Osama Tape Appears Fake, Experts Conclude

Here's the newest press release from Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

The latest audio tape attributed to Osama bin Laden appears to be one more installment in a succession of evidence fabricated by the US government to deceive the American people, according to Scholars for 9/11 Truth. "This tape is only the latest in a series of fabrications intended to mislead the American people," said James H. Fetzer, the society's founder. "The closer we get to revealing the truth about 9/11, the more furiously the government fights to conceal it!" He said members of Scholars and other experts had detected evidence of fakery.

In this new recording, a voice attributed to Osama bin Laden asserts that Zacarias Moussaoui was not involved in 9/11, which he knew to be the case because he had personally assigned the 19 hijackers involved in those events. The Osama of this tape thereby implicitly confesses his responsibility for orchestrating the attacks. However, in a tape released on December 27, 2001, the authenticity of which is not in doubt, Osama denied having had anything to do with 9/11. "Moreover," Fetzer added, "some of the 19 hijackers he 'personally assigned' have turned up alive and well."

To be sure, this new tape is not the first one in which bin Laden appears to take responsibility for the attacks. As David Ray Griffin, a prominent member of Scholars, points out, "The Osama on the video tape that appeared on December 13, 2001, confessed to planning the 9/11 attacks. But he is far darker and much heavier than the real Osama bin Laden. People can see the difference by looking up 'The Fake bin Laden Video Tape' on Google."

Griffin's point is supported by a work-in-progress by members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, which appears on its web site under the heading, "9/11: Have we been lied to?" It offers evidence of fakery in some of the videos based upon various physical properties of the figures that are presumed to be Osama, pointing out that there are differences in the ears, cheeks, eyebrows, length of the nose and shape of the nostrils. "The use of computer analysis can 'fine tune' these questions of facial characteristics," Fetzer said, "but the gross differences already show they are not the same."

Content Inconsistencies

"Another problem with the video of December 13, 2001," Griffin pointed out, "was that its stocky bin Laden praised two of the alleged hijackers, Wail M. Al-Shehri and Salem al-Hazmi, by name, and yet both the London Telegraph and the Saudi embassy reported several days after 9/11 that al-Hazmi was still alive and working in Saudi Arabia. Given the fact that the earlier video in which Osama confessed was clearly a fake, we should be suspicious of this latest apparent confession."

A professor at Duke, Bruce Lawrence, who has published Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama bin Laden, expressed profound skepticism about a tape that was released January 17, 2006, in a report that appeared two days later. "There's nothing in this from the Koran," Lawrence said. "He's, by his own standards, a faithful Muslim who quotes scripture in defense of his actions. There's no quotation from the Koran in the excerpts we got, no reference to specific events, no reference to past atrocities." Lawrence also observed the tape ran only 10 minutes, whereas the shortest previous tape, at 18 minutes, was nearly twice as long.

Fetzer noted that many of the same anomalous properties are found in the latest tape. "Compared to Osama's past performances," he observed, "this message is too short, too direct, and full of falsehoods. It was even described on CBS News by Bob Schieffer as 'almost American'." A translation of the text of the tape has also been released by IntelCenter, a private company that does contract work for the US government. "I suppose I would be accused of being a 'conspiracy theorist' to suggest there is any connection," Fetzer added.

Authentic Voice/Fake Content

Informed that Reuters news agency has reported confirmation that the voice on the tape is indeed that of Osama bin Laden, Fetzer replied, "The fact that the voice is his does not prove that the tape is authentic. We have had phony tapes before using voices that were authentic. Mark Bingham, a passenger on Flight 93, is supposed to have called his mother and said, 'Hi, Mom, this is Mark Bingham!' His mother confirmed it was his voice, but does anyone seriously believe that Mark Bingham would have used his last name in identifying himself to his mother?"

Griffin agreed, adding, "Back in 1999, William Arkin published an article entitled, 'When Seeing and Hearing isn't Believing' (which can also be accessed on Google). Describing the new technology of 'voice morphing' (or 'voice synthesizing'), Arkin explained that, if audio technicians have a recording of your voice, then they can create a tape in which your voice‹your authentic voice!‹says anything they wish."

In a press release on April 22, 2006, the Scholars observed that a tape played at the trail of Zacarias Moussaoui included discussion among the passengers about using a drink cart to break down the cabin door alleged to have been picked up on a cockpit voice recorder, which does not record conversations in the passenger cabin. "This is not the first and certainly will not be the last time that the American government plays the American people for suckers," Fetzer said.

