| Jul 3 @ 9:16 PM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America?
|
|
lacyvsq
Posts: 4,017
|
I got an email yesterday which contained a copy of an email from Richard Gage to Congressman Robert Wexler. The email says in part:
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth was born and we began an online petition drive for fellow architects and engineers who are also determined to learn and publicize what really happened to the three World Trade Center Towers that collapsed on 9/11. We developed a multimedia presentation that exposes the myth of the official explanation using simple, rational forensic inquiry and basic physics. I travel the country speaking to building professionals and others to expose the fallacies. The response to this presentation is the same everywhere I go. A simple show of hands before and after reveals that about 90% of those who believe the "fire-weakened steel" hypothesis come to accept the "controlled demolition with explosives" hypothesis after the presentation. The explanations of the destruction of the iconic Twin Towers and WTC Building 7 offered by FEMA and NIST defy laws of physics. This is easy to prove and has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
The presentation consists of over 500 slides and takes some time to absorb, but I think it is well set out and convincing. There is a brief verbal summary of it here where Gage appeared at a WTC 7 update teleconference meeting on 12/18/07 conducted by NIST.
If the collapses of the three WTC buildings was in fact controlled demolition with explosives -- as the presentation claims to have proven beyond a reasonable doubt -- who really has declared War on America? Who are the terrorists who attacked our people on 9/11? What about those 'prisoners of war' held without trial in Gitmo?
There are those calling for the impeachment of Bush/Cheney in part for obstructing the investigation of the 9/11. It may already be too late to be doing that, but aren't we as a nation entitled to a true and valid/scientific investigation into the reasons why the three WTC buildings collapsed?
|
|
  |
|
| Jul 3 @ 9:37 PM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America? |
|
bamagary
Posts: 814
|
you no i,m known as crazy guy who hates the government. but not even i will go as far to think. our own government would kill its own people. thats crazy.
|
| |
|
| Jul 3 @ 9:53 PM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America?
|
|
lacyvsq
Posts: 4,017
|
Read about the Civil War -- our government killing her own people.
What about Waco and Ruby Ridge? -- our government killing her own people.
Investigate Pearl Harbor -- an attack that was allowed to happen to get us into WWII.
Lusitania -- deliberately allowed to happen to get us into WWI.
We were set to go into war with Afghanistan and Iraq long before 9/11. From watching the presentation, it seems pretty obvious that the three WTC buildings were wired for demo before any planes crashed into two of them. Jet fuel and office furniture would not account for the continued fire at ground zero -- a fire hot enough to produce molten steel weeks later.
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 4 @ 2:22 AM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America? |
|
Nightowl001
Posts: 3,542
|
I have seen reports (and no, I'm not going to dig up links; they were interesting, but I never figured they'd be verified one way or another) that men in overalls were working in and around WTC 7 quite a few days before 9/11, and that for some reason, all the bomb-sniffing dogs were pulled out of the building a few days earlier. I, too, have wondered how a primarily concrete and steel structure can burn as it did. The collapse of the floors is explained by the heat of the fire, but I have never been wholly convinced that the fires were fueled only by the fuel carried in one jet liner in each building.
Supposedly, within days the FBI had gone over the passenger lists from the aircraft involved, and picked out all the "Middle-Eastern-sounding" named males, based on nothing more than the accents heard over the radios and accounts from passengers who communicated with the ground saying "Middle Eastern" men had taken over the aircraft. Those who they could not rule out as being part of a terrorist cell were then declared part of the plot, without any clear evidence of guilt or collusion. In point of fact, one passenger calling from one of the aircraft reported that six men had taken over the plane, and the FBI never identified six hijackers on any one flight. On Fligth 93, one caller reported: In first-class seat 4D, public relations executive Mark Bingham used an airplane phone to call his mother. "Mom, this is Mark Bingham," he said, so rattled that he included his last name. "Three guys have taken over the plane, and they say they have a bomb." Also: Back in coach, Jeremy Glick phoned his wife Lyzbeth to say, "Three Arab-looking men with red headbands" had taken over the cockpit. Flight 93 Yet the "official" FBI list of hijackers released 10 days later identified four men on the plane as terrorists, based, again, primarily on their nationality/names (one was Lebanese, three were Saudi Arabian on the FBI list). No one ever points out this contradicts what at least two callers from the plane reported.
|
| |
|
| Jul 4 @ 2:54 AM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America?
|
|
lacyvsq
Posts: 4,017
|
Steel girders were ejected to the sides of the towers and lodged in neighboring buildings -- yet there were no remaining chunks of concrete. All of those pancaked floors -- 4" thick concrete were pulverized -- thrown into huge dust clouds that contained particles of molten steel -- with signatures of incendiary devices. Pulverized bone fragments were found much later on the roof of a neighboring building. How does a gravity collapse pulverize bodies and shoot them across streets?
