Yet many have pointed out that if the fear was this person was a bomber, why let him get on the train? Do we just turn our back on these things? True: Our chances of penetrating the shield, of getting conclusive evidence, are infinitessimal. Life does immitate the X-Files sometimes. We are going against the weight of public opinion, inertia, and official malfeasance. It may be an impossible task.
And yet, as with the London story for a brief moment at least, it seems as if the uncomfortable truth is going to poke through at last, and something is going to happen -- before it quickly gets tamped down again, or forgotten in the next day's news. It's not about saying why or even positing a "vast government conspiracy. How can anyone just ignore that? If was allowed to make it's mark in history then the men who wanted it to happen should explain why the sacrifice?
Why the death of thousands to please a few? Bush plays a few chords and Condi shops for shoes as if the floods were some kind of an illusion. From goat books to guitars he's one class act and a hammer choking killer of a war president.
Can you not read between the lines people? How long can you go on living the lie when living under of synthetic freedom. I did a bit of checking regarding the "passengers" on board the supposed flights.
I dont have to point you to the Northwoods Documents do I? See my Flight 11 data here. No, the Hijackers are Dead. Stanford University Professor of Physics Steve Jones has shifted the September 11 truth debate on to another level with his recent presentation linked below. By Steven E. His paper, which has been accepted for peer review, marks a turning point in exposing the mass murder on September 11 and the mass murders in Afghanistan and Iraq which it was designed to facilitate.
First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident. The truth of such things, by which I mean their metaphysics -- WHY they happen -- is all-important.
When we lose this thread, we don't really know anything any more. We become hideous back-broken wretches instead of whole existential beings. Truth is sanity itself Consider the Kennedy assassination again. Americans have always been rather delusional about the nature of their society and government, but in the years since the ruling mafia whacked Kennedy I think it's gotten much worse.
It's like we crossed into Mordor. What makes this most true is simply that Joe Average doesn't have the guts to face the full significance, i. It's too horrible. It's full significance is that we live in a frank class dictatorship -- an oligarchy -- and that all this talk of the constitution and democracy and freedom is an epic fraud, to the truthful mind a really flimsy one.
This was not as absolutely true before Kennedy got taken down. His killing was a daring experiment by which the oligarchs proved to themselves that their fascist psychological methods had been honed to the point where they could subvert any political formulation and get away with anything.
The rebellious streak in American culture, historically an exceedingly dangerous towering beast that had to be respected, had now been securely caged and they could proceed with confidence toward an eventual totalitarian state, that which they always crave. Truthfulness in the face of significances this paradigm-smashing and grave requires a hero's courage. We are now paying the piper for Joe Average's lack of that strength, i. Since we are this broken now, no American politician will dare to side with us against them.
If we had stood strong before the truth 42 years ago and reacted to it appropriately, we would have shown them the Beast was still King, but we did not, and since we did not everything real about America's special promise is now becoming a memory.
THAT is why the truth matters But with we have an opportunity to redeem that promise, to show them they've miscalculated this time and have broken the Beast's trance THAT is why the truth of matters enormously. Another obtuse posterGet this idiotnothing was left of the planes, bodies-and you trust the FBI!
Take a listen, she says flight 12 twice. Never sat right with me. Mike Williams, who created the "myths" website, cherry picks his information to suit his agenda, which is to support the US government's "official" story.
Regarding the hijackers who were still alive, he points out that the "official" manifest for Flight 11 does include the names of two suspected hijackers. But, he ignores the alleged fact that there were supposed to have been five hijackers on that flight and that this "official" manifest does not include the other three. Why weren't their names included on this "official" manifest and why does Williams ignore this oversight? Neither was the JFK assassination. It was aided by people with government jobs, but the government was clearly one of the obstacles both sets of plotters had to get by.
Somehow the plane was out of fuel. Everybody would've died if not for the fact that the pilot was a former drug smuggler and his experience and his daring managed a miracle landing in the Azores Islands. Somebody wanted to make sure that all the long distance flights would be amply loaded with fuel for the next little while.
That was the front page news the day of the attack. One investigator later commented that he always checked the guy's name on an Internet search and they just got lucky that time. They also got their best people tied up in that cold case legal matter as well.
