http://www.bloglines.com/blog/ewing2001
September 14, 2006

*submitted by the Edna Cintron League

PrisonPlanet about protest at CFR (09/12)
FOX TV: Morgan Reynolds about "9/11 TV fakery" + Controlled Demolition
Blogosphere also silent about 9/11 Truth protests
Nimmo: Path to 9/11 Obscures Real Terror Network
Mark Bilk: "Nuclear bombs were not used on the WTC"
"Even the far left think conspiradroids are nutters..."
ConspSmasher ranting about "Jon Gold
Howie Hawkins for US Senate, NY Green Party
California's Orange County Register Editorial hints LIHOP/MIHOP
One in 5 Canadians sees 9/11 as U.S. plot: poll
VIDEO: Ex-Bush offical Reynolds tells Fox 9/11 inside job
Tom Foti (ny911), Alex Jones at CFR Protest
Killtown in Cushing Daily Citizen - "Flight 93 crash photo target of conspiracy theorists"
"The Shaolin Plane"
GeorgeWash Blog: "R.I.P. for no-planes"
Video: C-SPAN "9/11 Press for Truth" press conference.
911-news.blogspot.com: Show # 8 September 11
ConspSmasher: The "no plane" people
ConspSmasher about odd ny911 diary: "Morons go to NYC"
09/16: Dutch 9/11 Truth Conference, also reflecting Zembla-Doku

This post is cross-posted at indoctriNATION.

I received an email earlier today from a reader suggesting that I balance TheFilter.ca’s coverage of 9/11 with an Alex Cockburn article posted to Znet called “The 9/11 Conspiracy Nuts: How They Let the Guilty Parties of 9/11 Slip Off the Hook”

I thought I would post my response, simply because it expresses some of the frustration I’ve had over the last week with much of the alternative media’s coverage of the fifth anniversary of 9/11.

Thanks for your interest in the site, and your story suggestion.

I had actually read Cockburn’s article when it was put up on Counterpunch, and some similar pieces from other Big Alternative sites, and decided to pass on posting them. Reading Cockburn’s again, I felt the same way I did about it the first time around: disappointed, but not surprised.

The article is one of the most hollow, dishonest outbursts that I’ve seen in a long time on an alternative news site and frankly, it really knocks Counterpunch, Znet, and the Nation (who also published it), down a few pegs on the integrity board.

Quote: "9/11 Press for Truth leads us to some pretty grim ideas about what is really going on in the so-called "War on Terror." We listen to key administration officials ignoring fair questions with evasions, condescending non-answers and repeated fairy-tales about Terrorism and The Enemies of Freedom, and we don't know what to think. Are we being protected from a Truth we cannot handle? Or has a power elite simply hijacked the nation?"

Read more here.

This is copied from another blog i found on www.msnbc.com #3 parts in order;

• March 11, 2005 | 9:40 p.m. ET

Freedom Tower politics (David Shuster)

The blogs we've been posting on the Freedom Tower continue to generate a huge number of e-mails. Every day, I've been receiving articles and stories detailing a host of new engineering problems associated with the current plan for lower manhattan. [Blog: Freedom Tower Vs. Twin Towers; Blog: Rebuild the Twin Towers]

The latest issue concerns a plan by Governor Pataki to sink an eight lane street beneath the proposed Freedom Tower park.There are two problems: First, Verizon says it would need to relocate a massive amount of underground telecom gear in order to clear a path for the tunnel. (Verizon says this move could delay the entire project for two years.) Secondly, the proposed underground construction project would be akin to Boston's "big dig." Only this time, the chaos and mess would be in Lower Manhattan.

I could go on and on. It seems likely that this Freedom Tower project is going to keep a hole in the Manhattan skyline (and thrill Al-Qaeda) for at least a decade. Many of you have said that construction on "newer, stronger, and taller twin towers" should have already begun. To all of you who have been wondering, "Is it too late to scuttle the freedom tower and rebuild the twin towers?" the answer is clearly "No."

(For anyone who missed this speech, check it out!)

Martin Luther King - A Time to Break Silence - April 4th 1967
(10mb MP3)

"A time comes when silence is betrayal" - These words are just as relevant today as when Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. first spoke them 39 years ago. At first glance they might be overlooked as just a simple protest against the war in Vietnam, but the relevance of this entire speech to the modern world we live in today, particularly issues like the truth of 9/11, can be heard in almost every inspiring point made. MLK mentions how "conformist thought" can end up preventing people from challenging their government sufficiently, especially in times of war, and how those who do speak out often then find it a "vocation of agony" because the current political climate deems it controversial or unpatriotic - nevertheless he says, "We must speak".

Although the speech is full of great parallels, that line alone - "A time comes when silence is betrayal" - is extremely poignant, because in the context of not questioning 9/11, in the face of overwhelming evidence that it should be questioned, that silence is a betrayal. It’s a betrayal not just to ourselves but to all the past generations who fought and died so that we may live in freedom, that silence is a betrayal to all the future generations who will inherit the world we leave them, and if we don’t question 9/11 that silence is a betrayal to all those who perished in the attacks and in the subsequent wars that 9/11 has disgustingly been used as currency to justify.

