GOP candidate says 9/11 attacks were a hoax
GOP candidate says 9/11 attacks were a hoax
From New Hampshire's Nashua Telegraph
By ALBERT McKEON, Telegraph Staff
Published: Thursday, Aug. 24, 2006A Republican candidate for this area’s congressional seat said Wednesday that the U.S. government was complicit in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
In an editorial board interview with The Telegraph on Wednesday, the candidate, Mary Maxwell, said the U.S. government had a role in killing nearly 3,000 people at the World Trade Center and Pentagon, so it could make Americans hate Arabs and allow the military to bomb Muslim nations such as Iraq.
Maxwell, 59, seeks the 2nd District congressional seat. The Concord resident opposes the incumbent, Charles Bass of Peterborough, and Berlin Mayor Bob Danderson in the Republican primary Sept. 12.
Maxwell would not specify if she holds the opinion that the government stood by while terrorists hijacked four domestic airliners and used them as weapons, or if it had a larger role by sanctioning and carrying out the attacks.
But she implicated the government by saying the Sept. 11 attacks were meant “to soften us up . . . to make us more willing to have more stringent laws here, which are totally against the Bill of Rights . . . to make us particularly focus on Arabs and Muslims . . . and those strange persons who spend all their time creating little bombs,” giving Americans a reason “to hate them and fear them and, therefore, bomb them in Iraq for other reasons.”
She said this strategy “would be normal” for governments, citing her belief that the British government – and not the Germany military – sank the Lusitania ocean liner in 1915. The deaths of Americans on the cruise liner helped galvanize U.S. support to enter World War I, and benefited England, she said.
In turn, the Sept. 11 attacks “made the ground fertile” for more stringent laws, such as the Patriot Act, and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, Maxwell said.
Near the end of the interview, Maxwell pounded her fist on the table and asked editors of The Telegraph why they weren’t publishing more stories about the government’s role in the terrorist attacks or proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Maxwell has no political experience. She lived abroad for the past quarter-century with her husband, George, a pediatrician, and only recently returned to the U.S., she said.
In the hour-long interview, Maxwell spoke at length about Constitutional law, U.S. law, nuclear weapons proliferation, and other domestic and foreign policy issues.
Maxwell said the U.S. should withdraw from Iraq. She also questioned whether Congress authorized the war and said its members can’t explain that 2002 vote. (Congress authorized the use of force to defend this country’s security and enforce United Nations resolutions on Iraq.)
“Legally, we shouldn’t have gone to Iraq if Congress can’t explain why,” she said.
Maxwell described herself as a strict Constitutionalist, a candidate who wants to bring the country “back to basics.” The Constitution grants more power to the legislative branch than the other two branches, but Congress has allowed the executive and judicial branches to diminish its influence, she said.
She also said the U.S. shouldn’t immerse itself in the international community by signing trade and security pacts. These agreements have weakened national sovereignty, she said.
Thanks, Steve.
- Login to post comments
Nice
Awesome.
Keep An Eye Out.
Doubly awesome. The GOP's only hope of not being torn to bloody shreds; Come clean, and beg forgiveness.
Keep an eye out for the scum who may try to play this card, yet refuse to discuss redress on how it all happened in the first place. If so, they should be considered disingenuous and summarily added to the docket for treason and crimes against humanity.
e
"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.
Do You Believe the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories?
Do You Believe the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories?
Commentary by Jim Walker
21 May 2006
COMMENTARY INDEX
Ever since I put up a link to Penn and Teller's video debunking the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories (see: That's Just STUPID... 9/11 Conspiracy Theories), I received many emails that chided me for doing so. Note that Penn & Teller represent comedic magicians who know how to deceive an audience for entertainment and they know how to spot con-artists who dishonestly deceive the public. Some of the best debunkers in history come from conjuror backgrounds (Houdini, and the Amazing Randi, for example).
Not only did these emails agree with the conspiracy theories but some of them felt angered by my refusal to see their side (I did see their side, I just didn't agree with it). This amazed me because I have yet to see a single 9/11 conspiracy theory that makes any sense (what have I missed?) Moreover, most of the inventors of these theories do not even agree with each other (always a red flag) and most of their claims do not even meet the requirement of common sense. How in the world could anyone not see the holes in their argument, I thought.
On second thought, I knew that beliefs can have such an overpowering affect on an individual that it can conceal important things like evidence, facts, and even reality. But these emails came from my people. Not necessarily nonbelievers, mind you, but liberals, freethinkers, and skeptics. Even the best of them can fall prey for scams, cons, illusions, frauds, and swindles. Of course, even I can fall (and have fallen) for some of them, at least temporarily until I received further information. But really! These 9/11 conspiracies? Think people, think!
Of course we should allow anyone to ask any questions and speculate but these conspiracy theorists do not do this honestly. They leave out evidence that contradicts their theories, present out-of-context eyewitness reports, twist their words, and many times make things up. This makes them scam-artists and not worthy of respect. They use inductive reasoning (you cannot prove anything by inductive reasoning alone) and unsubstantiated deductive premises to explain them. Like all con-artists, they throw in their theories amongst actual facts to make them look as if they agree with the facts (they don't).
Although I disagree with our present government leaders, along with most liberals, and I feel skeptical about their policies, that doesn't mean that just because we have evidence of their lying, subterfuges, and deceptions, that they would pull off a silly and insane plan to murder innocent Americans and destroy property. Consider that our government leaders failed to protect us and had ample warning of the attacks or, perhaps, even let the Muslim terrorists cause a new "Pearl Harbor" for nefarious political purposes. This would give them reason to conceal information without needing to resort to silly demolition, missile-attack theories. Surely this hypothesis, at least, gives a more likely reason for any alleged cover-up. But after examining these conspiracy theories, I kept asking myself, "Why don't these conspiracy theorists provide the evidence?"