Also, in the Summer of , there was a nut in the Toronto "Don" jail who gave a letter to his guards containing many details of the forthcoming terrorism. His lawyer later claimed that the nut was abducted upon release and that a voice on his answering machine intimidating him on an immigration case was recognizable from the letter guy's case.
If a nut tells you the truth in advance about a historical event, would you believe him? Or would you believe that his "opinion" must be nuts as well? As we approach the anniversary of the JFK assassination, if you can, treat yourself to a peek at Toronto's newspaper headlines from a week before and after JFK's death. A jockey would later kill RFK. Two days before JFK's demise, Toronto's young mayor suddenly dies after playing goaltender in a house league. Not a lot of skating involved in that.
TV specials on his life were announced in the papers as well. People were being conditioned for the mass cold war paranoia to come. The weekend after the JFK assassination, Canada has its worst airline disaster in history. A plane carrying passengers from Montreal to Toronto crashed killing all aboard.
Somebody wanted nuclear war by the way they killed JFK. Thank God we were spared that insanity. That doesnt mean his paper is bad, but if you look at it its mainly pointing to studies done by others and not any studies actually done by Steve Jones himself so its really disenginguous to promote him as an expert when he himself is just pointing at the words of real experts in his papers.
Even something like "How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings? It relys on questioning official compter models but doesnt provide alternative models or any real evidence for the alternative explanations that are hinted at. It jumps to a refutation of what most people who have studied the events think without going through logical inbetween steps a conrrolled explosion is mentioned but with official version of the event talking about materials in the building burning a logical inbetween step would be to unerstand what was in those floors of the building and perhaps there were things that were explosive there for nonsinister reasons Someothing like "We observe that approximately 34 upper floors begin to rotate as a block, to the south and east.
They begin to topple over, as favored by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The torque due to gravity on this block is enormous, as is its angular momentum. It could be a real fault with a FEMA report but if almost any house I know of catchs on fire there will be at least small explosions as cans of flamable liquid, or gas leaks ignite.
If your neighbors house caught on fire and there was a huge explosion, listing commoin things in houses wouldnt be a good argument that it wasa controlled explosion as part of a conspiracy. The first thing you would do would be to look into what they may have had in there that could have exploded and there are many things that can burn hot or explode thatare not malicious.
I could argue against Steve Jones by making refernces to studies and making convincing sounding arguments one what might have been on certain floors and what stresses on certains types of materials might do although I really dont care enough to try to look up all that stuff.
But like him, I'm not an expert on this type of thing and there are peopel out there would coudl provide real answers. As an argument that certain government reports leave things in doubt Steve Jones' paper isnt bad but as an argument that there was a coverup and the towers didnt collapse according to what most engineers have agreed upon, its not very convincing.
This is a lie. That's why you can't cite the channel or the time of this fictitious broadcast: "Then national security advisor, now Secretary of State, Condolezza Rice, stated on TV that she told then mayor of San Francisco Willie Brown 8 hours before he was supposed to board a plane to stay off the plane" Stick to what you can back up; there's plenty.
Somebody may have, but you do not even know what name they used, let alone who they were, just what they said, or when they said it. But that doesn't take away what he says about the WTC, as the previous post points out he's hardly the first person to do so.
Even a casual obesrvation of collapse videos shows the debris from the upper parts falling through lower sections of the structures as fast as it's falling through the adjacent air, while the upper portions themselves are turning to DUST. IF you accept the official story, of collapse caused by plane impacts and fires, you'd have to say the lower portions offered virtually zero resistance to account for the rapid rate of fall.
Yet at the SAME TIME you'd have to say the lower portions offered high resistance to account for the upper parts being turned to dust, surely that didn't happen simply from falling. Despite the fact that Fisk is presumed to -- but cannot -- know all about the Middle East, he's done a pretty darned good job of informing the majority of us about the realities on the ground. While there are several issues with which I would disagree, the hijackers one of them, this is a minor point compared to many of the other points he makes that will create more controversy and raise more hackles.
While the hijackers might be priority number one for many people, Fisk writes about the events in his chapter heading "Why? This is something he feels quite strongly about and something that continues to remain unaddressed.
Granted, some of the particulars are debatable but they also offer the opportunity to do just that, raise issues that will have some increased priority and visibility.
