Obviously they don't think we should question our Government about the events of 9/11, which is why they attempt "to fight the tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy dorks who believe that 9/11 was caused by Jews/the government/neocons/flying saucers/bildebergers or bigfoot."
Well, whatever "they" think, it does not stop you or anyone else from being able to question the government. Maybe you should frame your questions more precisely.
What does one have to do with the other?
Edit: I have to wonder why you would even ask, though, since you no doubt believe the whole thing was a sham, anyway. Their testifying alone would have been proof of conspiracy, too, I'm sure.
Spend some time here and learn how rational people and experts in various pertinent fields think about 9/11.
What Is The President And The Vice President's Word Worth?
By Jon Gold
I was watching Alex Jones' new movie, "The Terror Storm", and Alex had driven to "Camp Casey" in Crawford Texas. At "Camp Casey", he managed to get an interview with ex-CIA Analyst of 27 years, Ray McGovern.
Mr. McGovern made a very profound statement.
"For people to dismiss these questioners as "conspiratorial advocates", or "conspiratorial theorists"... that's completely out of line because the... The questions remain because the President who should be able to answer them, WILL NOT."
During the 9/11 Commission, a commission which the President and the Vice President fought "tooth and nail" against, they eventually agreed to meet with the members of the Commission.
However, "they were not under oath and there was to be no recording made of the session nor a stenographer in the room."
Simply stated, the "9/11 Truth Movement", which is comprised of individuals like Dr. Robert Bowman, former head of the "Star Wars Program", Professor Steven E. Jones, Physics Professor at BYU, Dr. Morgan Reynolds, Former Chief Economist for the U.S. Department of Labor from this Bush Administration, Paul Craig Roberts, Assistant Sect. of Treasury under Pres. Reagan, and the "Father of Reaganomics", Michael Meacher, Former UK Minister of Environment, Catherine Austin Fitts, ***. Sect. of Housing For President Bush I, Rep. Cynthia McKinney, Rep. Ron Paul, and so on... has, AT THE VERY LEAST proven that we have been lied to about 9/11, and that it appears our Government was complicit in the attacks.
One of the things we have learned during this administration's reign is that whatever they say, the opposite is usually the truth. "We abide by the law of the United States, that we do not torture." "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees." "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
Why then do 48% of Americans believe what they say about 9/11? Why should we believe the word of President Bush and Vice President Cheney when it has been proven time and time again that they can't be trusted?
In other words, their word means nothing. Whatever they said to the 9/11 Commission can NOT be trusted.
They are the ones that say, "9/11 drives U.S. policy". They are the ones who have used 9/11 more than ANYONE else. They are the ones who have benefitted from it the most.
It is time for America to start asking them for answers.
Under oath, in public, and WITHOUT each other.
Ok, so I am ready for your proof that 9/11 was carried out by the government, is that forthcoming?
Is there anything in there that can be classified as a real argument, or is it all conjecture?
We want to see your evidence laid out in front of us. Good luck.
Sure! Let's start with Building 7.Hmm... Can you refute the picture and snippets of interviews I posted?
In the PBS documentary "America Rebuilds" Larry Silverstein admits they "pulled" WTC Building 7. As you may know, Building 7 was never hit by a plane, and was the 3rd modern steel-framed building in the history of the world to collapse to the ground via fire. It fell at near free-fall speed (as did the Twin Towers). Watch. Kooks like PM claim Silverstein meant to pull the firefighters, even though none were in the building. Later in "American Rebuilds" the demolition crew use the term "pull" again when they demolish Building 6. Watch. "Pull it" is clearly a demolition industry term for triggering carefully pre-planted explosives to bring down a building, like "cut" is movie slang for stopping the camera from rolling after a take.
Another shot of 7 being demolished via controlled demolition.
No doubt the current building codes and structural engineering mathematics and formulas required to safely construct a steel skyscraper without worry of if falling from mere fire.Begging the question. What are the "security parameters for skyscrapers"?
The Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain was subject to raging infernos for over 24 hours. The Twin Towers were subject to mediocre oxygen-starved fires (as evidenced by the thick black smoke plumes and reported in the NIST report) for 1 hour (south tower) and less than 2 hours (north tower), reaching temperatures which would not significantly even weaken steel, much less melt it.Perhaps you can point out the differences between the Madrid Windsor and the WTC...
Underwriters Laboratories Executive Speaks Out on WTC Study
Debunking Popular Mechanics Lies
Also see new article: 118 Witnesses: The Firefighter's Testimony to Explosions in the Twin towers.
Regarding molten metal pools months after 9/11:
This is well documented fact, not "second-hand" knowledge.How do you know this is true? The only person who can be confirmed to have made this claim (and nowhere did it saying anything about "all three buildings" - you'll have to support that claim) said they heard it from someone else. So... the claim is already second-hand. Bad start.
Molten Metal found at the WTC months after 9/11
Scientific Analysis Proves Towers Brought Down By Incendiaries
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. BYU's Professor Steven E. Jones is a physicist and archaeometrist.Prof. Jones is a physicist, not a materials or chemical analyst. Neither are any of the other "scholars" in his club.
Read his paper: Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
Scholars for 9/11 Truth is a non-partisan association of faculty, students, and scholars, in fields as diverse as history, science, military affairs, psychology, and philosophy, dedicated to exposing falsehoods and to revealing truths behind 9/11. Member info.
Sister site: Journal of 9/11 Studies
I doubt you have. The document is here. See section V (pg 51).Do you even know what the "transition" they talk about actually is? Have you read that entire section in context? I doubt it...
"....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."
Google "pnac pearl harbor" for a wealth of information on the subject.
Anything else Cl1mh4224rd?
Last edited by AdamT; 2006-Aug-27 at 06:38 PM.
You insist that we read everything you throw at us. You're welcome to do the same with everything that's available here.