For example, how could one not question the demolition theory of the WTC buildings? Think of all the people that would have to install explosives in every story of the buildings, lay miles of electrical detonation wires. It usually takes months for professional detonation crews to set up a large building for destruction and they also spend lots of time weakening structural columns with saws and torches. Imagine trying to hide all this among thousands of WTC employees, employers, security guards, maintenance engineers, cleaning crews, etc. It would take hundreds of Tom Cruse-like Mission Impossible experts to pull it off (which of course, represents fiction). Revealingly, none of the conspiracy inventors ever mentions these problems or provide scenarios of how the conspirators could pull it off without anyone finding out.
Then they present non sequitur arguments such as the 'melting point of steel problem.' They claim that steel melts at a higher temperature than the burning temperature of jet fuel, therefore the steel could not have melted. So what? Since when does steel have to melt before it fails? Haven't they ever heard of low temperature forging, steel mills, or seen how a metal worker can easily bend a red-hot steel bar with a hammer? Steel will loose about half its structural strength (depending on is carbon content) at around 500 degress C. And on and on it goes, each claim as silly as the next.
Add to this the thousands of conspirators required to rig the commercial airliners (or missiles, converted military cargo planes, or whatever), hiding or murdering the passengers, the people needed to make recordings that mimic the cell phone conversations of passengers, the conspirators who would have to drag out plane parts at the "crash" sites to make it look as if it appeared like an airliner crash instead of a missile, etc. And as Michael Shermer asks, "not one of the thousands of conspirators needed to pull all this off is a whistle-blower who would go on TV or write a tell-all book?" (see Fahrenheit 2777) You mean that not one of these Americans would confess and feel ashamed by helping to killing their own? How extraordinary! As Carl Sagan taught us, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," yet these conspiracy theorists don't even provide us with minimal requirements for good evidence.
This, of course, doesn't mean that a conspiracy didn't exist. But who would most likely do this? I have a hunch!. How about 20 or so Muslims who have the motive, the religion, the will, and the belief & faith powerful enough to drive them to commit suicide by hijacking 4 American airliners? This theory has the backing of lots of evidence, plus it proves far more simple and reasonable. Haven't these conspiracy theorists ever heard of Ockham's razor? Yet the conspiracy theorists ignore this very plausible theory for their far more complicated and unworkable hypothesis. The conspiracy theorists also ignore other more likely possibilities: did some of our government leaders ignore (through gross incompetence) the terrorists plan to hijack the airliners, or did they knowingly let the terrorists to pull off their attacks? We do have evidence for concealment of information, but not a shred of good evidence for Americans directly causing the attacks.
After searching the Internet for information, I felt even more surprised and dismayed at the extent of the growth of this conspiracy meme. In fact the deluge of web sites that agreed with these conspiracy theorists so far outnumbered those who felt skeptical that it proved difficult to find good information about what actually took place on 9/11. But the information does exist out there and it so well contradicts the conspirator theorists that anyone who believed them should feel ashamed of themselves.
I will provide you with a few websites that provide good information from skeptical researchers, professional structural engineers, scientists, witnesses, etc. instead of from high-school drop outs or unqualified people (who usually write these conspiracy theories).
Take for example the most touted 9/11 video called Loose Change, Second Edition. Some claim this as the "best damn 9-11 documentary out there." So if you don't have familiarity with the conspiracies, you might want to start out with this one. (click here to watch).
Fortunately someone wrote an excellent refutation of this video called "9-11 Loose Change Second Edition Viewer Guide." Mark Roberts, the author of this exposition, simply blows away the conspiracy theories, one by one, argument by argument, line by line. I'd bet that Mark Roberts did far more research than all the conspiracy inventors combined. You can also download a Word doc file of this article from here (actually I found the Word files reads easier than the web page).
Michael B. Green also wrote a good one called "Loose Change" An analysis.
If you want to hear from professionally qualified engineers and even the very head structural engineer who designed the WTC, Leslie E. Robertson (do the conspiracy theorists actually think he would help destroy his own building?), this documentary video does a good job of providing a workable theory about how the WTC towers fell. See 9/11 - The Fall of the World Trade Center. Unfortunately you can only view this video through Real Player. You can also read the transcript here.
Some conspiracy theorists claim that newspapers did not include any Arab names in the passenger manifest lists. Therefore (don't you see?) no Arab could possibly have committed the terrorist acts. Shamefully the conspiracy theorists don't tell you that these newspapers printed partial lists, or that the newspapers did not include the terrorist names because they did not want to honor their names along with the innocent passengers (and because the purposes of printing them aimed at providing families and friends, information). Regardless, of these reasons, some newspapers did include some of the terrorist names such as the Boston Globe list. Of course the conspiracy theorists don't want you to know about the evidence that contradicts their theories.
I implore you believers out there to do a little more research. It may not seem as much fun but you will benefit by your education and you won't look so foolish in the eyes of those who look back from the future. Think instead of believe!
"As for the [9/11 conspiracy] theories, I don't think they can be taken very seriously. I think they are based on a misunderstanding of the nature of evidence, and also failure to think through the issues clearly."
--Noam Chomsky (interview)
Further source material:
911Myths.com This site provides a lot of information about the 9/11 conspiracy myths.
9/11: Debunking The Myths Popular Mechanics examines the evidence and consults the experts to refute the most persistent conspiracy theories of September 11.
9/11 conspiracy theories from Wikipedia Lots of source material and links.
Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy theories This site explodes the myths.
Loose Change (video) from Wikipedia More debunking on the Loose Change video.
Refuting the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Many answers to questions about the conspiracies.
Evidence That A Boeing 757 Really Did Impact the Pentagon on 9/11 Includes photo evidence.
Urban Legends and Folklore: Hunt the Boeing! More answers to the Pentagon hit.
Structural Steel and Steel Connectrions A pdf file that provides engineering data about the steel in the WTC towers.
Now don't you feel ashamed for believing this nonsense? But for those who invented these theories without presenting the evidence and facts that contradict your theory, you have not only embarrassed yourselves but you dishonored those who died on 9/11. May you live in disgrace for the rest of your lives.
yawn
"....I have yet to see a single 9/11 conspiracy theory that makes any sense..."