"We have just acquired new evidence that the Pentagon video tapes were processed and manipulated in an apparent effort to distort or conceal what happened there on 9/11," Fetzer observed. "Apparently, whenever the government feels the need to bolster the official myth about 9/11, it simply fabricates a new tape! Anybody who wants to keep score should visit our web site.""

This press release makes no

This press release makes no mention of any "experts" that Fetzer and his "scholars" used. It's trhe same old empty assertions from them again.

Griffin agreed, adding,

Griffin agreed, adding, "Back in 1999, William Arkin published an article entitled, 'When Seeing and Hearing isn't Believing' (which can also be accessed on Google). Describing the new technology of 'voice morphing' (or 'voice synthesizing'), Arkin explained that, if audio technicians have a recording of your voice, then they can create a tape in which your voice‹your authentic voice!‹says anything they wish."

is this the same Arkin that i think it is?

It's trhe same old empty

It's trhe same old empty assertions from them again.
911Poller | 05.30.06 - 7:32 pm | #
i know, once again the government expects us to take this Osama tape on good faith. "trust us" is what they are basically saying. i know thats not a problem for you 911poller, as you are a world class sheep/shill/lemming who trusts the government/corporate media to tell you everything. but for most of us, thats not something we can easily do. we expect PROOF from our government unlike you.proof. something they still havent given us.

go ahead 911poller, tell me

go ahead 911poller, tell me the CIA verified it. you fucking tool.

911Poller must be busy

911Poller must be busy trolling on many boards -- he's not even spell-checking.

i really hate to bring it to

i really hate to bring it to this level, really i do, but my god how muich fun i would have if i got just 5 minutes with 911poller,Terrence,S.King and all the other bootlickers.im not a particularly violent person, but man would i have fun.if they are not paid for engaging in disinfo(and i dont think most of them are) you HAVE to wonder what the motivation is. none of them can ever really explain the payoff to shilling so hard.

Looks like no one knows who

Looks like no one knows who the "experts" are supposed to be or why the "scholars" assertions are supposed to carry some weight.

"i really hate to bring it

"i really hate to bring it to this level, really i do, but my god how muich fun i would have if i got just 5 minutes with 911poller,Terrence,S.King and all the other bootlickers."

I wonder why you get so upset at observations that you should be thinking about.

keep wondering douchebag.

keep wondering douchebag. get a real job.

High court trims

High court trims whistleblower rights By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 5 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court scaled back protections for government workers who blow the whistle on official misconduct Tuesday, a 5-4 decision in which new Justice Samuel Alito cast the deciding vote.

ADVERTISEMENT

In a victory for the Bush administration, justices said the 20 million public employees do not have free-speech protections for what they say as part of their jobs.

http://www.rawstory.com/showarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.yahoo.com%...

looks like the fascist supreme court strikes again.

911Poller, please go to

911Poller, please go to http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/HaveWeBeenLiedTo.html, and click on the Word version of the document.

Kindly search for the words "The ratio of the distance from tip-of-nose to ear lobe . . . ." Please take a look.

Thank you.

"911Poller, please go

"911Poller, please go to..."

Something upsetting you too?

"we expect PROOF from our

"we expect PROOF from our government unlike you.proof. something they still havent given us."

I'd just like to know who the "experts" are supposed to be that the article title refers to and are not named by Fetzer in the article.

"911Poller, please go

"911Poller, please go to..."

Something upsetting you too?
911Poller | 05.30.06 - 8:13 pm | #
no, tell your handlers your not doing a very good job.

I think it's best to ignore

I think it's best to ignore people like 9/11Troller who are here merely to agitate truthers.

We need people like

We need people like 911poller, it helps us refine our arguments.

I don't post much, because I type sooooo slow but I like to read the shills views because it helps me investigate my views with more vigour.

They serve a purpose; they help us get our facts straight.

That can't be a bad thing

"That can't be a bad

"That can't be a bad thing"

There is no "debating" them. If they honestly wanted to talk about things, they would be inquisitive, and not aggressive. They take time away from our efforts, and also cause unnecessary agitation. Having to deal with BushCo is exhaustive enough without having to deal with trollish shills.

I don't know about you, but I'm tired, and want this bullshit to end, and don't have much energy to "debate" anymore. I carefully select when I debate someone, and usually when I think it "benefits" the movement in some way.

Ray McGovern said to Alex Jones that we have to start using our bodies more. I agree with him. This weekend in Chicago is part of that... making ourselves visibly known. However, we NEED to start doing it more frequently.

