Interview with President Day March for Truth Organizer
If you're in the NYC area on Monday, February 20 at 10 A.M., make sure you attend:
http://www.phillyimc.org/en/2006/02/19016.shtml
...
As the brainchild behind the 9/11 March for Truth scheduled in New York City on President’s Day (this upcoming Monday, February 20) one gets the distinct impression that Greg Nixon is a man on one colossal mission.And that mission, in a nutshell? To expose the fact that there is no real “war on terror†other than the one, according to Nixon, that was planned and executed by the Bush administration on September 11 in order to justify military invasions into Afghanistan and Iraq. To paraphrase the organizer of NYC’s upcoming March for 9/11 Truth, “The terrorists didn’t attack us.†It is for this reason, Nixon says, that people have “to understand the depth of the treason and the lies we were told. This is an outrage and these people must be removed from power.â€
...
Seemingly without coming up for air, the ex-New Yorker rapidly explained, “I realized that the biggest obstacle to 9/11 making mainstream media news was not the so-called ’right wing’ propaganda media outlets, but the ’left wing’ ones. We call these media companies ‘left wing gatekeepers’ For they keep the reality of 9/11 and the utterly fraudulent “war on terror†from being seriously discussed.â€When asked to share a bit about his memories surrounding September 11 and his early inroads into political activism, Greg’s memories were vivid. “I was living in Canada since the aggression against Iraq, partly out of disgust with the U.S. and for personal reasons. My activism was limited to the internet, since it would be unwise to demonstrate in the streets and call attention to oneself when a mere visitor. It was when I returned to the U.S. that I instantly took to activism. The first thing I did was march into Senator Patrick Leahy’s office with a letter outlining how 9/11 was a black op U.S. military attack. I also produce my own TV show here in VT on public access TV.â€
...
One of his suggestions will include paying a visit to ex-Mayor Rudolph Guiliani, whose transgressions include not allowing pictures to be taken of the crime scene, quickly hauling off the steel from the Twin Towers (I.e., the evidence), ordering it melted down and carted away to China, and failing to do tests for explosives in the buildings (despite widespread and numerous reports of explosions from the NY Fire and Police).Nixon also envisions the possibility of visiting the office of New York Attorney General Elliott Spitzer in order to confront him on his “unacceptable†performance and ask him to his face why volumes of materials delivered to him concerning the mass murder of September 11 were never investigated, and the crimes never brought to trial.
If time permits, Nixon would also like to visit “left gatekeepers†such as The Nation, Democracy Now, and The New York Times, and the anti-war group, A.N.S.W.E.R. These should all face questioning, according to Nixon, concerning the massive 9/11 “black out,†and should have to answer to the public regarding why they have failed to cover the facts about what actually took place on September 11.
...
For more details on the event:
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/01/332307.shtml
- Login to post comments
ALERT:Maxim magazine,with
ALERT:Maxim magazine,with Kristen Bell on the cover has a story on 9/11 conspiracy theorys. i havent read it yet, but i scanned through it and it seems to be a bit of a hit piece.one of the lines i noticed was along the lines of:"to put explosives in the towers in 2 of the busiest buildings in america is unrealistic" while ignoring the fact that the security cameras were down shortly before 9/11. granted, it is a pretty mainstream magazine,and it could open a few peoples eyes.i'll read it today and get back to you.
I hear they have scantily
I hear they have scantily clad women in that magazine as well, might be worth picking up!!!!
Which Chertoff relative just recently got a job at Maxim?
hahaha,yeah,Kristen Bell is
hahaha,yeah,Kristen Bell is sexy. but hey, at least its a 9/11 story in a mainstream magazine. like i said, i havent read it yet, but it does mention Griffin,some 9/11 websites etc.,so maybe it will open a few eyes.
this guy Greg Nixon sounds
this guy Greg Nixon sounds great. ive never heard of him. whats his backround?
thanks for deleting half my
thanks for deleting half my comments. censorship is fun.
"suggesting that the
"suggesting that the demonstration will only serve to do the opposite of what is intended. Stating that the march is against the U.S. Government's mass murder of 2,986 Americans on September 11th 2001 and trying to deliver a citizen's warrant for Gulliani's arrest for his role in the attacks at The World Trade Center, is as about as clever and productive as..."