But for this silence to be a betrayal, whether it’s because of denial, forced circumstance, or just plain fear to speak out, the person not speaking out has to already know the facts and understand full well that they’re not doing the right thing. So, for the vast majority of uniformed people their silence can’t be described as a betrayal, because like the majority of people in the 9/11 truth movement - who also initially believed the official story - their silence most likely stems from being naïve, innocent, and ignorant to the facts.

That same understanding though can’t be applied to those in charge of the mainstream media who should be informing the uninformed masses, and whose silence is in effect a full betrayal - because they undoubtedly know that the official explanation, when critically analyzed, is the most outrageous and massively improbable conspiracy theory of them all. It is also beyond doubt there are many honest journalists and editors in the mainstream media who want desperately to break their silence, but have been prevented by "higher-ups".

So, it is up to those fighting for 9/11 truth to not only do the job of the media and inform the uninformed, but to also help those who are in denial - or who feel forced or intimidated - to break their betrayal of silence by making it socially acceptable to publicly question the previously unquestionable official account of 9/11. We must do that by establishing a credible, factual, and moral high ground which welcomes honest debate, and encourages individual research. Charlie Sheen’s inspiring efforts are a shining example of this approach as he has concentrated on a few key issues that make people think, and asks people to look at the information for themselves, draw their own conclusions, and debate.

Like the Charlie Sheen inspired "Challenge Me on the Facts" slogan for the 9/11 truth movement, a similar Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. inspired "Silence is Betrayal" slogan would make a great, simple, and thought provoking comment for anyone still convinced by the official story who can’t understand why questioning 9/11 should be so important to them.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060911/wl_canada_nm/canada_sept11_canada_poll_col_1

OTTAWA (Reuters) - One in five Canadians believes the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, had nothing to do with Osama Bin Laden and were actually a plot by influential Americans, according to a poll released on Monday.

The Ipsos-Reid poll found that 22 percent of Canadians, and 26 percent of young Canadians, agree with the conspiracy theory. The number was the highest, at 32 percent, in Quebec, which has shown the least support for the U.S. war on terror.

The poll asked if the events of September 11, "including the thousands of American citizens who lost their lives on that day, were actually orchestrated by a group of highly influential Americans and others as part of a wider global conspiracy to profit from and gain power and who are actually protecting Osama Bin Laden from being captured."

"Conspiracy theories are popular, as we all know," said Ipsos pollster Paul Orovan.

Sixty-six percent said the actions were carried out by Bin Laden's disciples as an attack on the United States and as part of a global war of terror against Western and affluent democracies.

Twelve percent said neither or refused to answer.

I just found this VERY FUNNY short animated video on homeland security fear-mongering at http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0428,fiore,55135,9.html

On 9-11 2006 MSNBC re broadcast the entire live Today show from 9-11-01. During the last hour or so of the re broadcast, the reporter on the ground at the scene made two separate comments about secondary explosions. One comment he attributed to a Fire Dept. official whom he named and quoted. The second one was a policeman out in front of the Stuvyesant H.S. . My tape ran out before these statements were made. Do any of you have the name of the FDNY Official who was quoted? It may be very interesting to see what these people have to say today.

You Tube | September 14 2006

Homeland Security Troops yell at Alex Jones in New York after a wrestling event on September 11, 2006.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/September2006/140906Troops.htm

You Tube | September 14 2006

The NY 911 Truth Movement along with Alex Jones protest in front of the Council on Foreign Relations headquarters on 68th and Park in New York City on 9/12/2006. The CFR has over 4,000 international members many of whom are world leaders of government, media, and business. People like David Rockefeller, most modern US Presidents, and TV news anchors, along with the Queens of England and The Netherlands. They openly publish documents calling for World Government, or a New World Order, where the USA and its Constitution would no longer apply. These are some of those who orchestrated the 911 attacks!!!

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/September2006/140906Rally.htm

You Tube | September 14 2006

This is a bit of that day and the events of the weekend. This is just a short first cut.

http://home.comcast.net/~gold9472/flippingbirdabbyscott.gif

During the rally at Ground Zero, there were three invidivuals who were going around, telling everyone that everything we say is a lie, that we're nothing but nuts, and so on.

One of those individuals was Abby Scott. The same individual who frequents 911ConspiracySmasher.blogspot.com, and the same individual who recently made a movie called, "9/11 Conspiracy Wars", where she made sure to focus on those of us with the most outlandish theories, and acted as if they represented us all.

She claims that she confronted me with 9/11 Truth, but the only thing she said to me was, "Are you John Doe?"

Apparently, she's infatuated with me because she kept asking me that all throughout the morning.

When I was relaxing with a cigarette, Abby Scott decided to take my picture. Knowing who she is, I decided to let her know what I think of her, and her kind.

