GOP CONGRESSMAN SEES THE LIGHT!!!

[Atrocities]

I tend to think that there is too much TV, internet blogs, and news radio in our lives.

Lets just say for arguements sake that the US Government, and our beloved President, a man who has not been credited with an over abundance of brains, masterminded the 9/11 attacks. How did they do this in such a short period of time? Why did Al Gore fight so hard to take the Presidency away from Bush after Bush won, or stole depending upon your point of view the election? I think its because Clinton and Gore knew that 9/11 was going to happen and they had it all worked out as to how they were going to blame it on Israil and the NRA. Lets face it, 8 and a half months isn't enough time to hire, train, and mastermind a major operation as those of 9/11. So the fault, if the government is behind it, doesn't lie with Bush and boys, its lies with Clinton and Company.

Think about that the next time some one spins a novel idea for a conspiracy about Bush and his people being behind the 9/11 attacks. Do the math people, just do the math.

[Atrocities]

Hard evidence that proves that 9/11 was not a government plot.

Popular mechanics

Now the far lefties will say that PM is really a government funded magazine out to promote the false evidence and hide the proof that the Government is behind the 9/11 attacks and that the buildings were brought down by controlled blasts..... *shakes head at their stupidity*

[Slaughtermeyer]

The Popular Mechanics bunk has been debunked:

Killtown's Rebuttal
Debunking PM #1
Debunking PM #2
Alex Jones Talks PM

And yes, this has been made into a movie called Loose Change. Originally it was supposed to be fiction similar to V For Vendetta but the producer found more and more real-life evidence for government complicity. Vanity Fair recently reviewed the movie here: http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...showtopic=7671

You can see Loose Change and other 9/11 movies at http://www.universalseed.org

And even the Presbyterian Church is waking up to the truth about 9/11:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/131/12.0.html

[Atrocities]

Thanks for the links. I have to be honest with you, I really don't believe those people who are attempting to prove that the government is behind 9/11 and the destruction of the two towers. Simply put those people are so off base that NO ONE takes them seriously. That is NO ONE with half a brain and any sort of IQ when it comes to structual design. You cannot debunk physics and the laws of nature.

As to your image there, we all know about how easy it is to doctor photo's, and we all know that many other buildings were severely damaged and later where dilibrately brought down because they were not structurally sound. Any one with an agenda could easily make a damning looking photo or video with enough talent, money, and desire to do so. Besides we cannot see the other side of the building so we do not know how damaged it truly is. For all we know, the other side of that building could be completely gone all the way to the back facete and that is what we are watching fall. Again there is no proof that the destruction of that building was dilibrate on 9/11 or that it even collapsed on 9/11.

I should tell you that I think this conspiracy that the GW and the US Government is behind the felling of the two towers to be an absolute joke that boarders on the histerically funny and suspect that most other people do as well. However given how many poeple where forever harmed by the events of that day, I can only now look at this nonsense that the US Government is behind 9/11 as an attempt to do more harm. A second wave of terrorism so to speak, one that supports what the terrorists did by trying to deny they even exist. I hate to say this, but only a handful of people actually support these conspiracy theories and those folks are often the subjects of water cooler jokes.

Now I would believe it, somewhat, if the people who are spreading this theory about would admit that GW had nothing to do with it and that it was Clinton and Gore who were behind it. They are devious enough to do something like this and blame it on the NRA or Israel. We all know how badly Gore contested loosing the election in 2000. Then just 8.5 short months later 9/11 went down. SOund more plausable to me that if our own government was behind this, that it was Clintons government and not Bushes that are the culprits. You can't hide from the math, and given just how much some folks consider Bush to be an idiot, its is really difficult to believe that he could master mind such a thing in such a short amount of time.

[Phoenix-D]

Slaughtermeyer, those sources are hardly credible. For one they never address the 400-odd missing people from the four crashed flights.