This is exactly the kind of do-nothing advice (coupled with censorship) we've been getting for years from the likes of Amy Goodman, ANSWER, nyc.Indymedia and other "just be safe" liberals.
It's worse than people that haven't opened their eyes yet.
Don't waste time with 1/2 truths.
The US gov did 9/11.
I saw the bombs.
Do you stand in your truth or do you sit on your couch? DemonstrateEdited By Siteowner
yeah,Amy Goodman can go
yeah,Amy Goodman can go screw herself.
Hey everyone, if you can
Hey everyone, if you can attend, then attend, don't let people try to tell you not to for this reason or that.
Do the march, hand out some flyers, make some noise, and get on the news if possible.
Hey "Manhattanite, eye witness", did you actually see the bombs? Tell us your story if you don't mind...
M wrote... "Here is actual
M wrote...
"Here is actual audio and visual evidence of the explosions:
http://video.google.com/videopla...587461603&q=911
I've already seen that an dealt with it on other forums.
It MAY be evidence of explosions but it is not evidence of intentionally-placed "explosive demolitions."
For one, leaving out Frank Greening's hypothesis of a thermite-type explosion no one here seems interested in considering anyway, it is well known that internal structural collapses were occurring in both towers prior to collapse. From two miles away the sound is rather muffled but would be more distinct nearby and the difference between actual explosives and internal collpases would be readily apparent to the thousands of people close to the tower.
Why don't we hear a lot more from those people?
I am leaving out the doubt expressed by many that the sound of "explosions" was a seperate track added later. It would be useful to have the tape verified to clear that doubt up.
Briefly: To say I saw one
Briefly:
To say I saw one bomb would be more accurate, photographed the explosion too. I'm always surprised that more people weren't out on their roofs that day then there would have been more witnesses. NYkers aren't supposed to suckle on TV like that when they can just look with their eyes...
It was the explosion directly before the fall of the North Tower. The only explanation ever offered was that burning office furniture caused it. And that explanation came from a tabloid paper. The jet fuel would have burnt away by that time or gone down the elevator shaft according to some wild imaginations, so that didn't cause it.
Another fact not entirely conveyed by the photos is the power of the explosion. At a distance of approx. 3 miles I felt a very strong shockwave pass over the balcony I was on. That was on 9th Street btween Ave. C & D. The person standing next to me confirmed the shockwave.
This is nothing new. I've posted about it many times. Basically any angle from which 9/11 evidence is viewed will show more truth that the US media. And the confusion caused by so many different bombs going off that day was intentionally designed IMHO.
If anyone doesn't believe me, look at the picture linked above. Does that look like a trash fire?
I've been meaning to put a page up about this. There was a fellow hosting the original 12Mb digital captures but he seems to have moved on. And I've contributed to other sites too. Anyone interested can contact me through the about page on my domain:
http://spork.nyc.ny.us/About.html
Have a great day at the upcoming demo!
HA! I was randomly looking
HA! I was randomly looking at www.911myths.com, and I came across this story...
http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon_officials.html
Now... the link, and quote they're using is not the same as the one I have on my site. Written by Michael Hirsch on 9/13/2001, and entitled, ""We've Hit The Targets", the quote they have is entirely different than the one www.911myths.com has...
www.911myths.com's quote:
"On Sept. 10, NEWSWEEK has learned, a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns. But no one even dreamed that four airliners would be hijacked and plunged into targets in New York and Washington."
www.yourbbsucks.com's quote:
"NEWSWEEK has learned that while U.S. intelligence received no specific warning, the state of alert had been high during the past two weeks, and a particularly urgent warning may have been received the night before the attacks, causing some top Pentagon brass to cancel a trip. Why that same information was not available to the 266 people who died aboard the four hijacked commercial aircraft may become a hot topic on the Hill."
Mine was written on 9/13/2001. The one www.911myths.com is referencing was supposedly written on 9/24/2001...
Which one is accurate?
BTW... I also caught www.911myths.com in another lie.