And all three buildings came down in symmetrical free fall... Amazing that the steel was so evenly damaged on every floor on every perimeter on all three buildings -- even though WTC 7 was built on a different architecture.
And then there is Guiliani who says he was told the building was coming down several minutes before it happened.
And no mention of the molten steel in the NIST report, as well as no conclusions about WTC 7.
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 4 @ 3:49 AM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America? |
|
Nightowl001
Posts: 3,542
|
I got bored. On page 26 of the official "9/11 Commission Report," it says:
At 9:12, Renee May called her mother, Nancy May, in Las Vegas. She saidher flight was being hijacked by six individuals who had moved them to the rear of the plane. She asked her mother to alert American Airlines. Nancy May and her husband promptly did so. This is gilded over by the "fact" that "forensic remains of 5 of the hijackers were recovered from the Pentagon crash site." And the "unidentified" 6th hijacker reported by the flight attendant, Renee May, is not included in the "19" hijackers count. They just sort of go on to report that there were "five hijackers on three of the planes, four on the fourth."
Inept, slipshod and premature, are all less condemnatory adjectives than "manufactured" or "lies," but I firmly believe all apply to the official investigations of 9/11.
|
| |
|
| Jul 4 @ 5:41 AM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America?
|
|
SensualGemini
Posts: 3,052
|
...I never cared much for the conspiracy theorists, but the whole 9-11 has some strange issues that have never been answered logically or scientifically.
...Everything points to a man made, purposely intended vertical collapse. One building having all the steel supports collapsing at the exact same time is a freak; three buildings doing exactly the same vertical collapse is no coincidence.
...The question has always been... who and why?
...To create support to go after Osama Bin Laden and Co. in Afghanistan? There was no support required, as JSOH, SOF, British SAS, etc., were already in Pakistan, Uzbekistan, etc., making raids.
...To create support for Iraq? ... Maybe, as through private contract, we started stock piling on Bahrain about 6 months after 9-11, for the invasion a year later in March of 2003. Once again, no support was required to bomb Iraq back to the Stone Age, as Saddam had been in violation of the no-fly zone for 10 years... but occupation is a different story and now, especially with the major screw ups, the expected cake walk did not transpire as predicted.
...To create support for war, a perpetual war and thus, a haven for war profiteers? If that would be the case, then follow the money trail to Cheney, Halliburton and a dozen others as potentials.
...To create the Patriot Act, the thousands of pages that surfaced almost immediately to become a law, a tool to invade the privacy of anyone and everyone?
...Or, maybe it was actually foreign influenced terrorists.
...Whatever and whomever was responsible, there is surely a special place in hell for them.
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 6 @ 12:58 PM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America? |
|
Bj864
Posts: 3,082
|
...I never cared much for the conspiracy theorists, but the whole 9-11 has some strange issues that have never been answered logically or scientifically
To me this has absolutely nothing to do with conspiracy theorists and everything to do with simply finding out what REALLY happened on 9-11. There are way too many holes in the governments story. There has been no real investigation and no accountability anywhere. All the safeguards we had in place, supposedly failed on that day, but again, no one has been held accountable.
There are way too many questions that have never been answered.
I think the first question we need to ask is; who benefitted from 9-11 and how did they benefit. As to who benefitted, I think the government and the defense contractors gained the most in the short term, with the oil companies coming into play for the long term.
|
| |
|
| Jul 7 @ 1:05 AM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America?
|
|
Kenn159
Posts: 2,560
|
"Conspiracy theory" is a label the status quo puts on any belief that questions the official government line.
Their intention is to discredit any serious discussion by labeling them as conspiracy nut cases
911 was either an intentional event perpetrated by our government or they were at least complicit and let the foreknown event happen.
Quote from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century
The cabal of war fanatics advising the White House secretly planned a 'transformation' of defense policy years ago, calling for war against Iraq and huge increases in military spending. A 'catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor'—was seen as necessary to bring this about."