We Need To Be More Visible

But listening to other views

But listening to other views doesn't hurt Jon. I agree that engaging in all their arguments slows us down.

But listening to their opinions will only help us.

911 poller, I think people

911 poller,

I think people are a bit suspicious because of the past, where other tapes said to be by bin Laden have been shown to be fake by experts. For example:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2526309.stm

and

http://www.unknownnews.org/0601240119binLaden.html

and

http://www.idiap.ch/pages/press/bin-laden-eval.pdf

and from

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0906/p01s02-wosc.html

Citing top-secret satellite images, Pentagon officials estimated in mid–September that up to 250,000 Iraqi troops and 1,500 tanks stood on the border, threatening the key US oil supplier. But when the St. Petersburg Times in Florida acquired two commercial Soviet satellite images of the same area, taken at the same time, no Iraqi troops were visible near the Saudi border – just empty desert.

and

http://www.apfn.net/MESSAGEBOARD/01-26-06/discussion.cgi.60.html

AmericaÂ’s Top Bin Laden Expert: OsamaÂ’s Dead: Tape is Phony

I don't get it, all you have to do is google - laden fake tape expert - and you will get almost a half a million hits. Have you ever thought about looking into what you are talking about before you talk about it, Just a thought.

"But listening to other

"But listening to other views doesn't hurt Jon. I agree that engaging in all their arguments slows us down.

But listening to their opinions will only help us."

We know what their opinions are. It's a 578 page report called "The 9/11 Report". You can prove them wrong or a liar today, and then they make the same statements the next day, etc... and it becomes tiring.

Sorry. I guess I need a break.

Jon, I Bow down to your

Jon, I Bow down to your knowledge of the events of 9/11.

But i do feel you take things too seriously.

Keep your anger for the shits that deserve it. ;-)

Jon What else did Ray talk

Jon

What else did Ray talk about????

I would like to see a

I would like to see a T-shirt design - not artistic myself - with a caption or design with something like:

large font: WTF

Smaller font: You still dont know 9-11 was an inside job?

Then a top 10 list on the back of arguments supporting the claim.

Truth for a change = teh

Truth for a change = teh pwnage.

Sorry, but it feels good to be purile for a moment.

Ray talked about how Marines

Ray talked about how Marines are currently in Iran, and that the crazies have no reservations about starting WWIII, and that Iran has one of the largest, and most powerful REAL "terrorist" organizations in the world, and that if we strike them, they may have the ability to hit us, including at home.

Ray really laid it out for

Ray really laid it out for us.

Does it frighten anyone else

Does it frighten anyone else that top members of st911 have stated as fact:

1. More than one of the bin Laden tapes are fake.
2. The faked tapes were produced by the government.
3. The 19 hijackers were not all killed.
4. The implication that the translators were in on it.
5. Voice morphing technology was used!
6. Mark Bingham's call was also faked.
7. The Pentagon tapes were also manipulated.

Now don't get me wrong. I believe all of the above allegations should be investigated. But is it surprising to anyone else that st911, of all people in the movement, would suddenly unleash all of this at once?

I think the neocons would

I think the neocons would like nothing better than for Iran to hit us.
A. they dont have to do it this time.
B. Marshall law.
C. people will forget about the truth movement because they will be terrified of a "real" enemy.
D The rapture begins. WEEEE!

Can anyone point me to a

Can anyone point me to a page that explains how Alex Jones licenses his subscribers' material? If he allows redistribution, I'll post it. I just don't want to cause any problems with him.

dz probably knows.

dz probably knows.

benthere... 1. More than one

benthere...

1. More than one of the bin Laden tapes are fake.

I say that.

2. The faked tapes were produced by the government.

I say that.

3. The 19 hijackers were not all killed.

I say that.

4. The implication that the translators were in on it.

I don't say this.

5. Voice morphing technology was used!

I don't say this.

6. Mark Bingham's call was also faked.

I don't say this.

7. The Pentagon tapes were also manipulated.

I don't say this.

Number one I agree with because there are many reports of Osama Bin Laden's death, and if you were the real perpetrators of 9/11, would you want to keep the alleged perpetrator alive to "spill the beans" at a later date? He wasted no time denying it if you remember, but that wasn't broadcast on TV that I remember.

Number two I agree with because if Osama's dead, then who's making the tapes?

I agree with Number three because there were reports of them being alive, and I know for a fact that the Jersey Girls pushed that issue with the Mueller or Freeh. I don't remember which. But they never received a response.