This story...
http://www.911myths.com/html/august_6_memo.html
Here is their "take"..
This document has been declassified, so we can check the relevant part of the briefing for ourselves.
"We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a [deleted text] service in 1998 saying that bin Ladin wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" ‘Umar’ Abd aI-Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.
Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York"
Ok... that's what www.911myths.com sees as "relevant"...
Here's what I saw as "relevant" when I wrote this article entitled, "36 Days" a long time ago...
"We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a __________--- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shayk" 'Umar' Abd al-Rahman and other US-held extremists.
Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.
The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Laden supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives."
From this document, we were able to ascertain that...
1) Osama Bin Laden, a known terrorist, wants to attack America.
2) The FBI was investigating 70 possible Bin Laden related cases inside the United States.
3) They considered using planes or something else to attack within the United States.
4) They've specified that New York City was recently photographed under surveillance by Al-Qaeda, which indicates that the city itself, is a target.
5) Al-Qaeda operatives were within the United States, in May, planning an attack with explosives.
Seems to me that www.911myths.com doesn't understand the meaning of the word, "relevant".
S. King... I'm done with you, and www.911myths.com
(Back on topic
(Back on topic finally...)
The original blog post contained the quote that "The terrorists didnÂ’t attack us."
Well of course they did, and they need to be impeached for it! We just need to avoid constructions (such as "Able Danger") which make it appear as though we think that it's still OK to blame 9/11 on imaginary "evil suicidal Muslim hijackers".
Isn't "The terrorists didnÂ’t attack us." every bit as (potentially) misleading as the RobinoHoff gatekeeping machine's label that anyone who doesn't swallow the "hijacked civilian commercial passenger airliners are what hit the buildings (and the ground)" aspect of the government's pile of 9/11 lies must be a "no planer"? (People love to let their labels do their thinking for them; carefully/carelessly chosen labels alter how people perceive 9/11 and those who talk about it... In this case, people who have not yet questioned the official version of events could think that we don't believe there were any terrorists at all [or that we weren't attacked!], just as the "no planer" label is intended to make people think that we think that no planes at all were involved in 9/11!)
Also, the phrase "left gatekeepers" is an intentionally misleading fabricated phrase; propaganda, intended to brainwash (through repetition) people into not being able to think of gatekeepers (and gatekeeping) without reinforcing the bogus notion of the phony false fake left-right paradigm. (And that -- mistaken impressions -- is what happens when we use bogus labels to convey tricky concepts. That, incidentally, includes the propagandistic labels "left" and "right" themselves.)
Gatekeeping has nothing necessarily to do with "left" or "right"; it has to do with socially/psychologically keeping certain thoughts from ever entering most people's minds (and if they did enter, to make sure that the thoughts shrivel and die rather than spread and get acted upon. (eg: much [most?] of the 911 truth movement, such as it is, gatekeeps the inexplicable [by plane-huggers, anyway] "flash frame" in the Naudet video, same as do the government perpetrators of 9/11. There is absolutely nothing "left-right" about that...)
That is why I see the phrase "left gatekeepers" as disinfo, and people (most notably, with respect to 9/11, "Mr. Bogus" himself, Mark Robinowitz) who -- and entities (eg newtopiamagazine.net) which -- promote it as mostly either disinformationists or else already brainwashed (terribly confused) themselves.
______________________________________
Jon Gold wrote... "Seems to
Jon Gold wrote...
"Seems to me that www.911myths.com doesn't understand the meaning of the word, "relevant".
"S. King... I'm done with you, and www.911myths.com"
What's interesting is how exercised you all get by a website that you didn't even know about, (much less recognize that my links were to Dr. Greening's paper that right now is only on that site), that you find discrepancies, and run away from it instead of writing 911 Myths and pointing them out and challenging them, and how intolerant you all seem to be of perfectly rational scientific analysis.
Combined with the irrational accusations that I must be a government agent, stupid, blind, whatever, rather than a just a skeptic of unsupported conspiracy theories pointing out that people like Prof. Jones haven't even bothered to share his "physics" with YOU, much less the country, you'll end up just talking amongst yourselves.