You're talking about the Kean Commission, right?
e
"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.
~Quote- Now don't you feel
~Quote- Now don't you feel ashamed for believing this nonsense?~
No I feel ashamed for actually reading all of the crap that you, 'Mr. Anonymous' posted! Dude, at least get a username so we can be forewarned of your post so I can skip them because you obviously have no clue!
Debunking pro official story from anonymous!
I am going to debate a peculiar pro official story form a anonymous:
(Note that Penn & Teller represent comedic magicians who know how to deceive an audience for entertainment and they know how to spot con-artists who dishonestly deceive the public.)
-Yeah and Penn & Teller really made a point by speaking profanities throughout the whole 911 segment, giving no arguments against theories other than emotional comments, charged by the word Fuck.
(Not only did these emails agree with the conspiracy theories but some of them felt angered by my refusal to see their side (I did see their side, I just didn't agree with it). This amazed me because I have yet to see a single 9/11 conspiracy theory that makes any sense (what have I missed?) Moreover, most of the inventors of these theories do not even agree with each other (always a red flag) and most of their claims do not even meet the requirement of common sense. How in the world could anyone not see the holes in their argument, I thought.)
-So we should just feel nothing after our government let 9-11 happen, and we have people trying to defend the official story with explanations that dont make sense at all. What really makes no sense is the official story. That suggest that 3 buildings fell because of fire and structural damage, 2 of them being 110 stories hight, falling at a speed of 10 floors per second in about 10 seconds, close to free fall speed of 8.2 making it only 1-2 second resistance that all 110 floors gave away, making it almost freefall speed, making it appear as if steel had no strength at all, and to top it all off the top of one building broke to the side, reducing downward presure, yet the building fell evenly to its footprints, defying all logic.
(On second thought, I knew that beliefs can have such an overpowering affect on an individual that it can conceal important things like evidence, facts, and even reality. But these emails came from my people. Not necessarily nonbelievers, mind you, but liberals, freethinkers, and skeptics. Even the best of them can fall prey for scams, cons, illusions, frauds, and swindles.)
-This comment totally applies to the original story, where they conceal important evidence, like gettin rid of all the steel of the twin towers, and the government doing nothing to preserve the evidence, why they never reveal the inside trading in the stock market the days before 9-11, why the hid the tapes of the cameras sorrounding the pentagon, why they confiscated the firemen tapes, why they only show 5 frames from the pentagon explosion, when the cameras are 60 frames per second, and they are able to capture at least 20 frames from a object traveling at least 550 miles per hour, enought to capture a boing on video. Talk about the original story not making sense. Look at the big picture and not throught tunnel vision please.
(Of course we should allow anyone to ask any questions and speculate but these conspiracy theorists do not do this honestly. They leave out evidence that contradicts their theories, present out-of-context eyewitness reports, twist their words, and many times make things up. This makes them scam-artists and not worthy of respect. They use inductive reasoning (you cannot prove anything by inductive reasoning alone) and unsubstantiated deductive premises to explain them. Like all con-artists, they throw in their theories amongst actual facts to make them look as if they agree with the facts (they don't).)
-Of course we are asking question to the nonsense of the official explanations. Talk about leaving out evidence from the official explanations and the commission report. Talk about how the bush administration twist words by publicly saying: "We had no idea they could used hijack planes to attack us", when they where running simulations the same day about the same thing that happened on 9-11, not counting that inteligence had been telling the bush administration for months before that terrorist would used hijack planes to attack us, and to come in TV and claim they did not had any idea that would happen, is trying to hard to steer guilt away from them. How would you bush supporters responds to this discrepancies and lies known to be public. Talk about twisting facts, by invading iraq by making it seem there where ties of iraq to 9-11, when bush came on TV saying iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, when his letter to congress which you can find at whitehouse.gov justifying permission to go into iraq says that iraq was connected to the axis of evil that made 9-11 happen. Isn't that a boldface lie to us. That makes the official theory a conspiracy and far outlandish explanation to what happened on 9-11.
(For example, how could one not question the demolition theory of the WTC buildings? Think of all the people that would have to install explosives in every story of the buildings, lay miles of electrical detonation wires. It usually takes months for professional detonation crews to set up a large building for destruction and they also spend lots of time weakening structural columns with saws and torches.)
For example they where doing many 12 hour shift on secret, the where taking dog sneefing dogs for weeks before 9-11, plus bush brother was chief of security on those buildings. There is something call wireless technology nowadays people. and also you can easily deceive people by telling them building improvements being done, without telling them what materials they are using, or you could tell them its at complete rewire of certain systems in the building, that is without counting that most people that worked there died there. exept for some people that managed to survived but their stories have never been taken into account by the goverment and the media.
I could keep on debunking this argument but i think its enought to prove my point, if more debunking is needed i would be more than happy to go argument by argument with those protecting the official story.
There's a video interview on that page
There's a video interview on that page with her answering a question about 911 inside job etc;
http://media.nashuatelegraph.com/wm/maxwell_edit.wmv
no audio!?
no audio!?
here is her official site
here is her official site (which is drupal powered btw):
http://www.maxwellforcongress.com/menu
Go back to sleep Amerika.
Go back to sleep Amerika. please?
Just watch out for the knee-jerk.
Too late. The Giant is rubbing her eyes. The only choice remaining is between more bloody vs. more bloodless.
That choice squarely rests with the pre-determined losers. The ones who insist that lie and deceit exist as "intelligent" weapons. Their only possible enlightened act, is surrender.
e
"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.
Indeed it is...
Drupal is the best... Easy enough for Mary to post things on herself, but still full featured.
right wing blogs
Let's post this all over the republican blogs. - do i hear 'traitor'...?
this is great. its about
this is great. its about time a truth activist runs as a republican. i know its probably tough to swallow,hahaha, but its still a good move regardless.
Is There a List of All the Pro 9-11 Truth Candidates?
I've heard of at least 4 different politicians running in different areas of the country with this agenda. Anyone know who and where they're running?