For two, one suggests a NUKE brought down the towers. A small, bunker busting nuke..which would still produce a significant amount of radiation and would *not* lead to the towers falling in on themselves. Reach much?

For three, they reference each other and use THAT as proof. Excuse me if I fail to find a conspiracy site citing another conspiracy site as reliable.

Site #2 *****es about it being a "hit piece" and then tries to rebutt it the same way. They also deliberately misinterpret things people said- asking to pull the firefighters out becomes "blow up the building". (I have *never* heard anyone use the term "pull it" to refer to blowing something up..but that's what they claim)

They also note the towers were designed to take a hit from a plane. What most of them don't mention is that the towers were designed to take a hit from a Boing 707. The biggest 707 has a maximum takeoff weight of 333,600 pounds. The 767 on the other hand has a maximum takeoff weight of 410,000 pounds. That extra 80k pounds probably screws things up just a little.

Your last link doesn't work. Here's a Google Cache link:
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:q...s&ct=clnk&cd=1

Its also a publishing note, not an official church stance.

[Slaughtermeyer]

Phoenix-D said:
Slaughtermeyer, those sources are hardly credible. For one they never address the 400-odd missing people from the four crashed flights.

You don't have to believe that 400 people are "missing" to believe that explosives brought down three of the WTC buildings after passenger jets crashed into two of them.

For two, one suggests a NUKE brought down the towers. A small, bunker busting nuke..which would still produce a significant amount of radiation and would *not* lead to the towers falling in on themselves. Reach much?

There's also a 'theory' that holograms and not actual planes hit the WTC. I don't know whether theories like this are deliberately made to discredit the 9/11 truth movement, but they can easily be ignored.

For three, they reference each other and use THAT as proof. Excuse me if I fail to find a conspiracy site citing another conspiracy site as reliable.

Does MIT engineer Jeff King do that?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...64959599063248

Site #2 *****es about it being a "hit piece" and then tries to rebutt it the same way. They also deliberately misinterpret things people said- asking to pull the firefighters out becomes "blow up the building". (I have *never* heard anyone use the term "pull it" to refer to blowing something up..but that's what they claim)

You can hear that term being used by a demolition worker when another building was blown up, in the first five minutes of this documentary:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...56054823827684

[Atrocities]

The history channel is airing a documentary about the truth of 9/11 sometime this next week. Who know's they might even reviel a bomb shell.

Has any one that was in the 9/11 commission said anything officially that supports the 9/11 truth movements theories about what happened on 9/11?

If Bush and his administration can't keep top secret NSA programs a secret, then why are we to believe that they can keep something as horrific as masterminding the 9/11 attacks a secret?

As to Clinton needing a motive to do this, I don't agree, Clinton would find a way to profit from such a plan, and Gore had a lot to gain if he had been elected. But I say this just because I don't like either man and there is absolutely no proof what so ever that they or any member of the US Government, in either administration, acted in, or help to plan, carry out, or cause the events of 9/11.

I guess what I am trying to promote here is the concept that Bush isn't behind 9/11 and that saying he and his administration is would be like saying that Abraham Lincon fired his own cannons at Fort Sumter and then blamed it on the Confederates in order start the civil war. Its not what happened and no one really would believe it.

[Phoenix-D]

Slaughtermeyer said:
You don't have to believe that 400 people are "missing" to believe that explosives brought down three of the WTC buildings after passenger jets crashed into two of them.

A number of the theories state that it *wasn't* passenger jets that were involved; that was what I was refering to. Reference all the "cruise missile hitting the Pentagon" BS. Also if you don't belive in a theory please mention that and/or refrain from linking to sites that use it as evidence!

There's also a 'theory' that holograms and not actual planes hit the WTC. I don't know whether theories like this are deliberately made to discredit the 9/11 truth movement, but they can easily be ignored.

Does MIT engineer Jeff King do that?

No, but ALL your previous reference does. And the first part of the video has no time stamp- it isn't clear if the explosion they're talking about isn't the second plane. The squibs showing are freaking flying debris. And the engineer so much as says: "at this point none of the theories we have make sense."