When you realize that the vast majority of 9/11 conspiracists use the "impossibility of the physics" of the collaspses as the foundation of their claims, you'll understand why the vast majority of us are going to force them to back it up.
You're welcome to stand on the sidelines protesting that we would hold 9/11 conspiracists accountable for their claims. You should join Greg Nixon and his merry band on Monday in NYC.
I might even go to cheer you on.
Cheers
P.S. There are some good books I recommend at the bottom of my inactive blog here. Maybe they'll help widen your perspective:
http://ifacts.typepad.com
RE: S. King "What photo are
RE: S. King
"What photo are you referring to? I only see the one on your hom,epage showing one of the towers collapsing?"
OK, one more time.
click here--> http://spork.nyc.ny.us/images/explosion.jpg
These 3 frames show an explosion at the top of the North Tower. See the plumes of matter being ejected? The steel beams can be seen, if you look. (little white dots, frame 3) This is not a collapse, see how the blast radius EXPANDS?
Not only is this visually obvious but I will tell anyone that listens about the shockwave given off by the explosion. Are you listening? Are you looking?
Maybe you'd like to examine the original captures which were 12Mb each. Plenty of detail is available.
Other witnesses saw explosions at the base of the towers too. And on quite a few floors in between. You know, FDNY, NYPD...
I'm getting the feeling you've never really looked for evidence before... ?
Dang man, get real!
S. King, Here is actual
S. King,
Here is actual audio and visual evidence of the explosions:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=911
It's covered in the first 45 minutes or so.
NEWSWEEK ARTICLES Just to
NEWSWEEK ARTICLES
Just to clarify one point of fact in all of the above:
In the weeks after 9/11, NEWSWEEK on two occasions reported that Pentagon brass had cancelled travel plans for the morning of Sep. 11, after receiving a warning on the evening of Sep. 10th.
The first instance was dated Sep. 13 and was more detailed and direct than the later mention. As quoted by JG above:
"NEWSWEEK has learned that while U.S. intelligence received no specific warning, the state of alert had been high during the past two weeks, and a particularly urgent warning may have been received the night before the attacks, causing some top Pentagon brass to cancel a trip. Why that same information was not available to the 266 people who died aboard the four hijacked commercial aircraft may become a hot topic on the Hill."
Two weeks later, when NEWSWEEK again mentioned the incident in a report dated Sep. 24, the warning to Pentagon brass had of course failed to "become a hot topic on the Hill." The official story had been presented in all its implausible glory, and damage control was working overtime to paper over any fact that did not fall into line.
NEWSWEEK repeating the report (probably in order to defuse it) made sure to include an editorial comment in defense of the most patently absurd of 9/11 myths (C. Rice's "no one could have imagined"):
"On Sept. 10, NEWSWEEK has learned, a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns. But no one even dreamed that four airliners would be hijacked and plunged into targets in New York and Washington."
Now yeah, in light of the Aug 6 PDB, the Genoa warning, the NRO wargame and everything else we've learned about what had been "imagined" before 9/11 that's a hilarious conclusion.
S. King may not be aware of the two renderings. If he is, then citing the latter is disingenuous. But hardly surprising.
What anyone imagined is of course irrelevant. To anyone actually interested in investigating and understanding the events of 9/11 (like the Commission supposedly was), the relevant questions are obvious: Who received these warnings? What was the content? More importantly, what was the source, and where did these warnings ultimately originate?
It's interesting to note two other incidents that occurred on the eve of 9/11, just in the same hours as the "Pentagon brass" were cancelling their travel plans:
1) As we learned from the 9/11 Commission hearings (but not the report), Gen. Montague Winfield decided to change his scheduled shift as acting commander at the NMCC. He asked his subordinate, Capt. Leidig, a rookie at the position, to assume command of the NMCC in his place at 8:30 am for two hours the next morning. These were of course the two hours of the attacks. The military supposedly became aware of the first flight diversion at 8:31 (depending on the timeline one follows).
2) Willie Brown was receiving a warning from his unidentified "airport security" specialist not to fly to New York for a mayors' conference the next morning.
