Andrew LW's blog
Over on Jref Dr Frank Greening has been setting a few cats among a few pigeons with his cheeky debut as a Jref-er. Presenting himself as "Apollo20", Dr Greening first threw a flying punch at the Jref mentality of sheltering behind authority - including, ironically, his own paper on the WTC, much vaunted by the 'conspiracy smashers' in general and Ronald Wieck in particular.
I’m new to posting on JREF but I have been following this forum for quite a while and I have observed how the regular JREFers eagerly DEVOUR each CTist that ventures on to this Conspiracy thread to question the official 9/11 story. It all gets pretty much routine because the JREFers always use one or more of the following modes of attack:
(i) NIST has covered all the bases – you need to refute NIST to win an argument here.
(ii) Taunt the CTist with “where’s your evidence?”
(iii) Question the CTist’s credentials – “Are you a scientist?”; “Are you an engineer?”
(iv) Ask the CTist why there are no peer-reviewed journal articles refuting NIST.
I wrote this tribute last September.
This is a video of the piece telling the story of the World Trade Center destruction through the eyes of the FDNY and first responders.
Wes Clark may not be the most popular man around here, but I have a strong hunch that he is central to opening up the US military to 911 awareness. He could be the most sensational whistleblower of all if he chose to tell us more like the story below. I sent it to Alex Jones site after I saw it on Digg , but they didn't print.
Please don't ignore this. We may have only a few days to stop an insane action on the part of the US against Iran. I have been 'led' to this . I can't say how.
''We never finished the investigation of 911 and whether the administration actually misused the intelligence information it had. The evidence seems pretty clear to me.I've seen that for a long time.''
Submitted by davidswanson on Sun, 2007-03-04 15:11. Evidence
This was pointed out by Kelly Gerling
This is an excerpt of Gen. Wesley Clark in a Democracy Now interview with Amy Goodman:
Every adult human on the planet should see this.
Needless to say, among myriad omissions on tonight's BBC cointelproduction was any reference to the toxic dust.
(Warning: this blog contains instances of irony. Molten irony).
At some point we all must face the question: what is the motivation behind our 9/11 work? Is it a desire to put right the wrongs of the world, or a secret need for attention?
Is it a distraction from our humdrum lives, a chance to play the world stage and take part in a one-off grass-roots-led revolution. or simply a fun thing to do?
I think there is an element of play in all of us, but we must be careful lest our playfulness encourages us us lose touch with reality. We can find ourselves saying the most appalling things to other people on internet forums , the likes of which would never pass our lips in the home , at work or in the bar. We can assume the self-righteous smugness of a soap-box evangelist, forever finding fault with his fellow humans. I have fallen into this pit of over-the-top gesturing, until brought up short by a well-respected member of this forum who, quite rightly, objected to being called 'deluded' and 'a stormtrooper'.
I don't think I am by any means the only person to write silly things. It is fun to get on your moral high horse and pontificate. I say this with confidence because I am of course right about everything.
As predicted, the fall of a once powerful architect of war and the man who made 'shock and awe' a household phrase.
Loved by few but Republican diehards, but known for his occasional insightful slips of the tongue, could 'Rummy' feel the need to
set the record straight and thereby become the superwhistleblower whose confessional tendencies will bring the house of Bush-Cheney tumbling?
Go on, Donald, we're listening. Tell us how it was for you.
I have just been watching Dustin Mugford's documentary 911 Revisited, which has multiple video footage of the three towers of the WTC being demolished. I have been a 'Truther' for only six months but have always felt instinctively, since watching it live on TV, that there was something not right about the speed at which the Twin Towers fell. I was not at that time particularly critical of the Bush government. In fact I was unique among my friends in supporting the war in Iraq. I believed that Saddam was a danger to world stability, that the world faced the threat of militant Islam and that we were better off with the United States in charge of the Middle East than without it.
My discovery that 9/11 was stage-managed by the U.S., possibly in conjunction with a foreign power, as a pretext for getting control of oil reserves and a strategic foothold near China and Russia, has changed my whole outlook. I have begun to realise that the U.S.military is not solely or even primarily defensive in its purpose but offensive - why would it not be? America is a powerful country and powerful countries, like individuals, need to build border posts. What is wrong is that America's aggressive foreign policy has been sold to a gullible public as a defensive response to Jihadist attack. There are indeed militant Arabs and they may conceivably have played a part in the 9/11 drama, the unwitting stooges of Uncle Sam. But they did not demolish the WTC 1, 2 or 7. 9/11 is a huge confidence trick played on a public who, out of decent motives, believes their government to be concerned with their welfare.
Criticism of Bush is a Capital Offense - Official
Posted On: 9/30/06 at 08:08 PM
If I were American , I could be detained without trial and executed for writing this criticism of the government.
Enemy Combatants: A dangerously broad definition of “illegal enemy combatant” in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted.
It's happening in my country too.
Full house as leading 9/11 conspiracy theorist has his say
Saturday September 9, 2006
They call it the 9/11 for Truth Movement, and tonight those who believe the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon were carried out by the American government and not jihadist hijackers will gather in London's Conway Hall to listen to one of the biggest figures among a growing number of disbelievers.
Two days before the fifth anniversary of the attacks, David Ray Griffin, emeritus professor of philosophy of religion and theology at Claremont graduate university, and author of The New Pearl Harbor and The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, will ask his audience: "Was 9/11 an inside job?"
He will be joined on stage by the ex-MI5 officer David Shayler, who will introduce the talk, for which tickets have almost sold out. Prof Griffin is a founder member of the 9/11 Scholars for Truth movement in the US. He is joined by 75 academics who write in books, journals and essays that they have overwhelming evidence that shatters the official version of events on that September morning.
And it seems that a growing number of people are listening to them. A recent poll in the US found that 36% of Americans believed it "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that their government was involved in allowing the attacks or had carried them out itself. There are many people in the UK who agree with them.
Ronald Wieck said...
It is NOT "known" that Bush had heard of the first attacks before he left his hotel. Someone is making this up (I never heard this one before and the timeline makes it impossible).
The reasons for invading Iraq have never changed. People with agendas want to pretend that Bush claimed there was only one rationale for the war, but nobody ever believed that.
When did Cheney contend that UBL had nothing to do with the attacks? This claim is nonsense.
If Rumsfeld ever thought that Flight 93 was shot down, he certainly changed his opinion as more information became available.
It's tiresome. If you have something, tell us about it. Stop spreading falsehoods. You aren't investigating a controversy; you're creating one out of whole cloth.
Sword of Twooth said...
Sorry Ronald. Wrong on all four counts.
1) Bush knew about attacks before leaving hotel.
Here is a transcript of an ABC report from that day:
'ABC News' Special Report:
(8:53 AM ET) Tuesday 11 September 2001
JENNINGS: ...Want to check in very quickly with the president of the United States. John Cochran with the president in Florida. John: