GOP CONGRESSMAN SEES THE LIGHT!!!

[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.

[Slaughtermeyer]

Atrocities said:
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?

The 9/11 commission basically concluded that the FAA and the Pentagon lied to them. The Sept. 11 commission was so frustrated with repeated misstatements by the Pentagon and FAA about their response to the 2001 terror attacks that it considered an investigation into possible deception.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060804/...t11_commission
http://www.infowars.com/print/Sept11...n_911truth.htm

The 9/11 Commission was prevented from conducting a complete impartial and thorough investigation because its executive director was Philip Zelikow. He was a member of the Bush I administration. He got to know Condoleezza Rice very well there – they both served on the National Security Council. When they were between administrations during the Clinton years, they wrote a book together.

When the Bush II administration was coming into power she brought him on to help with the transition and then he was appointed to the foreign advisory board, so he is essentially a member of the Bush White House. And yet, as executive director, he ran the Commission. He had a staff of 70-some; he decided which topics were worth looking into, and which ones were not. When people would come and say, I want to testify to the Commission, I have something important to say, he would decide who would take that testimony. And so on. So essentially the 9/11 Commission was the White House investigating itself.
http://globaloutlook.ca/10P45.htm
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...01821567284154

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?

The Operation Northwoods conspiracy, a 1962 plan approved by all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to stage a 9/11-style operation by US agents posing as pro-Castro Cubans in order to generate public support for an invasion of Cuba, was not exposed until 35 years later. Fortunately President Kennedy refused to give the go-ahead for this conspiracy.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662

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.

I believe 9/11 would have happened even if Gore had been elected. Because Lieberman was just as willing as Bush to use the US military for the benefit of Israel, I'm sure that a way would have been arranged by the neocons for Gore to contract a fatal illness or 'accident' while in office. For details about the neocons that pushed America into the Iraq war, read this article written by a former Israeli MK in 2003:
http://gush-shalom.org/archives/article242.html

A document published one year before 9/11 by the neocons entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses" stated that a "catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor" was needed to put their plans into operation.
http://www.reopen911.org/docs/Rebuil...asDefenses.pdf

[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.

[Slaughtermeyer]

Phoenix-D said:
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?

Professor Jones has stated that it would take 10 people each carrying 40 pounds of explosives making 10 trips in order to place sufficient explosives to bring down one of the towers. If the placement of the explosives was outsourced to the Mossad, why would any of their agents want to talk about it? Remember, none of the US government agents who participated in the conspiracy to assassinate Martin Luther King were exposed until 30 years after the event.
http://www.thekingcenter.org/news/trial.html

And it's quite easy to explain how the bomb-sniffing dogs didn't *notice* the preparation for demolition, because Securacom, the firm that handled security for the WTC (and coincidentally had George Bush's brother and cousin as directors) ordered the removal of the dogs during the week prior to 9/11.
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wt...y_wtcdogs.html

[Phoenix-D]

I didn't say a thing about dogs. Just the people going in and out of the building on a daily basis.

And you really don't shave with Occam's Razor, do you? Why outsource to the Mossad for an action on US soil?

Reading that trial transcript is surreal. Conspiracy to commit murder, maximum penalty $400? What the [censored] kind of law is that?

EDIT: by the way, did you think about that before you said it?

4000lb of explosive planted, in 40 pound bundles. 400 trips. And not ONE of these set of a red flag. There was no one who even commented on unusual construction in the building- because you can't just drop a 40lb bomb in an office, they have to be placed properly or they won't do the damage you need (see: 1993 WTC attack).

[Atrocities]

Hey Pheonix if the people who support these theories don't want to believe in the truth and choose to subscribe to the concept that is viewed by most normal people as being a crack pot theory promoted by mentally ill and desperate people, then that is their right. I may not subscribe to their views, and to be perfectly honest, find them to be histarically funny, however, I would hope to die rather than tell someone that they don't have the right in this country to speak their minds and state their opinions.

If we shut them up, we shut everyone up and that is a road best not travelled in a seemingly free and democratic society.

Hell don't worry about the folks who buy into this theory, most are ok people who just enjoy a good conspiracy theory, while some are true and genuine crack pots in deep need of profession mental help, most are just nice people who are just ill informed, misguided or are too willing to buy into bull**** rather than do the research on the subject.

Those, such as the ones that Slaughtermeyer has provided links too, validate their theories by quoting each other, or inventing facts based upon assumption and then passing off as real and factual facts. Some have even gone so far as to create bogus "Professionals, video's, and doctored photo's to help support their contention that their theory that the US Government is behind 9/11 is real. When you challenge them, with the real facts, and debunk their facts, they cry foul and hollor cover up. Don't buy into it, this is just a natural defense mechanism designed to help shore up their position. It is what any of us might do to defend our stance on any subject that we believed deeply in.

When it comes to the truth, I think the 70% of America that does not buy into this theory, the 70% who actually knows the year 9/11 occured in, listen to the real professionals who just happen to know what they are talking about because they build and understand the physics behind building construction and structural engineering.

Do you honestly think that the poeple who built the WTC buildings would remain silent if they thought for even a second that they had been dilibrately destroyed by controlled blasts organized by our own government?

Like I said, most people don't take these kind of far out theories seriously. They enjoy hearing about them though, so they can poke fun at those who envisioned them. Its all well in good, in 20 years none of this will matter.

[Slaughtermeyer]

Phoenix-D said:
I didn't say a thing about dogs. Just the people going in and out of the building on a daily basis.

Of course you won't say a thing about the dogs because it's one of the key pieces of evidence that explosives were placed.

And you really don't shave with Occam's Razor, do you? Why outsource to the Mossad for an action on US soil?

Maybe because Americans might wonder why they were asked to kill other innocent Americans?

Reading that trial transcript is surreal. Conspiracy to commit murder, maximum penalty $400? What the [censored] kind of law is that?

It's basically the same [censored] kind of law that says O.J. Simpson does not have to serve any prison time for killing Nicole, even though a court found him guilty of killing her.

4000lb of explosive planted, in 40 pound bundles. 400 trips. And not ONE of these set of a red flag.

Normally, a building of that size has maintenance corridors so you don't have to go into offices to place explosives. And if all of the placement was done at night when virtually nobody was at the center, how would anyone notice?