The greatest concern should be "Middle East-isation" of the United States and until the powers that be solve that one over there, this one over here ain't gonna go nowhere! Read his book the only way I have been personally affiliated with him. Yes, he he, it was just the unfortunate choice of high explosives as an insulating material on the support columns that lead to the twin towers collapsing and also explains why the upper part of the south tower disintegrated on the way done.
After all, who would have thought that a building could catch fire? Obviously the Spanish did because the steel skelton of the Windsor buiding in Madrid remained standing after an all day and night fire burned off everything else. Yes, I've heard about Guilianni's bunker full of diesel fuel, but the photos of building 7 that I've seen showed the fires to be very small and there was no impact from any plane.
If "controlled explosives" could cause this type of behavior one would think other things could cause the exact same behavior including many things that dont involve conspiracys and overups.
If you were investigating cars that explode when rear-ended due to bad design you wouldnt jump to the conclusion manufacturers were hiding bombs in the cars In this case there isnt even strong evidence there was an explosion. If there really is proof that parts of the building fell faster than they would in free fall there could be other explanations like the forces comming from the bending of the building itself Since the building collapsed the way it did, it was obviously physically possible for it to collapse the way it did.
What exactly could an explosion have done that would make the things you are talking about more possible than other factors. Since a plane hit the building and caused a fire as well as damage from the impact and the building probably contained flamable material there seem like there would be a lot of possibilities.
For someone with a background in Physics or engineering the way he is presented makes the overall claim less credible rather than more credible just as most people who went to college would find a company the advertises that they use "real mathmaticians" to do your taxes as a claim that lowers credibility.
His paper does quote other people who are experts and he doesnt seem to be putting himself forth as some kind of expert so I wouldnt say his being a physicist makes him less credible just those who point to him as being an expert where his being a physicist makes his claims somehow more legitimate.
I noticed the following on Wikipedia: The collapse of the towers set off intense debates within the structural engineering and architectural professions, with no clear end in sight.
The largest camp appears to be those who feel the towers did well under the circumstances by standing long enough for the majority of occupants to escape. A large and apparently growing minority takes exception to that view. Their criticisms of the WTC design feature five main points: 1.
The bunching of all internal columns in a relatively narrow center shaft in a building is an "all your eggs in one basket" configuration-- if that region on any floor is catastrophically damaged as it certainly was by the fire in the north tower , the entire building is doomed. This stands in stark contrast to earlier generations of skyscrapers which utilize full skeletons of stepped columns, usually one row approximately every 25 feet 7.
The World Trade Center exclusively used lightweight materials, especially in the facade. Single-bolt connections binding the longspan floorplates with the load-bearing external columns were extremely lightweight for their assigned task. One study group from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has concluded the proximal cause of the south tower collapse was failure of these bolts in the southeast corner of the building. Double-bolts should have been used. The use of gypsum cladding instead of reinforced concrete to shield stairwells.
Almost all skyscrapers, including those built since the WTC, shield stairwells in reinforced concrete. On September 11th, it was the collapse of all stairways above the impact level that consigned all people above the impact zone in Tower One to death.
Tower Two had two of its three stairwells taken out above the impact area by the plane. Some people above the impact zone survived, as they used the third stairwell. Computer models have shown that most of the stairwells in both towers would likely have remained usable until the general collapse had they been shielded in concrete. Some see the WTC as an irresponsible experiment in lightweight, rent-space-maximized construction and place particular opprobrium on Leslie E.
Robertson, its Chief Structural Engineer. Others see it as a landmark in structural engineering simply in need of refinement due to unforeseen, and probably unforeseeable, variables. One of those variables was the size and kinetic energy of aircraft that might accidentally strike the WTC.
Robertson and others involved in design and construction of the WTC have stated that back in the s they could not have planned for the jetliners of Specifically, they modeled the effects of a hit by the largest aircraft of the day, the Boeing , and presumably calibrated their design to withstand it.
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, WTC towers 1 and 2 were designed to withstand the impact of a lost in fog, looking to land. The s that actually hit the towers had a kinetic energy more than seven times greater than the specifically modeled impact. The Boeing , with an empty weight more than twice that of the , was in the final design phase when WTC drafting began and the first s were constructed simultaneously with the WTC towers; however the known attributes of the were apparently not modeled in designing the towers.
