Monday, August 14, 2006

The Truth is Spreading

3 Clues to 9/11 Truth in the
World Trade Center Movie by Oliver Stone
1) Unexplained explosions
2) Unexplained molten steel
3) Unexplained WTC 7 collapse

These well-documented facts are true evidence of controlled demolition, showing 9/11 was an Inside Job.
The “Official Story” is the outrageous conspiracy theory.
For a scientific explanation of the clues to the Real Story come to a public lecture on
Monday, 8/21, 7:30-9:30PM
at: Eno River Unitarian Universalist Fellowship , 4907 Garrett Road, Durham,NC


BLKNIGHT18 said...

Another former senior CIA official goes public:

Stop Belittling the Theories About September 11
by Bill Christison, Aug 14, 2006

Bill Christison is a former senior official of the CIA. He was a National Intelligence Officer and the Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis before his retirement in 1979. Since then he has written numerous articles on U.S. foreign policies.

However horrendous the crimes of two of the world’s great liars and terrorists in Gaza and Lebanon, it is imperative that we not let the deeds of Ehud Olmert and George W. Bush distract us from another recent event.

The U.S. alliance with Israel and the power of the lobby that lets Israel so easily influence U.S. foreign policy have been major factors in allowing the monstrous slaughter of innocent civilians in Gaza and Lebanon. What is happening in these lands may also encourage Olmert and Bush to start new hostilities in Syria and heavy, possibly nuclear, bombings in Iran -- and this entire mess of neocon pottage may lead to a new World War and clashes of civilizations and religious fundamentalisms that these two wretched politicians seem quite literally to want to impose on the rest of us. It’s a tough case to make that anything else going on in the world -- anywhere -- could possibly be of equal importance.

But on July 29 and 30, and then again on August 1, something else happened that increasing numbers of people believe is of equal importance. On these dates C-SPAN rebroadcast a panel discussion, held originally in late June, sponsored by an organization called the American Scholars’ Symposium to discuss what really happened on September 11, 2001. Held in Los Angeles, the meeting lasted two days, and the C-SPAN rebroadcast covered one almost two-hour wrap-up session. The meeting was attended by 1,200 people interested in hearing something other than the official story of 9/11. The TV audience was evidently large enough to spur C-SPAN to broadcast the panel discussion five separate times in four days.

Even a month late, this is a lot of airtime for stories that many people call conspiracy theories -- and for which many others use nastier descriptions. It is possible that the head of C-SPAN, Brian Lamb, so strongly disbelieves the conspiracy theories that he felt giving them ample publicity would discredit them further. It is equally possible, however, that Lamb, who seems honestly to believe in presenting various sides of most issues as fairly as he can (although not always giving every side equal time), tried to do exactly that on the many legitimate questions raised about what actually happened on September 11. In any event, C-SPAN has made a major effort to bring information on the principal theories about 9/11 to the mainstream U.S. media. Lamb cannot be blamed for the coincidence that recent heavy military activity in Gaza and Lebanon is nearly drowning out his efforts.

Let’s address the real issues here. Why is it important that we not let the so-called conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 be drowned out? After spending the better part of the last five years treating these theories with utmost skepticism, I have devoted serious time to actually studying them in recent months, and have also carefully watched several videos that are available on the subject. I have come to believe that significant parts of the 9/11 theories are true, and that therefore significant parts of the “official story” put out by the U.S. government and the 9/11 Commission are false. I now think there is persuasive evidence that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. The items below highlight the major questions surrounding 9/11 but do not constitute a detailed recounting of the evidence available.

ONE: An airliner almost certainly did not hit The Pentagon. Hard physical evidence supports this conclusion; among other things, the hole in the Pentagon was considerably smaller than an airliner would create. The building was thus presumably hit by something smaller, possibly a missile, or a drone or, less possibly, a smaller manned aircraft. Absolutely no information is available on what happened to the original aircraft (American Airlines Flight 77), the crew, the “hijackers,” and the passengers. The “official story,” as it appeared in The 9/11 Commission Report simply says, “At 9:37:46, American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, traveling at approximately 530 miles per hour. All on board, as well as many civilians and military personnel in the building, were killed.” This allows readers to assume that pieces of the aircraft and some bodies of passengers were found in the rubble of the crash, but information so far released by the government does not show that such evidence was in fact found. The story put out by the Pentagon is that the plane and its passengers were incinerated; yet video footage of offices in the Pentagon situated at the edge of the hole clearly shows office furniture undamaged. The size of the hole in the Pentagon wall still remains as valid evidence and so far seems irrefutable.

TWO: The North and South Towers of the World Trade Center almost certainly did not collapse and fall to earth because hijacked aircraft hit them. A plane did not hit Building 7 of the Center, which also collapsed. All three were most probably destroyed by controlled demolition charges placed in the buildings before 9/11. A substantial volume of evidence shows that typical residues and byproducts from such demolition charges were present in the three buildings after they collapsed. The quality of the research done on this subject is quite impressive.