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 7 @ 1:27 AM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America? |
|
nah12
Posts: 3,624
|
 enjoy your conspiracies people 
|
| |
|
| Jul 7 @ 1:31 AM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America?
|
|
bardnsage
Posts: 244
|
OK, I reveiwed the entire multi media presentation,,,, but I did fast forward a few of the videos,,,,
while not saying this is bunk,,,,there are some holes in the theories,,,,just like there are holes in the official account,,,,
the presentation places way too much emphasis on the fact that there was molten metal. This is not surprising to me, considering the amount of combustible liquids involved in the fire. It does make a somewhat compelling argument when placed side by side with the statements from NISC that there was no molten metal.
Also, too much emphasis placed on the pancake effect of the buildings. Several instances of construction losses where top floors have failed and pancaked the floors below them.
To call for another investigation, sure, why not,,,,, to come to the conclusion the government did it,,,, that's a stretch based on the limited amount of evidence I've seen.
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 7 @ 1:35 AM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America? |
|
Angel54214
Posts: 13,275
|
I did find this "Fact Sheet" also interesting:
http://www.investigate911.com/911facts-large.gif
and...
http://www.investigate911.com/
One thing I always wondered was why wasn't any U.S. official(s) held responsible for non-security protection of the 9/11?
|
| |
|
| Jul 7 @ 1:45 AM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America?
|
|
lacyvsq
Posts: 4,017
|
Well there is no doubt that there was a conspiracy to bring about the events of 9/11. The only question is who was involved in the conspiracy. Was it a conspiracy of suicidal Muslims operating out of a country which had shut down a lucrative heroin trade? (A country which the US just happened to be poised to invade to facilitate negotiations for construction of a gas pipeline...) Did those Muslim conspirators just get lucky in taking down three skyscrapers in NYC for the price of two airplanes? Was Allah with them that no orders were given to intercept them? Did God conspire with them to defy laws of physics?
Or was there a conspiracy among Americans(?) to create a rallying point to invade Afghanistan and Iraq and to Rebuild America's Defenses and to take away liberties under a Patriot Act (drafted well before 9/11)?
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 7 @ 2:26 AM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America? |
|
Novalite
Posts: 2,744
|
Lacy A country which the US just happened to be poised to invade to facilitate negotiations for construction of a gas pipeline
Huh? It took the US a month to get seven thousand troops to Afghanistan and as for 'invade' try again. The US still has not 'invaded ' Afghanistan rather, they bought a lot of friends to help them and pretty much, it remains that way. I'm sure that if there were a way to actually 'invade' Afghanistan, it would have happened but since it didn't I do believe that you are overreaching somewhat when using the word 'poised.'
LacyOr was there a conspiracy among Americans(?) to create a rallying point to invade Afghanistan and Iraq
As explained above, the US|did not invade rather it attacked and brought about the downfall of the Taliban. Conversely, Iraq was an uphill battle for Bush the entire time as he fought to justify invading it. Maybe you weren't born then but in 2003 there was a hell of a lot of opposition to the action so I would hardly call it a 'rallying point' as it didn't do a lot of good.
Lacyand to Rebuild America's Defenses and to take away liberties under a Patriot Act (drafted well before 9/11)?
I once asked you what rights you have lost due to the Patriot Act, you stated that now;
when moving large sums of money around by mail, the government is alerted.
that when boarding an aircraft, you have to go through a metal detector.
that you cell phone will have a 911 locator in it as an option.
I think that those were all the things you could list. Doesn't seem like you have lost a lot of liberties as the first two make perfect sense as only those doing something illegal need worry about the government knowing they are transporting large sums of money and, in fact, that has been policy for years prior to 911. The second of boarding aircraft has been in effect for years prior to 911 as well.
The locater you spoke of is an option, not mandatory.
Perhaps you can revise your list to make us aware of something that actually takes some rights away from people who are not involved in Qutbism and or terrorism.
|
| |
|
| Jul 7 @ 4:45 AM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America?
|
|
lacyvsq
Posts: 4,017
|
The USA PATRIOT Act is a huge piece of legislation, with a whole compendium of “anti-terrorist” measures. Yet it was rammed through Congress, without committee hearings and only one dissenting vote in the Senate, barely a month after the 9/11 attacks. How could it have been prepared so quickly? Answer: it wasn’t. It was put together from a whole series of repressive devices which the police and other security agencies have been trying to get for years, but were often rejected by elected legislatures. The same is true of state “anti-terrorism” laws, such as those enacted by NY governor George Pataki less than a week after the attack on the World Trade Center. All these laws build on the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 enacted by the Democratic Clinton administration.