As far as the other stuff is

As far as the other stuff is concerned, there's no way for me to confirm or deny any of those allegations, so I wouldn't state it as fact.

"They serve a purpose; they

"They serve a purpose; they help us get our facts straight."

So would you tell us who the "experts" are Fetzer was supposed to be using?

I'd be grateful. The others here are really bothered by the question.

"no, tell your handlers your

"no, tell your handlers your not doing a very good job."

By asking a very sensible question?

"There is no "debating"

"There is no "debating" them. If they honestly wanted to talk about things, they would be inquisitive, and not aggressive."

I recall that it was you who responded to an earlier question by being aggressive.

"I think it's best to ignore

"I think it's best to ignore people like 9/11Troller who are here merely to agitate truthers."

I'd really like to know how spot-on questions of truthers "agitates" them.

"Have you ever thought about

"Have you ever thought about looking into what you are talking about before you talk about it, Just a thought."

I know a lot of what I'm talking because I'm not afraid of asking questions.

It's when people object to asking questions that I become suspicious.

" Does it frighten anyone

" Does it frighten anyone else that top members of st911 have stated as fact:..."

It doesn't frighten me. But it reinforces my suspicion that scholars speak with fork tongue.

911polesmoker - I told you

911polesmoker - I told you in a previous thread this, but it bears repeating: You need to think back through the cost/benefit analysis of your distracting posts. Or, I guess I could do it for you.

Benefits:

(1) distracts those here from making progress on discussing the real issues thereby perhaps slowing the spread of the truth about 9/11 by some measurable degree

Costs:

(1) You honestly look like an idiot compared to almost everyone else here, which would lead any independent or new person observing to think you either have something to hide or that you are just plain wrong in your beliefs.

(2) You help those that do engage in debate with you polish their debating skills, thereby enabling them to present a more effective case for government involvement in 9/11 to those that have never heard it before.

(3) You irritate many here. Though this may be seen by you as a benefit, but it is more likely a cost to your cause because it will probably motivate those that are irritated to do something about it, like go somewhere else and spread the truth.

(4) You chose a name that easily lends itself to an extremely demeaning nickname, which I guess adds to cost #1 above.

But if you wish to continue, go for it. I bet there is a time coming soon, as happened with terrence, when everyone will just ignore what you say and cost number (1) will be the dominant factor in your participation here, with no counterbalancing benefit. Best of luck.

It´s really depressing

It´s really depressing you bring these alive hijackers up again and again.
There were reports right after the attacks that many were still alive, yes.
But that story hasn´t evolved anywhere since. There has been no Alex Jones interview on them, nothing.

There were people from middle-east who heard or saw their names mentioned as hijackers, and went to their local papers and so to tell they were alive.
But there are others with same names, they weren´t the ones meant. BBC and others took those early news as facts without checking or trying to talk to some of the them.

Why BBC (and others) still have those news about hijackers alive up in the net without a note that the story was false, I don´t know (but I have my suspicions).

There simply is nothing new about these guys anywhere since september 2001. No one from media has talked to them, and get this... THEY HAVEN´T SUED ANYONE FOR USING THEIR NAMES AND FACES AS 9/11 HIJACKERS!!!!

And please, don´t give me that "they´re hiding somewhere so CIA won´t kill them"...

Now, instead of asking me to prove my case, show me an interview of an alleged hijacker, or show me a court case where one of them wants his name away from the list of hijackers.

SHOW ME SOMETHING BETTER THAN SPECULATION BETWEEN 911TRUTHERS OR STOP BRINGING THIS ALIVE HIJACKERS CRAP UP AGAIN AND AGAIN OR I MIGHT TAKE 911 BLOGGER AWAY FROM MY FAVORITS LIST

This press release makes no

This press release makes no mention of any "experts" that Fetzer and his "scholars" used. It's trhe same old empty assertions from them again.
911Poller | 05.30.06 - 7:32 pm |
__________________________

I don't get it! This guy makes an unjustifiable smear against the messengers and says nothing about the message--and this list swoons? Where is the discussion of the arguments that are presented here? There must be at least a dozen, which are being given now because the lastest tape has just been released.

Moreover, no one even mentions that Griffin is perhaps the leading expert on the case in the world today; that Fetzer is an expert on scientific reasoning and conspiracy theories; that Bruce Lawrence is an expert on the messages of Osama bin Laden; that William Arkin is an expert on voice synthesizing; and that the Scholars' paper that is cited includes Steven Jones among its co-authors.