Again, relevant is not at all what we think the signficance of these warnings might be, but: where do these warnings come from? What is the content? Who is the source? Who is the source's source? Where did it originate?
A Commission that does not ask such basic questions is not a real investigation.
So I read over Greening's
So I read over Greening's paper, but I am not an engineer, physicist, or chemist; it didn't mean much to me. So I looked see who else had reviewed it, hoping to learn more from their reviews. Funny enough, the only thread or mention of the paper anywhere on the Internet (aside from 911myths.com) was on a physics forum. Check out the thread here:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3108&st=4035
The result of the discussion appears to discredit Greening for making large assumptions and miscalculations. The last comment speaks for itself, about how Greening, supposedly an expert in chemistry, was able to make a mistake in a key calculation:
"What is hard to understand is how he [Greening] could have missed Hoffman's point [about heat & energy generation] so much. For a chemist, that calculates the energies in different chemical reactions day in and day out, I find this inexcusable. (I think he mentioned that his activities are broader than just chemistry, but at a Ph.D. level, he could not have forgotten the basics)"
- metamars
If this paper proves that the official story of the collapse is true (or, at the least, believable), why do so many physics/engineering professionals find huge flaws in his logic? And, most importantly, why has no one else in these professional communities endorsed his findings? And this is incredibly interesting given that Greening’s paper was written in March 2005. Google (placement of quotes is important) “Steven Jones” Why the Towers Fell and you get 986 results. Google "Frank Greening" Energy Transfer and you get 4 results.
This seems odd to me. If others are not talking about his work, what does that say about it?
Thanks for the clarification
Thanks for the clarification about the Newsweek articles Nick.
S. King certainly proves one
S. King certainly proves one thing;
Some people won't believe evidence even when it's in front of their eyes.
Pretty typical really, endless argumentative postings and blank denial.
to clarify: this is behavior
to clarify:
this is behavior typical of someone being dishonest
chris, i dont think any of
chris,
i dont think any of the comments i deleted today had any real value to them.. i just got rid of the purely attacking comments, and they definately werent just yours, they were from a bunch of people.
i dont want to monitor the comments, and i have never needed to before, but i also dont want new visitors coming to the site thinking that all of the users commenting here have no way of arguing their differences without resorting to attacks on one another..
again, i only deleted the pointless comments, and they werent just yours for sure.
Manhattanite write... "Some
Manhattanite write...
"Some people won't believe evidence even when it's in front of their eyes."
There is no reason for anyone to accept anything unsupported by solid evidence, including claims that ignore ALL of evidence.
Your photograph of the tower collpasing is not evidence of "explosive demolition." It is just a claim that it looks like explosions.
Neither has any evidence of explosive signatures ever been found in the debris and dust as these independent studies undertaken to assess the health risk of the dust to firemen, rescue workers, and debris-removal workers make clear:
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2002/110p703-714lioy/EHP110p703PDF.PDF
http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/media/1lbppwvquh31adhwrh5u/contrib...
http://www.nycosh.org/environment_wtc/911_organic_pollutants_lioy.pdf
If you want to prove "explosive demolition" you will have to deal with ALL of the evidence.
dz, im not gonna lay down
dz, im not gonna lay down and let this apologist disrespect us or me.i refuse to let him spew his government shill bullshit without calling him on it. delete if you must,but know who the real problem is.
Chris wrote.... "dz, im not
Chris wrote....
"dz, im not gonna lay down and let this apologist disrespect us or me.i refuse to let him spew his government shill bullshit without calling him on it. delete if you must,but know who the real problem is."
You are welcome to refute me on the physics of the collapses of the WTC towers which, as you well know, has nothing to do with what the government says or doesn't say about it.
You can start by refuting me on my post yesterday demonstrating that Fetzer is being less than straightforward by using a strawman argument to support his claims.
Making me the constant target instead of the evidence and the arguments I present doesn't serve any purpose whatsoever.
I think dz would agree with me on that point.
still cant answer simple
still cant answer simple questions though huh? i know your a drone and you have to stay on the topic of the collapse, but again, i NEVER mentioned that to you.i asked you simple questions that your feeble mind wont allow you to answer.