The USA PATRIOT Act ominously defines “terrorism” as any action that is “dangerous to human life” and violates any state or U.S. criminal law if the act is intended to “intimidate or coerce a civilian population” or “influence the policy of a government.” This elastic definition could include anything from civil disobedience over Navy bombing of Vieques to protesting the World Trade Organization to defending strike picket lines. It authorizes warrantless searches, indefinite detention without trial of immigrants, seizure of library and bookstore records, “trap and trace” devices for computers and e-mail, and prosecution of lawyers for aiding their clients, as well as many other things. At the same time, the administration declared anyone it picked up in Afghanistan to be an “enemy combatant” without rights as a prisoner of war, and set up a system of military tribunals which can be used against citizens as well.
This was complemented by the TIPS (Terrorism Information and Prevention) program, to encourage people to spy on their neighbors and turn in anyone deemed “suspicious.” In 2002 came the Homeland Security Act, first put forward by the Democrats. In addition, the TIA (Total Information Awareness) program was set up in the Pentagon, headed by Contragate criminal John Poindexter, to “mine” data bases to come up with personal data on everyone in the name of a global hunt for terrorists. Although this was supposedly shot down, it was simply subcontracted to the Florida state government of George Bush’s brother Jeb, who hired private companies to do the same thing under the name MATRIX (for Multistate Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange). The companies came up with a list of 120,000 individuals with “High Terrorist Factor scores.”
Alex Jones gives a speech before Austin City Council concerning the USAPATRIOT act. The city of Austin became the first in Texas to condemn the USA PATRIOT Act as unconstitutional. More than 100 other cities and three states also declared the act unconstitutional.
Tuesday, 18 September, 2001, 11:27 GMT 12:27 UK
US 'planned attack on Taleban'
The wider objective was to oust the Taleban
By the BBC's George Arney
A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last week's attacks.
...Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.
The wider objective, according to Mr Naik, would be to topple the Taleban regime and install a transitional government of moderate Afghans in its place - possibly under the leadership of the former Afghan King Zahir Shah.
Mr Naik was told that Washington would launch its operation from bases in Tajikistan, where American advisers were already in place.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1550366.stm
Bush Began to Plan War Three Months After 9/11
Book Says President Called Secrecy Vital
By William Hamilton
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, April 17, 2004; Page A01
Beginning in late December 2001, President Bush met repeatedly with Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks and his war cabinet to plan the U.S. attack on Iraq even as he and administration spokesmen insisted they were pursuing a diplomatic solution, according to a new book on the origins of the war. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17347-2004Apr16.html
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 7 @ 10:07 AM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America? |
|
Paralegal_at_Law
Posts: 5,018
|
the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last week's attacks.
The Pentagon has war plans for future military action that may occur against a number of foreign powers. For instance, before Pearl Harbor, the plans for war with Japan were code named "War Plan Orange."
After the Pearl Harbor attack, the war department telegrammed General MacArthur in the Phillipines with the insruction, "Execute War Plan Orange."
So Pentagon plans for wars against various nations are exactly the kind of scenarios that preparations should be made for "just in case" the USA or one of our allies is attacked by the country in question, or in the alternative, should the country in question commit crimes against humanity, or be the target of a coup de' etat by elements that the USA finds intolerable to have control of such country like was the catalyst for the American invasion of the Island of Grenada, the USA will already have well-reasoned prior military plans for the best invasion route and a priority of what targets should be taken out in what sequential order.
It is standard operating procedure to make war plans to go to war against any number of countries, all with operations planned similar to what the USA did prior to Pearl Harbor in "War Plan Orange."
|
| |
|
| Jul 7 @ 10:25 AM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America?
|
|
bamagary
Posts: 814
|
unnone to must neocons. i agree with war in afghanistan. bin laden needs to be found. and done whatever with. unlike some Americans. i don't believe was an inside job. that's crazy.
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 7 @ 12:12 PM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America? |
|
lacyvsq
Posts: 4,017
|
PAL said:
For instance, before Pearl Harbor, the plans for war with Japan were code named "War Plan Orange."