Although the two major government reports largely avoided faulting the WTC design, the construction industry has already made changes that show an implicit acknowledgement of the critics' arguments. According to review. NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research.
But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down.
Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse. According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly sq.
With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities. Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators.
Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time.
There is no evidence for a missile, and all the evidence against it. Missiles are on the level of "holograms" - they just seem 'cool' to a lot of people who have never seen or heard a missile, and think they would MISTAKE one for a commercial jet flying over their car.
Whereas a large body of reports of eyewitness accounts strongly supports that a twin-enginer jetliner swooped in at a very low altitude and exploded at or in front of the Pentagon; photographs of the damaged facade and lawn show an apparent near-absence of aircraft debris and a pattern of damage to the Pentagon's facade showing unbroken windows in the paths of the outer wings and the vertical tail section.
Numerous points based on the physical evidence of the crash site seem to make an overwhelming cumulative case against a having crashed there, provided one ignores the eyewitness evidence. However, most of these points involve some error in evaluating the evidence. Those errors include the following. There wasn't one in the Popular Mehanics story you liknked to. I'd also like to hear what you make of Silverstein's statement about pulling 7. I was there, and I totally agree.
His talk was about the responsibility of journalism, and then he went and also spieled the Al Qaeda and Zarkawi propaganda. Very sad and very disappointing. That sure beats the ad hominem attack of someone who doesn't want me to "breathe his air. Why would our government do those things? Even if it did, what difference would it make?
But the other point I was trying to make was like that physics prof , I don't claim to make such charges as "the government did it," though I don't rule out the possibility. I just want to know what happened. Few would disagree that such is the nature of many corrupt governments in the developing world.
What makes us think our government is so noble and above the fray. We watch people year in and year out get indicted, convicted, and sentenced for various levels of corruption, yet somehow the chief executive is immune?
The current admin isn't even subtle. Tax cuts and all the rest for the wealthy, contracts in Iraq, etc. Katrina, FEMA, and food stamp elimination for the poor. This is plain as daylight. Is it too much to hope that those two ends of the spectrum will somehow join in the middle, and a lightbulb will go off? Maybe so, but here's hoping. Hehe, thank you for the avails of your expensive education.
I knew all along the WTC towers had to be made out of green cheese, but as far as eloquently proving it, like the towers themselves, that just wasn't in me. Hehe, tell me something if it's available yet. How'd they get screwed? Was it cronies supplying materials, fraudulently low bids for maintence, or both or worse?
Alamaine writes: "While there are several issues with which I would disagree, the hijackers one of them, this is a minor point compared to many of the other points he makes that will create more controversy and raise more hackles. I am not disagreeing with that premise. It is the only way to end their permanent war strategy. The myth is that the government knows more than we do, has spys that keep track of most things around the world and functions effectively as a monolithic organization weirdly the right aknowledges that the government is incomptent in everything else it does.
The whole concept of special ops forces engaged in secretive torture to gain information as in a spy movie is part of the mainstream mythology of how the world works and seems to have been accepted by some on the radical left but none of it is true.
Ask any marine who has come back from Iraq about all the equipment CNN touted in the first few weeks of the war the cameras in the lightweight bulletproof helmets, inpenteratable vests that wouldnt cause soliders to overheat You said: "People just don't want to go there. Such credulity also becomes inevitable when the alternative is so unbearable: if someone in Bush's position is capable of lying to us about something as huge, as gut-wrenchingly horrible as , then everything we believe about this country -- about the nature of civilization itself -- might just be childish nonsense Comment required.
April 17, am. Share This Article. Post was not sent - check your email addresses! Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email. July 15, pm. Getty Images. It was all a monstrous lie. Share This Article. But official Saudi money ended up in the pockets of the attackers, without a doubt.
Both sides know their ongoing talks could improve the Middle East—and consolidate Iranian gains across the region. The ongoing detention of the children of a key U. Beijing has its eyes set on using Afghanistan as a strategic corridor once U. Argument An expert's point of view on a current event. By Simon Henderson. July 18, , PM. Argument Anchal Vohra. Feature Fatima Bhutto.
0コメント