General

“The organizers of [the nine eleven] attacks were the political and business circles interested in destabilizing the world order . . . not satisfied with the rhythm of the globalization process or its direction . . . only secret services and their current chiefs (or retired staff with “influence inside the state organizations”) [have the] ability to plan, organize and conduct an operation of such magnitude. Generally, secret services create, finance and control extremist organizations. Without the support of secret services, these organizations cannot exist—let alone carry out operations of such magnitude inside countries so well protected . . . Osama bin Laden and ‘Al Qaeda’ cannot be the organizers or the performers of the September 11 attacks . . . [they] do not have the necessary organization, resources or leaders . . . [instead] a team of professionals had to be created and the Arab kamikazes are just extras to mask the operation.”

-- Leonid Ivashov
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NIM20060123&articleId=1788



Former MI6 British Counter Intelligence Officer,

"It is in fact a criminal offence to interfere with a crime scene and yet in the case of 9/11 all the metal from the buildings is shipped out to China, there are no forensications done on that metal. Now that to me suggests they never wanted anybody to look at that metal because it was not going to provide the evidence they wanted to show people that it was Al-Qaeda . . .
. . . They let it happen, they made it happen to create a trigger to be able to allow the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq and of course what they're trying to do now is the same thing with the invasion of Iran and Syria . . . I've seen the results of terroristic explosions and so on and no terrorist explosion has ever brought down a building. When the IRA put something like a thousands tonnes of home-made explosives in front of the Baltic Exchange building in Bishopsgate and let off the bomb, all the glass came out, the building shook a bit but there was no question about the building falling down and it doesn't obey the laws of physics for buildings to fall down in the way the World Trade Center came down. So you have the comparison of the two, Building 7 compared with the north and south towers coming down and those two things are exactly the same, they were demolished."

-- David Shayler
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5403286136814574974






Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota, former Marine Corps officer, author or editor of more than 20 books, and co-chair of Scholars For 9/11 Truth,

“I created an organization of faculty and scholars to study 9/11 and we’ve discovered that practically everything the government has told us about it is false . . . [Scholars for 9/11 Truth members include] about 200 with advanced research skills and about 85 that have affiliations including physicists, mechanical engineers, pilots, aeronautical engineers. We’ve discovered that the twin towers were brought down by controlled demolition, We’ve discovered that apparently Osama Bin Laden appears to have had nothing to do with it . . . the FBI has confirmed they have no hard evidence connecting Osama Bin Laden to the events of 9/11 . . . We’re trying to find out exactly what happened [on 9/11/2001], our government has a considerable reputation for telling things that are not true.” [Quotes from Dr. Fetzer, appearing on FOX News on Hannity & Colmes]

-- James Fetzer
http://www.911podcasts.com/display.php?vid=122




Professor of Physics, Brigham Young University, and co-chair of
Scholars For 9/11 Truth,

"It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three buildings and set off after the two plane crashes, which are actually a diversion tactic. Muslims are probably not to blame for bringing down the World Trade Center buildings after all . . .

. . . the FEMA report says the best hypothesis, which is the only one they looked at, fire, has only a low probability of occurrence. Further investigation analyses are needed to resolve this issue, and I agree with that . . . they admit there's only a low probability, and if you look at the collapse, you see what I have studied is the fall time, the symmetry, the fact that it first dips in the middle. That's called the kink. Which is very characteristic, of course, of controlled demolition . . . all scientists now reasonably agree that the fires were not sufficiently hot to melt the steel, so what is this molten metal [found beneath the rubble, still molten weeks after the WTC collapse]? It's direct evidence for the use of high-temperature explosives, such as thermite, which produces molten iron as an end product”. [excerpts from Dr. Jones appearing on MSNBC’s The Situation with Tucker Carlson program.]

-- Steven Jones
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=964034652002408586




Emeritus Professor of Philosophy of Religion & Theology, Claremont
Graduate University, and author or editor of some 30 books, including "The New Pearl Harbor" and "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions"

“There was the extraordinarily high volume of “put options" purchased in the three days before the attacks, with investors betting that stock in United and American Airlines - the two airlines used in the attacks - would go down. There were also a suspiciously high number of put options for Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, which occupied 22 stories of the World Trade Center . . .
. . . U.S. intelligence agencies monitor the market, partly to look for signs of impending attacks. One wonders how information could be much more specific than this . . .
. . . the United States military neglected to send fighter jets to intercept the hijacked planes. Such interceptions usually occur within 10 to 20 minutes after the first signs of trouble and are routine, happening about 100 times a year . . .”