It would definitely be great to see a list if not a new Dailykos style netroots support system spring up.
i believe 911truth.org just
i believe 911truth.org just setup a PAC for just such candidates.. you may wanna check out their site or do a web search..
off the top of my head:
matthew woodson (sendmeabuck.com)
robert bowman
carol brouillet (sp?)
there is a green party candidate up north, cant put my finger on his name.. and this lady in this article.. im sure there are a bunch more..
candidates for truth
i've been keeping a list of candiates on myspace here -
http://www.myspace.com/electthesecandidates
Craig Hill in Vermont
Add Craig Hill in Vermont to this list
doh! my bad!
doh! my bad!
v911t.org has a partial list as well
http://www.v911t.org/911Candidates.php
however I can only confirm the first 2 when it comes to 9-11 truth. The others are progressive candidates though.
i only include them on my list if they specifically say something about 9-11 truth.
Please Digg the article
Here:
http://digg.com/politics/GOP_Candidate_Says_Government_Complicit_in_9_11
we had added digg,
we had added digg, de.licio.us, and other social networking links to our posts before the switch, but it didnt seem like anyone knew what they were or what to do with them.. should i add these back?
Yes, Do it.
It drives a lot of traffic and people should learn what it is.
Maybe add a "What is this" link.
will do!
will do!
social networking links
All those little icons were an eye sore if you didn't use them. Maybe there's a more low key approach? Of course if only five percent of your visitors will use the function, then maybe you could wait till there is more interest.
Let's Train Her
It is good to know that someone aspiring to political life takes 911 Truth seriously. Unfortunately, her performance is not likely to get her elected. Perhaps we should start donating towards getting her some training in media management. It should not be necessary, but realistically, if you can't win on TV you don't stand a chance. She needs help putting this across.
This topic...
... has been thematized on DailyKos too:
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2006/8/23/19355/9381/?pid=16#c23
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/8/23/19355/9381
Mia Dolan, as usual. the
Mia Dolan, as usual. the first one to show up on a 9/11 thread to pump the official story. i know the tag gets tired, but if she aint an agent.......
Mia Dolan is a he, according to its profile
And Mia Dolan is apparently a pseudonym taken from some mystic or magician or something. Both "Mia Dolan" and "Kos" are guilty of "accessorizing after the fact." Kos has been notified of Dolan and other users' use of his forums to make false claims in defense of the guilty parties and has not only allowed them to continue, he has banned discussion of what actually happened on 9/11. Moreover, he is "former" military and a "former" Republican turned "progressive". Doesn't get much fishier than that in a can of sardines...
_
"Among the 'spider-man' skeptics are those who claim that no human can shoot web and stick to walls... They conveniently ignore the fact that he was bitten by a radioactive spider."
Daily Bugle editorial debunking the claims of spider-man deniers
HA, Markos also said the CIA
HA, Markos also said the CIA tried to recruit him. cant stand that bastard.
This is Awesome!
I just hope the smear campaign doesn't take hold, but I do expect it to.
Former Giuliani Aide Found Strangled at Home
A former deputy press secretary to Rudolph W. Giuliani was found strangled in his Greenwich Village apartment Monday night, and investigators believe that he may have known his killer, the police said yesterday.
The victim, Martin Barreto, 48, a partner in a Manhattan-based public relations firm, was found naked in his bedroom when officers entered his apartment on East 10th Street at University Place.
A friend of Mr. Barreto’s, unable to reach him by phone, had become alarmed and had gone to his building to ask the superintendent to let him in the apartment. The police were called about 9:20 p.m., and the door was opened after they arrived.
There was no sign of forced entry, struggle or disarray in the apartment, which is owned by Mr. Barreto’s cousin and the cousin’s wife, the police said. The apartment door was locked and no keys were missing, they said.
Former Giuliani Aide Strangled at Home
A "former deputy press secretary" to Rudolph W. Giuliani could have known an awful lot of secrets about that fascist Ghouliani, including 9/11!
Too much suspicious stuff going on lately, including people dying under mysterous circumstances.
oh shit. lets hope we get
oh shit. lets hope we get more details of his death than we got in the Ken Lay case. if not, i will stay skeptical as always.
Sex slaying
The New York Daily News is running this story as a sex slaying:
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/446260p-375655c.html
"Police investigators believe Barreto, 48, a childhood friend of Bianca Jagger, was killed by someone he knew - possibly an enraged ex-lover or a man he met while cruising the Internet for gay sex, sources said."
The NY Times made no mention of this angle.
Sex slaying?
It would be very convenient to frame it up as a sex slaying. It is all extremely suspicious, IMO!
All 20 security cameras at sex-slay building not working???
"None of the roughly 20 security cameras at the building was working, sources said." WTF??? http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/446260p-375655c.html
That definitely adds a lot
That definitely adds a lot of suspicion.
Doesn’t Giuliani dress up
Doesn’t Giuliani dress up in drag, and go to gay clubs? That might have something to do with it.
Video of Giuliani in Drag;
Video of Giuliani in Drag;
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/154212/rudy_giuliani_in_drag/
Those 20 pesky security cameras not working
Twenty (20) pesky securities cameras just happened to not be working while Ghouliana's former press secretary was being brutally murdered. Of course, happens all the time.
I Need A Warning Next Time...
I just sprayed my keyboard with a mouthful of my Mocha Frapp!
9/11: Press For Truth Clip - "Bush Knew"
http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12226
CNN is running ads saying
CNN is running ads saying that on 9/11/06 they will be airing the footage that aired on CNN on 9/11 completely unedited in its entirety. could be some intersting footage there.
http://www.bloglines.com/blog
http://www.bloglines.com/blog/ewing2001?id=571
http://911tvfakery.blogspot.com/
Thursday, August 24, 2006
More 9/11 Scholars signing petition, ex-st911 Reynolds/Wood released new article
This week st911.org members Cathy Garger and Andrew Lowe Watson signed as 14th and 15th member of the 9/11 Scholars to support a release of a scientific paper at journalof911studies.com to inform the public on the findings of "9/11TVfakery"/"no planes-forensic evidence".