Never does explain how the people in the building didn't *notice* the prepration for demolition, which is quite extensive. To say nothing of the amount of explosives needed. None of the engineers involved talked? None of the contructions crews did?

The clouds he's mentioning are quite common and appear anytime a building comes down. By the way, watch the controlled demolions of other buildings in these videos carefully. Where does the collapse start? Answer: the bottom. Where did the WTC collapse begin? There's also ONE set of explosion, not the ridiclously complicated "detonation zone" most of these sites espouse. (mostly because falling buildings tend to be rough on the precise placement needed for these things)

You can hear that term being used by a demolition worker when another building was blown up, in the first five minutes of this documentary:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...56054823827684

That'd be the first time I've heard it mentioned..assuming he isn't talking about pulling the last crew out. These sites are delightfully sneaky about how they do their video and linking.

Case in point- one of them linked to
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/pe...Papers/405.pdf

as proof of controlled demolition. What it actually shows that if a single floor was damaged to the point where it couldn't bear its load, it'd take the entire tower down. Also explains why the top part of the towers didn't fall.

No other steel structure has collapse from fire- I'll give them that. None of those structures had an aircraft impact followed by a large fire, however.

EDIT: side note on the dust cloud- most of the sites refer to a "pyroclastic cloud", probably quoting the engineer above, who mentions a TYPE of event that produces such dust. It wasn't such a cloud- which is a damn good thing because if was it would have killed everyone for miles around! They are *extremely* hot- the coldest are generally above 100C and it only gets worse from there.

[Azselendor]

Atrocities, the problem with your Evil-Clintonian and Gore theory is that it doesn't take it account the Bush Sr's relationship with Bin Laden. Mainly the part where as head of the CIA, Bush Sr screwed the taliban and bin laden's fledgling group. It also misses all the businesses and individuals that stood to gain from such an event.

I don't see bush's administration being responible for 9/11 (except in ignoring the warning signs and later exploiting it more than george lucas with a prequel) as Bush really just wanted to get Saddam and please is saudi backers and religion base.

I don't see Clinton's administration being behind it because he had nothing to gain. Think about it and there is nothing clinton or the democrats could gain from it.

The 2000 Election with Gore is something to be looked at - but not until after the current leadership and party drones are out. I'm reminded of Lyndon Johnson's congressional run and there was questions about ballot issues. In particular, one picture from that event was a group of lyndon johnson supporters standing on/against a ballot transport box grinning.


But back to the point.

Using lex parsimoniae, law of succinctness, and applying it to this. Which requires fewer assumptions to be true.

1.) The theory that Terrorist, seeking to invent 9/11/01 as a terrible tragedy by destroying the economic, military and political centers/landmarks of the united states over religious differences they have with us. (ie. Terrorist view America as Evil Incarnate)
2.) The Theory that terrorist did the same as Theory 1 as revenge against bush - not knowing the outcome of the 2000 elections when they sent the plan into motion.
3.) Bush Administration plotted and organized the attack to push forward a neo-conservative agenda and religious-right agenda in america to steer the country towards the leave-it-beaver style america of the 1940's while eroding basic freedoms - not knowing the outcome of the 2000 elections when they sent the plan into motion (unless it was rigged).
4.) Clinton's Administration plotted and oganized the attack for some unknown reason or as suggested, target the NRA or Israel (who prefers clinton over bush anyday of the week) and did so not knowing the outcome of the 2000 elections (unless it was rigged).
5.) Al Gore planned and organized the attack for some bizzare reason that not even al gore could fathom. etc. etc. etc.

[Azselendor]

On a side note, Slaughtermeyer's sites appear to be individual conspiracy theorist presenting their own "Truthology" as fact when it's really some guy playing connect the dots with the back of cereal box.

The Vanity Fair link is nothing more than a review and contains no verification of the facts.