-- David Ray Griffin
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6837001821567284154




Professor of mathematics, University of Western Ontario, and founder
of the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven (SPINE),

Detailed analysis of the debris field, physical damage, and other factors in the alleged impact of a Boeing 757 on the Pentagon building on the morning of September 11, 2001 reveals an almost complete absence of debris expected from such an event. (Elliott 2003) The initial (pre-collapse) hole made by the alleged impact on the ground floor of Wedge One of the building is too small to admit an entire Boeing 757. In order to decide whether or not a Boeing 757 (or aircraft of comparable size) struck the Pentagon on the morning in question, a comprehensive review of all the debris and other physical evidence is hardly necessary. It turns out that a study of the wings alone suffices for the purpose.

Wings that should have been sheared off by the impact are entirely absent. There is also substantial evidence of debris from a much smaller jet-powered aircraft inside the building. We conclude with a high degree of certainty that no Boeing 757 struck the building. We also conclude with a substantial degree of certainty that a smaller, single-engined aircraft, roughly the size and shape of an F-16, did, in fact, strike the building.

-- A.K. Dewdney
http://physics911.net/missingwings.htm






Aircraft crash investigation authority,

As painful and heartbreaking as was the loss of innocent lives and the lingering health problems of thousands more, a most troublesome and nightmarish probability remains that so many Americans appear to be involved in the most heinous conspiracy in our country's history.

-- USAF Col. (Ret) George Nelson
http://www.physics911.net/georgenelson.htm




Former chief Pentagon arms negotiator for the Middle East,

“ . . . it was 12 September, I wrote to my friend Gen. Hugh Shelton, who was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs at that time. He was transited out. And he was replaced by Gen. Richard, what the heck was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs' The name escapes me. He was a four-star Air Force General. And, Myers, I guess, was the name. At any rate, I called together from 16 to 19 September, in the Pentagon area, not in the Pentagon, a group of military, civilian and general aviation pilots. And for three days, we kicked around what actually happened on 11 September . . . the group of pilots and they will remain anonymous were a wonderful mix of commercial, military and civilian pilots. At any rate, after three days, the decisions were unanimous. [the report concluded that the flight crews of the four passenger airliners involved in the September 11th tragedy had no control over the aircraft. And they get into how the military industrial complex clearly, that is elements of it, were in control]

. . . And I wrote my 24-page report up and submitted it to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. And that report ultimately got into the hands of the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs on 23 January, 2002. The General was U.S. Marine Corp General by the name Peter Pace. And I got a telephone call, 5 March, from one of his horse holders, who is a Colonel Air Force type. He informed me that Gen. Peter Pace had gotten the twenty-four pages and that he and his Sec. had no comment at this time . . .”
. . .

-- USAF Col. (Ret) Don de Grand-Pre
http://www.prisonplanet.com/022904degrand.html



Daniel Ellsberg, former military analyst employed by the RAND Corporation, who precipitated a national uproar in 1971 when he released the "Pentagon Papers" which exposed the government's lies about the Vietnam war.

" . . . very serious questions have been raised, about how much they knew beforehand and how much involvement there may been. Is the, is an administration capable, humanly and physiologically of engineering such a provocation?
Yes, I would say that, I worked for such an administration myself, Johnson, ah, President Johnson put destroyers in harm’s way in the Tonkin Gulf not only once, but several times, with the, with a lot of his people hoping that it would lead to a confrontation and claiming that it had. And could have resulted in the lost of many lives in the course of it.


-- Daniel Ellsberg, former military analyst
http://www.infowars.com/articles/terror/pentagon_papers_author_gov_maybe_did_911.htm


"It seems to me like 19 amateurs with box cutters taking over four commercial airliners and hitting 75% of their targets, that feels like a conspiracy theory. It raises a lot of questions . . .
. . . [regarding watching the events on 9/11 on television] there was a feeling, it just didn't look like any commercial jetliner I've flown on any time in my life and then when the buildings came down later on that day I said to my brother 'call me insane, but did it sorta look like those buildings came down in a controlled demolition'?"
-- Actor Charlie Sheen (Platoon, Wall Street, etc.)
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/280606juggernautoftruth.htm


I would like to suggest to you emphatically that the 9-11 truth movement is the most pressing issue of the peace & justice movement today. Here is why. 9-11 has been used to justify "endless war" and a continual rollback in civil liberties that seems to have no end in sight. Yet, 9-11 remains the least examined tragedy in modern American history . . .

. . . To date, no one has been held accountable for the massive defense failures on 9-11, nor for the bizarre suppression of critical warnings prior to 9-11. Furthermore, we still have no explanation for why the head of Pakistani intelligence, who was meeting with top Bush Administration officials in Washington on 9-11-2001, had wired lead hijacker Mohammed Atta $100,000.00 weeks before 9-11. We still do not know who made the insider stock trades in weeks and days leading up to 9-11, by betting "against" United and American Airlines stocks (the aircraft used as missiles on 9-11).