So you let this "911poller" trash this piece because of a supposed lack of expertise to support it, which is clearly false and misleading, and the members of this list start chasing their tails and scratching their backs while ignoring (a) that the piece IS supported by experts and (b) that the ARGUMENTS they present are powerful and ought to be convincing? It makes me wince.

There are many techniques for misleading the unwary. I can see that whatever "911poller" has to say exerts a disporportionate influence over the parties to this discussion. It reminds me of "The Force," which can have a powerful influence upon the weakminded! Don't be taken in! At the least, don't be taken in so easily!

James Fetzer thanks alot for

James Fetzer thanks alot for all your work. I just recently interviewed an engineering teacher at my school about WTC 7 and showed him the footage which he had not been aware of. He was speechless to say the least and is going to start doing research and has already told some of his colleagues, maybe even join your organization. I go to Mesa College in San Diego. If you would like his e-mail address I could get it for you.

But in regards to your post above mine. 911poller is what we call an internet troll. He's not here to debate, just to waste time and disuade us from being productive. Unfortunately too many people take the bait and respond to him as if reason and discourse will have any effect on what he will say and what he believes. This is not so, and is why he is classified as a troll. He is not debating the facts and should be banned in my opinion. If he were to have legitimate discussions he would be welcome but he does not and should therefore be blocked from our forums. Mr. Fetzer, it will not serve anyone any good to fall into his trap, it will just encourage him to continue trolling. Ignoring him is the best way to deal with him short of a banning.

"(2) You help those that do

"(2) You help those that do engage in debate with you polish their debating skills, thereby enabling them to present a more effective case for government involvement in 9/11 to those that have never heard it before."

Good. Then you should be able to answer my question and not attack me for asking it.

Right?

"Moreover, no one even

"Moreover, no one even mentions that Griffin is perhaps the leading expert on the case in the world today; that Fetzer is an expert on scientific reasoning and conspiracy theories; that Bruce Lawrence is an expert on the messages of Osama bin Laden; that William Arkin is an expert on voice synthesizing; and that the Scholars' paper that is cited includes Steven Jones among its co-authors."

James Fetzer is no dummy. He is fully aware that neither he nor his group of "scholars" are experts in the fields of structural engeneering and forensic science required to make the assertions he does about the collapses of the wtc towers.

He is also no dummy at propaganda knowing full well that in order to achieve the political goals, which are the sole motive for SF9/11T's existence, he must depend on people not asking questions and accepting the notion that he and his group are "scholars" and therefore possess all the credentials needed. So he wants you to accept his assertions about their "expertise" blindly.

It has worked in groups like this because people here are not asking the necessary questions. It does not fool the rest of us.

"He is not debating the

"He is not debating the facts and should be banned in my opinion."

You insist there are no facts to debate. It's settled as far as you are concerned.

And you don't like the fact that I ask a reasonable question which you do not like, don't answer, and then hurl insults instead.

I want to see you ask hard questions of James Fetzer and his group and not just think he knows what he is talking about. If you accept his assertions on faith, there is nothing to debate. He wins, you lose.

is that really Fetzer? if it

is that really Fetzer? if it is, i loved your book on Wellstone, thank you for making it. i wish more people would have spoken out about his murder. thank you.

Hey tep... regarding the

Hey tep... regarding the hijackers. If they did make a plea, or if they did try to come forward, you don't think the media could be controlled enough to keep something like that silent? The Jersey Girls themselves asked the FBI about the hijackers that were supposedly still alive, and they never received any response to their questioning. None. Nothing. Surely, it would have been a simple matter to clear that up. Why didn't they?

I visit your site regularly

I visit your site regularly and have studied 9/11 matters closely. There is compelling evidence across the board for the failure of the official 9/11 explanation. This is a remarkably tolerant and polite website given the nature of the topic. But I believe you may doing a considerable disservice to the 9/11 movement by allowing people like 911poller to post here.

James H. Fetzer is correct. The experts cited by them are credible as are the arguments presented. The situation is somewhat akin to a site about Evolution allowing repeated postings by Creationists. While it may have the APPEARANCE of an exchange of ideas it is not a genuine dialogue.

The Creationist simply gains credibility in the eyes of the uninformed by repeatedly posting. Their methods involve the multiple restatement of falsehoods, refusing to respond to fair arguments, and an appearance of sincerity that is completely hollow.

When was the last time you convinced a Creationist that Darwin was right? Will you ever be able to do so? At the end of the day these people go home to their friends holding like minded beliefs. They joke about how they struggled with the pagans and maybe came close to converting one or two. They may or may not be sincere. It's not relevant. They simply wear out good willed people who try to answer them and they create confusion in the minds of newbie members of the public who visit your site.