If the judgments made on Points ONE and TWO above are correct, they raise many “Who done it” questions and strongly suggest that some unnamed persons or groups either inside or with ties to the government were actively creating a “Pearl Harbor” event, most likely to gain public support for the aggressive foreign policies that followed -- policies that would, first, “transform” the entire Middle East, and second, expand U.S. global domination.

These first two points provide the strongest evidence available that the “official story” of 9/11 is not true. If the government could prove this evidence false, and its own story on these points correct, all the other data and speculation supporting the conspiracy theories would be undermined. It has provided no such proof and no answers to growing questions.

BLKNIGHT18 said...

What we know and don’t know about 9/11
By Paul Craig Roberts, 08/16/06 "Information Clearing House"

I received a number of intelligent responses from readers of my August 14 column, “Gullible Americans,” The letters deserve a reply. Moreover, some contain important points that should be shared with a wider audience. Pundits such as myself are not the only people who have interesting things to say. Considering the number of letters and the time it would require to respond individually, I am replying instead in this column.

Most readers from whom I heard understand the difference between loyalty to country and loyalty to a government. They understand that to support a political party or a government that is destroying the US Constitution and America’s reputation in the world is, in fact, an act of treason. Therefore, I did not have to read the usual drivel about how doubting “our government” is un-American.

Among the issues raised are:

How could the complicity of the US government, or some part of it, in the events of 9/11 be kept a secret? For the most part, this question comes from Americans who believe the government must have been, to some extent, complicit in the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon.

How can we differentiate between the real facts, the 9/11 Commission’s reporting of the facts, and “conspiracy theories”?

What about the role of suicide flyers led by M. Atta?

What about the Popular Mechanics article and the TV documentary that debunk the skeptics and support the official explanation of 9/11?

What about the role of the US media in propagandizing Americans with the official explanation instead of examining the explanation, especially with regard to such truncated hatchet-job interviews with 9/11 skeptics such as the hatchet jobs presided over by Donny Deutsch on CNBC and by neocon Tucker Carlson on MSNBC?

Why are so many Americans hostile to holding the Bush regime accountable for its obvious and documented lies, lies that have misled America to war and gratuitously slaughtered and maimed tens of thousands of people, including our own troops?

I will begin by stating what we know to be a solid incontrovertible scientific fact.

We know that it is strictly impossible for any building, much less steel columned buildings, to “pancake” at free fall speed. Therefore, it is a non-controversial fact that the official explanation of the collapse of the WTC buildings is false.

We also know for a fact that the Air Force somehow inexplicably failed to intercept the alleged hijacked airliners despite the fact that the Air Force can launch jet fighters to 29,000 feet in 2.5 minutes. We also know that the two co-chairmen of the 9/11 Commission have just written a book that reveals that the US military lied to the Commission about its failure to intercept the hijacked airliners.

There are various explanations for this second fact. The military could have lied to cover up complicity or to cover-up its incompetence. However, no investigation has been made to ascertain the true explanation for the failure. [...]

NC 911 Truth said...

Great work Michael

BLKNIGHT18 said...


National 9/11 Debate
Ed Haas, Muckraker Report and August 15, 2006


Dr. Frank R. Greening to argue in support of government account of the events of September 11, 2001 at the National 9/11 Debate

The National 9/11 Debate is pleased to announce that Frank R. Greening Ph.D. has agreed to participate in the National 9/11 Debate on March 10, 2007 in Charleston, South Carolina. Frank R. Greening will be part of a seven-member debate team that will support the U.S. government’s official account of 9/11 events.

Frank R. Greening was born in London, England in 1947. He has a Ph.D. in physical chemistry and has carried out research in physics, chemistry, and materials science for 30 years in academic and industrial positions. He has published approximately 80 research reports and journal articles, including numerous articles supporting the government’s collapse sequence theories of World Trade Center Buildings 1 & 2.

While the 9/11 Commissioners and NIST scientists remain invited to participate in the National 9/11 Debate, the Muckraker Report has expanded the potential government debate team members to any qualified persons that are willing to publicly defend the government’s account of 9/11 against the opposing debate team already assembled. Dr. Greening is the first such expert that has agreed to debate members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth as well as other experts that oppose the government’s account of 9/11 to include Philip J. Berg, James H. Fetzer, David Ray Griffin, Steven E. Jones, George Nelson, Morgan Reynolds, and Judy D. Wood.

“Regardless of what you believe about the events of September 11, 2001, the need for a fair, public debate regarding the government’s official account of 9/11 is made apparent by the fact that nearly half of all Americans, and arguably, more than half of the world population does not accept the U.S. government’s final 9/11 reports as complete or factual. The goal of this debate has always been to give each side a safe public forum for honest debate where each side is allowed to completely express their views and debate the merits of these views,” says Ed Haas, National 9/11 Debate Coordinator. “With Dr. Greening coming on board, I am confident that others will follow and this much needed debate will occur.”

The format of the National 9/11 Debate will include a credentialed seven-member debate team that supports the government’s account of 9/11, a credentialed seven-member debate team that disputes elements of the government’s account, and a seven-member media panel that will monitor the debates and pose questions to the debate team members.