What we DO KNOW is that $5 million of those insider stock trade "winnings" apparently by someone who had foreknowledge of the coming attacks, were made the day before 9-11 at AB Brown Trust. AB Brown Trust was headed until his induction into the CIA by Buzzy Krongard, who is now the Executive Director of the CIA. We also know that the current head of AB Brown Trust quietly resigned his position on 9-11, with no media scrutiny nor apparently government scrutiny. Lastly, and perhaps most bizarre is the fact that $2.5 million of those stock "winnings" against these airlines made at AB Brown Trust . . . remain unclaimed.

-- Actor, Ed Asner
http://www.911blimp.net/videos/EdAsner-UnityIsTheKey.mov



“Welcome to Confronting the Evidence – A Call to Re-Open the 9/11 Investigation . . . we ask you to join us in a tribute to the fallen . . .” [Ed Begley, Jr.s opening remarks at Confronting the Evidence: 9/11 and the Search for Truth, National Townhall Meeting at the Manhattan Center Grand Ballroom, New York City, September 11th, 2004]


-- Actor, Ed Begley, Jr
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7140359934129245752



So, now that we've examined the two main issues of concern for the television news interviewers, which was the "fringe" aspect of the questioners, and the "sanity/expertise" issue, it appears those arguments are very weak arguments, really with no merit at all. Obviously tens of millions of Americans, according to polls, want a new investigation into 9/11/2001 and have a strong suspicion of U.S. government involvement at some level. Obviously not all of the national defense, intelligence, aeronautics, physics and engineering experts questioning the official story of 9/11 are insane or unqualified to comment.

This begs the question, in the face of such obvious facts, why do our media personalities continue to attempt to throw out accusations that are patently untrue regarding those who question the official story? When a television news interviewer continues to ask questions and make assertions that he or she knows to be untrue, this would challenge the expertise and sanity, not of their guests, but of the television news interviewer.

The 9/11 truth movement appears to be growing rapidly, and involving people of substantial credentials and expertise. As television and some radio personalities continue to behave in what obviously is an insane behavior, what do we do? Can we get our national media any psychological help? If not, it would be wise to relieve them of their positions at least. I feel increasingly uneasy about millions of young minds being exposed night after night to comments and opinions by people who increasingly appear to be insane, yet in positions of authority.

Of course the concern here is larger. If there is any possibility or doubt about whether the events of 9/11/2001 were participated in by members of our own government, then our entire democracy and world peace would be strengthened by getting to the bottom of the true facts of this pinnacle event of our time. It would be unhealthy to leave a cloud of doubt hanging over such assertions. There should be a full fledged national debate, experts from all sides should be interviewed on national media to get to the bottom of this once and for all. Our Congress should launch investigations into the physics questions that are causing so many to doubt the official story. No matter where anyone stands on this issue, this is obviously the only path to national healing and trust.

However, this debate on national media cannot occur if the interviewers hired by national media continue to behave in an insane irrational behavior, like "conspiracy theory wing-nuts." You see, too many of our media spokespersons on television and radio adhere to a wild conspiracy theory. Their theory is that anyone who looks into the facts of the events of one of the most important issues in history is alone, and insane, but yet somehow organized in some united conspiratorial effort. Of course, the facts fly in the face of this conspiracy theory, but these media personalities appear unable to grasp reality even when it is pointed out to them.

For media reading this article, time will tell whether you are an insane conspiracy theorist or not. If you too, are among the insane in our media, the public will likely eventually demand your resignation. As one who writes sometimes on parental issues, I believe it is unhealthy to have insane people in charge of the national information highways our children are taught to watch. We need sane media people who look at facts regarding issues, not ones who launch into insane screeds of paranoia to avoid reality.

Also, you may recall that when I contacted State Representative, Stephen Nass' office, his aid stated that they were aware of but not interested in and would not look at the physics facts provided by the website Scholars for 9/11 Truth, www.st911.org. However, they did want to fire a university teacher for presenting facts, many of which were available on that site. To fire someone for presenting facts, facts that you dispute, yet have no idea what those facts are, and are unwilling to look at them to find out what they are . . . is also insane. Again, as someone who writes on parenting issues, as a concerned parent as well, America should also consider retiring our insane government officials who fire people for facts they aren't aware of and are unwilling to look at. These politicians apparently assert some wild conspiracy theory that millions of Americans are questioning the events of 9/11 because they are "Bush haters" according to the aid at Nass' office. This kind of delusional paranoia by our elected officials is of particular concern. Such wild eyed conspiratorialists should not be allowed in government.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home