The paper will be written by Rick Rajter, supportive of these findings.
Also, just up, first version of "The Trouble with Steven E. Jones' 9/11 Research" at
nomoregames.net by Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood*
August 23, 2006
"...As retired software engineer in the aerospace industry Joseph Keith says, "Every video that shows impact shows a plane flying through the tower wall the same way it flies through thin air: no cratering effect, no pushing parts of the building in, no crunching of the airframe as it hits resistance, no reaction from the heavy engines and hidden landing gear, no parts breaking off, no outer 30 feet of the wing breaking off, no bursting, shredding or bending of the wing," "No nothing." The videos are fake.
It is a foregone conclusion for Jones (apparently) that airliners went into the Twin Towers, no questions asked. Even when he discusses demolition, Jones reinforces the plane fiction: "Think of it-just put explosives for (sic) a few upper floors (like where the planes went in)" (p. 22)...
... When Jones defends the WTC airliner story, he cites soft evidence like videos, "many, many eyewitnesses," unverified flight data recorders, an alleged consensus of Scholars' (capital "S") in favor of airliners and calls for release of evidence (who but the government could object?). Jones says videos "clearly show the commercial jet liner." Doh! You mean the perps would fake a video and NOT show a jet liner? The question is, do the pixels reflect reality or is the jet liner image inserted?
In NFL broadcasts, the first-and-ten line is inserted in real time, as are billboards at NBA and MLB games, even customized by region. At the Winter Olympics, TV trickery inserted the flag of each speed skater's nation under the ice and then switched it in real time as the skaters switched lanes. Truly remarkable.
Since he is no video expert, the clueless professor might ask himself if the Newtonian laws of motion still prevailed on 9/11. If so, then the videos are fake. But he answers, "many, many witnesses..."
Nico, I understand you are
Nico,
I understand you are passionate about your research but please don't slander other members of 9/11 Truth. You can say what you need to say without attacking other people.
Thank you.
where's the slander?
where's the slander?
Slander
In every post he has to point out how others in the movement are wrong. (Jones, Ruppert, etc.)
I just think he can make his points without creating more conflict.
perhaps, but pointing out
perhaps, but pointing out that someone is wrong certainly sounds more like stating one's opinion regarding another point of view rather than slandering them.
nothing wrong with saying how you feel regarding anothers point of view.
furthermore, you went so far
furthermore, you went so far as the use the words slander and attack in regards to his commments.. hardly applicable here, in my anonymous opinion.
I appologize. Slander was
I appologize. Slander was the wrong word to use. It's just dishearting that there is so much in fighting among the movement when we should be putting aside our disagreements and helping to get out the truth.
I guess everyone has different opinions of how to spread the truth.
Here's some slander for Nico
Nico couldn’t care less for 911 truth, or all those that have perished as a result of attacks, both on the day and after including the people who inhaled all the toxic dust. And the hundreds of thousand who have been murdered by the “war on terror”. He doesn’t get it, he’s to consumed in pushing something THAT WILL NEVER HELP 911 TRUTH! And I feel ashamed of myself for even devoting time to pointing this pathetic shit out.
Nico is a disinfo scumf*cker, and a waste of time combating. I VOTE FOR A BAN ON HIS ASS!
Andrew Lowe Watson? huh? and
Andrew Lowe Watson? huh? and i can only hope that Jones has the good sense to continue to ignore you and your ilk.
Nothing like reliving the moment...
to rekindle all that lost fear.
As for the no-planes nonsense above--why haven't any eyewitnesses come forward to say that what they saw on 9/11 was a simple explosion and that they didn't see a plane? And why are you now focusing just on video-fakery? Did the holographic plane thing not pan out somehow? :)
isn't your little faux-campaign intended to mimic the real truth movement so as to disingenuously accuse us of hypocrisy when we call your bluff? so that others can say to us--"You see, you all want us to believe your extraordinary claims, but you yourself don't believe the extraordinary claims of your co-conspiracy theorists, so don't blame us..."
isn't that just a bit too obvious on your part? especially since the only people you seem to be convincing that you are legit are the adherents to the official line who think all Truthers are no-planers? Do you realize how disappointed those folks are when they find out that "yeah, it WAS too good to be true to think that the 36-40% of my fellow citizens who disagree with me believe there were no planes when I, even with my straight-C's high school education can tell they were there? maybe I AM as dumb as the guidance counselor told me..."
All your efforts will amount to a single mention in a short chapter on disinfo when the history of 9/11 is finally set down correctly for posterity--remember that!
_
"Among the 'spider-man' skeptics are those who claim that no human can shoot web and stick to walls... They conveniently ignore the fact that he was bitten by a radioactive spider."
Daily Bugle editorial debunking the claims of spider-man deniers
"...why haven't any
"...why haven't any eyewitnesses come forward to say that what they saw on 9/11 was a simple explosion and that they didn't see a plane? And why are you now focusing just on video-fakery? Did the holographic plane thing not pan out somehow? :)..."
I don't know how often i have to repeat this, but there were dozens of eyewitnesses who came forward and described just explosions with no planes in it. The link was even reposted today at 911tvfakery.net
There are also a few video amateur clips which also have no plane in it. I'm not focussing just on Video-Fakery but on any other stuff, which is either oppressed or ignored in this movement, see also team8plus.org
Furthermore everything else is well covered in mainstream media, based also on a lot of research by myself or the scientific work of my former group "9/11 Science and Justice Alliance"
http://www.911closeup.com/nico/911bio.html
What you describe as disinfo can only be described as disinfo if it was debunked as such.
However it wasn't. That's why it's solid.
Same to the evidence of controlled demolition, which also was described for years as "disinfo" and was oppressed bny the same orwellian 9/11 truthling leader, who now run 911truth.org and made sure, that our findings on fakery will not have wide acceptance either.