Any member of the media that would like to be on the media panel should contact Ed Haas promptly.

Anonymous said...

Folks, the time has come and the connections have been made. We need to organize a protest march large enough to shutdown Washington DC, sometime after the government returns to work in early 2007. Something HISTORIC! We need to show the world we are as free as we claim to be, and not as stupid and gullible as we appear.

Whoever is going to NYC on the 9/11 fifth anniversary should really push this protest march idea, and get things moving.

If the Mexican people can force a recount of their recent presidential election, then I think we can do a little more than post things on the Internet, and watch the latest news about Jon Bonet Ramsey. Not to sound like I'm discounting the Internet because, I think, it is the one thing the People of Power have underestimated and miscalculated to their eventual demise.

BLKNIGHT18 said...

For a large list of newspaper contacts in NC,

BLKNIGHT18 said...

Austin Pastor Fights to Spread 9/11 Truth
Jones Report | August 17, 2006

Austin-based Unitarian Pastor Davidson Loehr has been questioning 9/11 and standing up against the lies of the government's official story for years.

He is now known for a February 12, 2006 sermon in which he accused the Bush administration of orchestrating the the September 11 attacks.

Loehr delivered a sermon regarding 9/11 as early as September 16, 2001, but from a rather different perspective. Loehr utilized his first sermon in a 'post-9/11' world to highlight the effects of "blowback"--consequences for the adverse effects of U.S. foreign policy from the eyes of many foreign nations, particularly in the Mid-East region.

Loehr's focus shifted on 9/11, but the subject remained an important one in his ministry. In his November 7, 2004 sermon entitled "Living Under Fascism," he stated that "I don't believe anyone can understand the past four years without reading the Project for a New American Century (PNAC)."

He has been a significant force in exposing the official lies regarding September 11 and continues to parlay to his church members information supporting that controversial view of those infamous attacks.

Those views reportedly divided some members of his church, who were said to walk out during Loehr's accusations against the Bush administration.

On August 2, 2006, Pastor Loehr presented Alex Jones' Martial Law 9/11 to crowd of about 200 people, some of which were members of his church and many who were simply members of the community. He prefaced the film by speaking about the activism of Alex Jones and giving background information on the government involvement with 9/11. That discussion can be viewed HERE

Pastor Davidson Loehr has previously been covered by and published in both the Austin-American Statesman (login required) and the Austin Chronicle. He was named "Austin's Best Minister/Spiritual Leader" by the Austin Chronicle in 2005, which is based upon votes by readers of the publication.

Loehr is the author of the book America, Fascism + God: Sermons from a Heretical Preacher published in 2005.

BLKNIGHT18 said...

Flight 93 'was shot down' claims book
The Daily Mail, UK, Aug 19, 2006

BLKNIGHT18 said...

Sept. 11 plaintiffs wait for answers, resolution
Nearly 5 years later, lawsuits are stalled
By Sacha Pfeiffer, Globe Staff | August 20, 2006

In the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, a tiny percentage of people who lost loved ones or were injured in the attacks sued the aviation industry, spurning a federal compensation fund that ultimately distributed more than $7 billion to more than 5,500 victims.

Now, nearly five years after the historic disaster, roughly 60 lawsuits are still grinding their way through court. And the families pushing ahead with litigation, including numerous New Englanders, are mired in a massive legal case that has become a complicated behemoth for the federal judge overseeing it.

``I've never been in any litigation more frustrating than this," said Frank H. Granito, Jr., a New York lawyer who represents the family of an American Flight 11 passenger and several insurance companies in the matter.

The case pits those who consider the day's events an unpreventable tragedy against others who believe government and aviation officials ignored clear warnings that such an assault was possible. That lapse, in their view, led to the deaths of beloved friends and relatives, and they now want accountability and answers.

For some litigants, their decision to sue was met by public disapproval from skeptics who questioned their motives and dismissed their quest for justice as futile. But in interviews with the Globe, many family members said they are committed to pursuing the case until government, airline, and security officials are held responsible for their roles in the attacks. And they are aware that litigation is a gamble that could produce neither answers nor money, they said.

The New York-based case has been slowed by the federal government's sweeping refusal to release materials on aviation security, outraging lawyers for both sides. It has also been stalled by the South Carolina law firm Motley Rice, which made billions suing the tobacco industry and represents 53 victims in the case, or nearly 60 percent of all plaintiffs. Its clients include the families of Flight 11 pilot Captain John Ogonowski of Dracut, crew member Madeline Sweeney of Acton, Rhode Island native David Angell, creator of the sitcom ``Frasier," and many high-earning New England executives.

BLKNIGHT18 said...

Under Fire! U.S. Army Intelligence Analyst Targeted For Suggesting New Independent 9/11 Investigation

The Lone Star Iconoclast, Monday, August 21, 2006

Army: Doubting Official 9/11 Story Is ‘Disloyal To The United States’

Anonymous said...

Please check the blog email, I have a question for Rebecca C.

christian peper said...

I say 911 tax refusal is the way to go. Stop paying taxes to this outlaw gov!