If you were a scientist responding to a persistent Creationist there is only one civilised, decent, intelligent and moral course of action: thank them politely, refer them to other sites, and ban them from contributing. It's even possible to do this politely.

Scientists don't tolerate Creationists, restuarants don't tolerate people who insist on cooking their own meals. After a decent interval and a courteous reception send them on their way.

In fact, you ought to have that as some sort of policy statement: "If we think you cannot help us and we cannot help you, we will direct you to where you may most feel at home."

It's draining on everybody and confusing to inquiring minds that come to your site to have these people around. Do it politely, but send them elsewhere.

"Scientists don't tolerate

"Scientists don't tolerate Creationists."

That's why scientists don't tolerate "Scholars for 9/11 Truth." You need to know that, damien.

Quote: So you let this

Quote:
So you let this "911poller" trash this piece because of a supposed lack of expertise to support it, which is clearly false and misleading, and the members of this list start chasing their tails and scratching their backs while ignoring (a) that the piece IS supported by experts and (b) that the ARGUMENTS they present are powerful and ought to be convincing? It makes me wince.

There are many techniques for misleading the unwary. I can see that whatever "911poller" has to say exerts a disporportionate influence over the parties to this discussion. It reminds me of "The Force," which can have a powerful influence upon the weakminded! Don't be taken in! At the least, don't be taken in so easily!
James H. Fetzer | Homepage | 05.31.06 - 1:04 am | #

911poller doesn't have any influence here. He's a well known troll that several people have encouraged banning.

You can see the issues that I have with the press release above, in my 05.30.06 - 9:38 pm post, which were intended to spur thoughtful discussion or citing of sources.

The press release doesn't have links to recent research that would enable you all to state those items as fact. Perhaps I haven't explored the Scholars' site enough to find them. If you can point me in the right direction, I would appreciate it.

That said, I generally think st911 does more thorough, responsible research than most 9/11 Truth organizations. And I appreciate the work that you have done, of course.

Scientists don't tolerate

Scientists don't tolerate Creationists, restuarants don't tolerate people who insist on cooking their own meals. After a decent interval and a courteous reception send them on their way.

In fact, you ought to have that as some sort of policy statement: "If we think you cannot help us and we cannot help you, we will direct you to where you may most feel at home."

It's draining on everybody and confusing to inquiring minds that come to your site to have these people around. Do it politely, but send them elsewhere.
damien | 05.31.06 - 10:03 am

Well said Damien. This needs to happen. The trolls continue to be fed and now apparently we have a new one named tim.

I repeat, damien. You're not

I repeat, damien. You're not paying attention. You may an outrageorus claim that needs to be spanked down.

Scientists don't tolerate "Scholars for 9/11 Truth."

Scientists don't tolerate

Scientists don't tolerate "Scholars for 9/11 Truth."
tim | 05.31.06 - 3:48 pm | #
wow. a blanket statement from a troll/shill? you dont say.......

Ignore the trolls.

Ignore the trolls. Why?

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/06/02/con06077.html

All he'd have to do, if he were a genuinely curious person, is go to st911.org and see the list of S911T's members.

Re: Gold No I don´t think

Re: Gold
No I don´t think media can be controlled all around the world like that, so that even bloggers wouldn´t know, no way.
Good reason for FBI and such to stay silent would be to allow people who are questioning 9/11 THINK they are alive.

The more false leads truthers chase, the better, just like not giving all available footage of Pentagon attack they make suspicious people think theyre hiding something about what actually hit P., when people should be wondering:
-Why the plane hits that part of the building which had just been reinforced against attack.
-Can it be coinsidense that the pilot of 77 Charles Burlingame had actually worked in that very spot which was damaged.
-Exercises simulating closely what actually happened...

I don´t have an all-explaining theory, but am quite convinced with the info available those alleged hijackers aren´t alive.

"All he'd have to do, if he

"All he'd have to do, if he were a genuinely curious person, is go to st911.org and see the list of S911T's members."

I've done that many times over the months as new members have been added. The membership is noted for it's lack of structural engineers or experts in construction and heavy on some very stupid and discredited 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

Within the scientific community SF9/11T is knows as a group of political hacks with no knowledge of the subject matter. This is perhaps why the group has been desperately seeking credible structutal engineers for months now without success.

"wow. a blanket

"wow. a blanket statement..."

You know I'm right.