Furthermore i believe in 9/11 TV Fakery since Day 1, based on just one non-live clip of CNN. I'm still showing it at public events. It has a few flaws in it, easy to classify as fake. I never believed at any point in "holography", though we also allowed a scientific analysis at 911SCAJA, since we couldn't rule out a crossover event at that time.
I had my first supporters on 9/11 TV fakery already back in 2002/03, but could count them at one hand.
I also believed at that time, that the evidence of controlled demolition would be good enough to get to the core of the 9/11 perps. In further articles at inn.globalfreepress.com i also pointed out on the logistics of the perps regarding live terror exercises, completely ignored by shill Mike Ruppert
If this movement wouldn't have been controlled by phonies at the top, our evidence would have been popular since 2, 3 years.
And after all apparently since Prof. Jones ruined the traditional evidence on CD, it's not even clear if we can use it as well. The new article of Reynolds/Wood is therefore damage control in time.
"Furthermore i believe in
"Furthermore i believe in 9/11 TV Fakery since Day 1, based on just one non-live clip of CNN. I'm still showing it at public events. It has a few flaws in it, easy to classify as fake."
.....
"There are also a few video amateur clips which also have no plane in it."
i have seen several amateur clips which have angles that obscure the plane coming into the building view, but i have never seen a blatant wide shot with both of the impact points unobscured from either side showing an explosion but no plane. I would be interested to see these clips as well. Do you have any links?
F*ck of Nico you fruitcake;
F*ck of Nico you fruitcake;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjmVFAKe1nI&mode=related&search=
Do you even want 911 truth to succeed? Do you even understand how disrespectful it is to say "no planes hit the towers? Obviously not, get a clue!
Nice post DBLS!
There's losts of other people who saw planes at this YouTube link too:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=search_videos&search_sort=rel...
^this is various network tv news footage from 9/11 "as it hapened".
Who is "911 truth"? If you
Who is "911 truth"?
If you talk about 911truth.org, there is no 'truth' in it.
If you talk about the 9/11 Truth Movement, they do everything what they can to reinforce the official story or promote red herrings, limited hangout stuff, false hope nonsense and disinfo as well.
If you talk about the scientific evidence, i WANT this to suceed and that also includes the traditional evidence on controlled demolition 1/2/7 (now ruined and ignored by ProfJones and already criticized by many 9/11 Scholars, not just Reynolds/Wood), no cell phone functions on planes,
no planes in Shanksville, no planes into Pentagon and forensic evidence of no planes into the Towers PLUS the strong evidence on 9/11 TV Fakery.
That's why i also ran a science group for 4 years, oppressed and ignored by the very same frauds of 911truth.org. Without us there would have been ZERO leaflet or book on controlled demolition.
How often do i have to point that out before it gets into your brainwashed butterhead?
And what about the phonies in this list?:
http://www.911closeup.com/nico/911truthlings.html
They still spread their drivel as well.
The only one who do NOT want this movement to succeed are those who trust Prof. E. Jones,
http://www.veronicachapman.com/nyc911/Jones-Kubiak.htm
Alex Jones (GCN) and Jim Fetzer!!
And DemBruceWhoever has zero productive to add, just rebabbling chat room notes with zero 9/11 research by himself.
9/11 research vs. activism
There seems to be a conflict between 9/11 "research" and 9/11 "activism". 911truth.org, Alex Jones, Prof. Jones, 911blogger.com are out there to finally force the goverment to investigate itself or otherwise let itself be investigated, so that one day we will hear the truth of what happened, thermonuclear mini-bombs or whatever it was, from THEM.
We simply don't have the NERVE to put any more work into the few pieces of evidence, like the grainy TV footage of the collapse etc. We think it's clear there's something totally false in the official account, and that's our message. Steven Jones main heroism consists of putting his name under the theories, saying he's ready to defend them scientifically. The only problem is that no other Profs. have done so.
"No-plane" and the other controversial theories may be true, or may not be true. There's nothing wrong with mentioning at the end of a 9/11 essay, that maybe the hoax extended even that far, that there weren't even any planes.
What IS unacceptable is attacking people as COINTELPRO without any clear evidence of that. The real COINTEL agents will have one top objective, not to recruit new truthers. What does it help Bushco. if halve of America knows it was an inside job, but his "mini-H-bomb" stays secret - nothing. Steven Jones and Alex Jones have not shown this behaviour, they've recruited millions with their messages. Something that has turned millions off of 9/11 truth however is mega-zoomed grainy TV footage with no clear "smoking gun" all the way.
LOL
So true;
"(Nico) All your efforts will amount to a single mention in a short chapter on disinfo when the history of 9/11 is finally set down correctly for posterity--remember that!"
FYI: Lots of 911 News footage "as it happened" posted on YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=search_videos&search_sort=rel...
thx for posting this, but
thx for posting this, but the ultimate source is at Killtown since months...
http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html/
EXTREMELY MISLEADING TITLE
EXTREMELY MISLEADING TITLE TO IT'S ARTICLE (PROBABLY DELIBERATE)
"HOAX" ...
IMMEDIATELY BRINGS FORTH VISIONS OF BIGFOOT AND UFO'S.
SCORE ONE FOR THE GATEKEEPERS.
Planted Evidence...
Someone recently said, "Planted debris does not prove anything".
Unless you have a whistleblower coming forward stating that the evidence was planted, or you have a photograph of someone planting evidence, or if you have a video of someone planting evidence, it's best to consider evidence is real until proven otherwise. It makes you sound less "crazy".
Tell that the 9/11 Pentagon
Tell that the 9/11 Pentagon Researchers and Shanksville Researchers, who could prove that no planes crashed there either (and furthermore AA77 did not exist anyway!)
Planted debris, often even not matching 767s is no counter evidence. Period!
Do You Have Proof
That the plane parts at the WTC were planted?
Nico, the Pentagon was
Nico, the Pentagon was cleared out numerous times after the explosion there, and for extended periods of time. this gives plenty of time to plant things. NYC is one of the most congested cities on the planet. not so easy to plant friggin plane parts in NYC as oppossed to a secure military facility that was cleared out 3-4 times because of "incoming aircraft".