After the Pearl Harbor attack, the war department telegrammed General MacArthur in the Philippines with the instruction, "Execute War Plan Orange."[spelling corrected]
Of course! As FDR was deceiving the voters about his war plans, the American and British military staffs were meeting secretly in Washington D.C., working out the details of a joint strategy. They planned, not only how to get the United States into the war, but how to conduct the war afterward. The resulting agreement was called the ABC-1. It was incorporated into a Navy war plan and given the code name Rainbow Number Five. We now have a great deal of information on this plan although, at the time, it was highly secret. The key for getting into the war was to maneuver the Axis powers to strike first to make it look like the U.S. was an innocent victim. Their first hope was that Germany would attack. If that didn’t work, the fallback plan was to provoke Japan.This policy was summarized in a memorandum to FDR by Admiral Stark, Chief of Naval Operations. He said: It would be very desirable to enter the war under circumstances in which Germany were the aggressor and in which case Japan might then be able to remain neutral. However, on the whole, it is my opinion that the United States should enter the war against Germany as soon as possible, even if hostilities with Japan must be accepted…. The sooner we get in the better. The Secretary of War at that time was Henry Stimson, a member of the CFR. In his diaries he said: In spite of the risk involved, however, in letting the Japanese fire the first shot, we realized that, in order to have the full support of the American people, it was desirable to make sure that the Japanese be the ones to do this so that there could be no doubt in anyone’s mind as to who were the aggressors…. The question was, how we should maneuver them into firing the first shot without allowing too much damage to ourselves. It was a difficult proposition.
PAL said:
It is standard operating procedure to make war plans to go to war against any number of countries, all with operations planned similar to what the USA did prior to Pearl Harbor in "War Plan Orange."
The operations prior to Afghanistan and Iraq were exactly along the lines of planning for Pearl Harbor -- ...aggravate, facilitate, insulate. Aggravate the enemy into an attack. Facilitate his attack to make it easy with no opposition. Insulate the victims from any knowledge that would allow them to escape their fate.
For many years, the government denied any knowledge of the impending Japanese attack. But, gradually, the pieces of the puzzle began to bubble up out of the mire of secrecy and, one by one, they have been assembled into a clear picture of the most monstrous coverup one can possibly imagine. The smoking gun was discovered in 1995. Author Robert Stinnett found a memo in the Navy Archives written by Lt. Commander Arthur McCollum, who was assigned to Naval Intelligence. The memo was dated October 7, 1940. It was directed to two of FDR’s top naval advisors: Captain Dudley Knox and Capt. Walter Anderson, who was head of Naval Intelligence. This memo was approved by both men and forwarded to FDR for action. The full text is now public information, and a photo of it appears in Stinnett’s book, Day of Deceit; The Truth about FDR and Peal Harbor.
The McCollum memorandum contained an eight-point plan of action to implement a two-point strategy. The two points were: (1) Aggravate Japan into a military strike as a matter of economic necessity and national honor on her part; and (2) Facilitate the attack by not interfering with Japan’s preparations and by making the target as vulnerable as possible. At the conclusion of the last point of strategy, the memorandum said: “If by these means Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war, so much the better.” ~from same link as above
Further, the process of transformation,even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. ~from REBUILDING AMERICA’S DEFENSES, A Report of The Project for the New American Century, September 2000
[Edited on 7/7/2008 12:28 PM]
|
| |
|
| Jul 7 @ 12:50 PM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America?
|
|
Nightowl001
Posts: 3,542
|
The key for getting into the war was to maneuver the Axis powers to strike first to make it look like the U.S. was an innocent victim. Their first hope was that Germany would attack. If that didn’t work, the fallback plan was to provoke Japan. It was serendipitous (for US intentions) that the Japanese didn't present their declaration of war to Secretary Hull until after the attack had begun. However, as has been explored in numerous books on the subject, we were actually decoding the Japanese messages to their embassy faster than they were. There are questions about whether or not Secretary Hull actually made the Japanese ambassador wait (even though he was late for his appointment) until he had confirmation of the Japanese attack in Hawaii before agreeing to see them to accept the Declaration of War. The myth that the Japanese planned a "sneak attack" has persisted despite all evidence to the contrary. They did, indeed, plan a surprise attack, but not on an unaware victim. Meanwhile, the lack of action on the part of those people who had cause to believe the Japanese attack was imminent, yet failed to do more to put people on alert for a possible attack makes their motives suspect.
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 7 @ 1:33 PM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America? |
|
lacyvsq
Posts: 4,017
|
...one of our allies is attacked by the country in question, or in the alternative, should the country in question commit crimes against humanity, or be the target of a coup de' etat by elements that the USA finds intolerable to have control of such country like was the catalyst for the American invasion of the Island of Grenada, the USA will already have well-reasoned prior military plans for the best invasion route and a priority of what targets should be taken out in what sequential order.
The Constitution does not provide power to the federal government to invade and/or take out targets for any of the reasons you listed except for defense against USA attacks. Powers not specifically granted by the Constitution are reserved to the States and the people. (That's why we had to aggravate, facilitate, insulate...)
|
| |
|
|
|
|