Was it the appropriate response?

[dz: innapropriate image removed from blog, left the link.. we can't have ppl post images like this and not expect others to come here and do the same]

The meeting itself was a bit ramshackle and chaotic- true to Irish stylee, the PA was borrowed from a cave in Afghanistan, unfortunatley, but the Guinness and the chatter flowed. Webster was on form despite his tiring tour. The meeting itself was organised by Morgan Stack of http://www.911truth.ie/. Morgan is standing for election on a 9/11 truth ticket.

There was a representative from the Irish Media who claimed that the Irish media dealt fairly and squarely with 9/11. She didnt last long. A chap from mujca (Chjristian -Muslim- Jewish Alliance) was there to spoil the proceedings with cries of "what about the victims" and "Israel"?

WE ARE ALL VICTIMS OF 9/11.

They gathered their tapes and notes and left very soon afterwards, but not without a departing encore of -- "what about the victims"? The nerd in the quasi military gear from mujca gave a NAZI salute. Charming.

I spoke to a few people, before leaving, we had a long drive home. Mark Gobell from the uk's nineleven.co.uk, and Chris from Tallanstown, best described as the "Stepford" of Ireland, whom I shall be in touch with again.

From 9th of September 2001, for nearly four and a half years, I was more or less a believer in the official conspiracy theory. You know, the one that says: it was a gang of 19 arab Muslims (plus their puppet masters hiding in Bagdad and an Afghan cave) who managed to make the 2 WTC towers collapse with the help of 2 airplanes crushing into the buildings and burning lots of jet fuel. (Uhmm, the only thing where I had my doubts from the beginning may be summarized as follows: "Probably not even in their wildest dreams would the hijacker-perpetrators have imagined they could completely bring down the towers themselves. The most they may have hoped for was an irreparable damage, and a globally visible wound they inflict on these symbols of Western capitalism... No-one, not even structural engineers could have predicted these total collapses").

Anyway, it was only half a year ago that I encountered for the first time a story about WTC7 (the third WTC building to collapse on that very day, also a high-rise steel structure, albeit only 47 storeys high) -- and that one additional fact made me re-consider the whole story. By now, I've seen most of the videos available on the 'net, read most of the articles, am familiar with most of the unofficial conspiracy theories...

What I am missing are a few more hard facts. Proofs based on the laws of physics that will shake the official theory to pulverized dust. Facts that can be verified by any student of physics or chemistry.

What I found and saw so far was merely "common sense physics" applied. Arguments like "Why did the collapses happen in near-freefall speed?", "What did transform all the buildings concrete into very fine dust?", "Why were there these 'squibs'?", "Why did that pulverized dust originate from the top?" etc.

I'm very familiar with the fact that a solid piece of concrete will *not* pulverize into dust if you throw it out of the 7th floor window onto a yard with a concrete surface -- it will only shatter into a few dozen (still solid concrete) pieces and very little "dust". Because I tried it....

However, I feel this is not convincing enough for still many, many people. Can't we do better?

Aren't there knowledgeable people, scientists, engineers around, who could just start to calculate the required amounts of energy to cause all the evidence that can be seen in the videos, in the satellite pics taken of Ground Zero, etc.? So that the argument "At least for 9/11 in 2001, Almighty Allah changed the universal laws of physics for one spot of the earth in New York, to let happen once what elsewhere and at other times is impossible to happen" can be admired in its full beauty?

To make it more specific:

* Take a 1 kg cube of concrete: how much energy is required to transform it into pulverized dust of [use appropriate figure]-sized mini particles? Hence, how much total energy would be required to pulverize 50% of the concrete that was built into WTC2? What about 100%?

* How much energy would one have to put into that created concrete dust in order to make it behave like a "pyroclastic flow" and spread over all of Manhattan as a 1 inch layer of "snow"? (That one will probably have to make use the "ideal gas law", PV = nRT ...)

* How much energy is required to heat all of the steel columns (built into one WTC twin tower) to 100° Celsius? To 200° C? To 300° C? To 500°, 800° C? How much of its load capacity does steel loose at 300° C? What temperature is required to make it loose 50% of its load capacity?

* How much "potential energy" was in one 110 storey WTC building that would be transformed into kinetic energy and released if it came down in freefall speed? How much energy could the jet fuel release if it burnt under "ideal conditions"? How much was the kinetic energy of the planes flying at 500 mph? How much energy can the standard office equipment/furniture/paper/files release in a fire conflagration?

* What other major providers (and consumers) of energy would need to be covered to explain the evidence experienced during 9/11?

Such an overall balance sheet of energy released and consumed on 9/11 will probably lead to many new surprises if conducted in a sober way... Just apply this one fundamental law of physics about the conservation of energy to the situation.

Of course, these calculations would not need to be totally exact. They could be made with different ("optimistic" and "pessimistic") assumptions, covering upper and lower ends of a possible range of outcomes.

Is there anybody up to this task? Engineers, physicists, chemists, vulcanologists?