Question about Donald Rumsfeld
I noticed he looks like all nervous on tv and all, He knows people are waking up at record levels. He participated in the murder of 3000 people and thousands more wounded and lied to 6 billion of us.
How would you feel if he committed suicide? And How would it look to our case?
They will fake it to the end
I'm afraid that there is a rare but communicable disease called "faking your death syndrome", a.k.a. FYDS. Ken Lay certainly came down with a doozie of a case of it, and who knows how many in the Bush Admin have been exposed and may yet succumb. The problem is that while FYDS is not always fatal, the patient runs the risk of being murdered with impunity since it is not a crime to kill someone who is already dead (one would think...) fortunately for them, a side-effect of FYDS is often one or more cases of plastic surgery and/or relocation. Truly, it is a life-changing malady...
_
"Among the 'spider-man' skeptics are those who claim that no human can shoot web and stick to walls... They conveniently ignore the fact that he was bitten by a radioactive spider."
Daily Bugle editorial debunking the claims of spider-man deniers
Thank the reporter who wrote the story
I recommend calling and emailing the author of the newspaper article and thanking him for his coverage of 9/11 skepticism and encouraging him and his paper to continue writing more about this important issue.
The reporter who wrote the article is Albert McKeon. He can be reached at 603-594-5832 or amckeon@nashuatelegraph.com He is New Hampshire, which is at Eastern Time.
The story was at
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060824/NEWS0...
DROPPINGKNOWLEDGE.COM
Hey all,
I just discovered a website that is a fantastic way to spread 911 Truth. This site is getting ready to fully launch next month, but it is already up and running.
The site allows us to post "Questions" that people can vote on, therefore bringing greater attention to them on the site.
You will have to check it out to see it. It can be a very powerful tool for all of us.
www.droppingknowledge.com
I found this page via Pearl Jam on Myspace.
Here is the question I submitted.. It's up to all of us to join and vote to increase the visibility of our questions. I'm signing up now..
" Why did World Trade Center Building 7 (not hit by a plane on 9/11) collapse at nearly free fall speed? Anonymous , Fairfax, USA "
DROPPINGKNOWLEDGE.COM
Hey all,
I just discovered a website that is a fantastic way to spread 911 Truth. This site is getting ready to fully launch next month, but it is already up and running.
The site allows us to post "Questions" that people can vote on, therefore bringing greater attention to them on the site.
You will have to check it out to see it. It can be a very powerful tool for all of us.
www.droppingknowledge.com
I found this page via Pearl Jam on Myspace.
Here is the question I submitted.. It's up to all of us to join and vote to increase the visibility of our questions. I'm signing up now..
" Why did World Trade Center Building 7 (not hit by a plane on 9/11) collapse at nearly free fall speed? Anonymous , Fairfax, USA "
Moussaoui Tipster aboard
Moussaoui Tipster aboard alleged terror plane
http://team8plus.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?3727.last
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/15343993.htm
Wed, Aug. 23, 2006
Nico is a lunatic
Nico always comes on here and says the craziest shit, he's so annoying. He joined my San Diegans for 9/11 Truth Yahoo group and I had to ban him because of all his no-plane lunatic rantings.
Ah, nice to see censorship is live and well
in the 9/11 "truth" movement!
Video Collection of the WTC 'Plane' Crashes
http://www.team8plus.org
Nope.
You did ban me because you didn't see the importance of a protest in front of SAIC HQ,
which i suggested when i showed up.
http://team8plus.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?1664.post
SAIC- power structure 9/11 and more...
Why else should i come to your lousy list?
There are tons of bigger 9/11 truth lists.
After i was ignored on this, i switched to the TV fakery stuff to get at least some info out.
DROPPINGKNOWLEDGE.ORG
Sorry for the repost guys .... its .org
Hey all,
I just discovered a website that is a fantastic way to spread 911 Truth. This site is getting ready to fully launch next month, but it is already up and running.
The site allows us to post "Questions" that people can vote on, therefore bringing greater attention to them on the site.
You will have to check it out to see it. It can be a very powerful tool for all of us.
www.droppingknowledge.org
I found this page via Pearl Jam on Myspace.
Here is the question I submitted.. It's up to all of us to join and vote to increase the visibility of our questions. I'm signing up now..
" Why did World Trade Center Building 7 (not hit by a plane on 9/11) collapse at nearly free fall speed? Anonymous , Fairfax, USA "
This is not the Nico Haupt truth movement
Everybody,
One of the guidelines of this forum, not often enforced, is that we should not clog threads with unrelated discussion. Recently is seems that every thread ends up being an argument with Nico. Whether you appreciate Nico or not, we didn't come here to talk about him. Its not like he's preventing our communication. If you don't agree with him, or his approach, then tell him, or ignore him.
I think its embarrassing for all of you who spend so much time telling him that he is irrelevant or distracting. Your actions prove that not to be true. If you really think that Nico has stepped over the line, then report his behavior to the moderators of the forum. Of course Nico takes as much abuse as he dishes. Since he's here to stay, you might think of a different approach for the benefit of us all.
Its not like Nico is going to single handedly undermine the movement. And we shouldn't forget the good things he's accomplished. Personally I find his contribution refreshing, unique hypotheses and all. I may not agree with some of his conclusions or his candor, but he does play an interesting devil's advocate for some of us who take ourselves too seriously. He does a great job reminding me how and why I have prioritized the evidence surrounding 9/11.
I have met Nico, and found him to be an interesting person to talk to. And even though I do not share his approach to 9/11, I have found him guilty of nothing other than blustery rhetoric and doggedly supporting his own research. We might think that CGI planes are unlikely, or ever fanciful, but that's the attitude that most people have toward us about 9/11 truth. At least read some of his research before you dig in.
We need to let Nico be Nico and move on. We can consider his opinions without getting obsessive about them. Personally I don't want him to call me a agent or gatekeeper, but I know that I'm not, and I'm not worried that he will convince others that I am.
Finally, if you really want to engage with Nico, why don't you just send him e-mail.
Nico Haupt needs
Nico Haupt needs discussion
See. I completely disagree.
You must discuss the elephant in the room. THINK!
If there were missiles, Television-fake-footage, and OTHER PLANES (or NO PLANES)... where the hell are the passengers and why are we discussing how the magician's assistant survived being cut in half???
The 911-truth movement is the ENTERTAINMENT-TONIGHT for the elites if we cannot get the basic facts right. You will hear superior HAR HAR HAR laughter from the corporate top-floors and the will tell their FUCKS-NEWS and CNN slaves to have a cigar and ignore us.
Jules, thanks for this
Jules,
thanks for this support.
I'm not even here for a debate, just posting updates.
I find a debate rather useless here and we communicate with the real players directly via multiple CCs.
They're the ones who are doing the decisions, not me.
And so does ny911truth.org, the group i co-founded where i didn't play a role after i left in Spring 2004.
The members here can grab the information and use it or condemn it. That's their right. But if they start to debate, i surely respond.
What the guidelines depends, i suggest to make an own daily thread of "general updates", in which every blogger can post their own updates. I'm sure dz and somebiggguy would appreciate this service as well, also for an easier update of their start page. In this case all other threads remain on-topic.
I usually post the newest stuff in the very latest thread or where i think, it could belong. I'm struggling here as everyone else.
If i post my bloglines at
http://www.bloglines.com/blog/ewing2001
there is also no "grab bag thread" to post.
Same to team8plus.org stuff.
So this would be a coordinated effort of the admins and mods to change this.
What the 9/11 TV Fakery depends, there are only 5-6 members of the 911blogger.com who let it appear that it has only to do with my person, while i showed my general solidarity with the issue which is 3-5 years old and oppressed.
The Paper for the 9/11 Scholars is almost ready and the support grows.
If anyone wants to confront this, they also can do that in outsourced articles or wherever they think it is useful. Ironically i didn't see these "articles" either.
What Jones depends, he remains a suspicious character on his thermite obsession and we will point out on this in the one or other article. We did that in the past on Mike Ruppert, Karl Schwarz and other phonies as well and if we wouldn't have done this, these frauds would still run the show...
over and out for today -;
http://www.team8plus.org
"...where the hell are the passengers .."
Last response because it's also off-topic reg. 9/11 TV Fakery research.
We researched and promoted this extensively at team8plus.org
Parts of the results have even picked up by LooseChange II,
based on the articles of our member WoodyBox.
Unfortunately all other team8plus stuff on radar (Frank Levi), BTS (Brad M, ewing2001) and tail numbers (DulceDecorum etc..) was ignored so far as well...
That's why the findings will
That's why the findings will be presented in a scientific paper by Rick Raijter, not by me.
I'm a video encoder and researcher, not a writer.
"...why so many people would make up seeing planes..."
I cannot speak for all of them. Many claimed the opposite.
See http://911closeup.com/nico/witness_contradictions.html
I assume some of the plane seers lied, some are victims of the "stockholm syndrome", others possibly saw the "white elephant aircraft", but didn't catch that it was passing the South Tower, while it exploded.
Diane Sawyer saw it too and described it as circulating around the Towers before it finally left the crime scene.
Dixon Reynolds was threatened after he pointed this out in his paper and then resigned from the 911Scholars.
The opposite smoke direction shows that the Towers stand different, for those who ignored *this detail.
Therefore in both footage aircrafts MUST have arrived from opposite directions, but it didn't. It came clearly from a straight right linear simulated flight path.
Most obvious evidence for TV Fakery, but not for most of the so called "planehuggers".
thx for your support :)
best,
nico aka ewing2001
http://www.petitiononline.com/911tvfak/petition.html
Nico said you are a member
Nico said you are a member of the Scolars for 9/11 Truth. is this true?
911 truth kiddies mouthing off
I fully support ANYONE's right to post into HIGH-TRAFFIC boards. If we outlaw this, we may as well have the M$M control the internet.
I concede that it drives the noise level up. But this is what it is like on Blue Pearl Mother Earth. Nothing is easy. Shit happens.
About the NO PLANE theory. There is solid proof in
GHOST GUN:
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/prod/dialspace/town/pipexdsl/q/aqrf00/ggua175/
Alas, I am afraid, NOBODY ACTUALLY TRIED TO READ IT... much less tried to understand it.
That's the story of the 911 truth movement.
A lot of kiddies who (rightly) have a hunch, but refuse
to do some work... instead they mouth off.
No planes @ the WTC is disinfo, plain & simple!
Why risk cartoons when real planes (or swapped drones as in Operation Northwoods) work just fine!
Debunking believers of the official story
I am going to debate a peculiar pro official story from a anonymous:
(Note that Penn & Teller represent comedic magicians who know how to deceive an audience for entertainment and they know how to spot con-artists who dishonestly deceive the public.)
-Yeah and Penn & Teller really made a point by speaking profanities throughout the whole 911 segment, giving no arguments against theories other than emotional comments, charged by the word Fuck.
(Not only did these emails agree with the conspiracy theories but some of them felt angered by my refusal to see their side (I did see their side, I just didn't agree with it). This amazed me because I have yet to see a single 9/11 conspiracy theory that makes any sense (what have I missed?) Moreover, most of the inventors of these theories do not even agree with each other (always a red flag) and most of their claims do not even meet the requirement of common sense. How in the world could anyone not see the holes in their argument, I thought.)
-So we should just feel nothing after our government let 9-11 happen, and we have people trying to defend the official story with explanations that dont make sense at all. What really makes no sense is the official story. That suggest that 3 buildings fell because of fire and structural damage, 2 of them being 110 stories hight, falling at a speed of 10 floors per second in about 10 seconds, close to free fall speed of 8.2 making it only 1-2 second resistance that all 110 floors gave away, making it almost freefall speed, making it appear as if steel had no strength at all, and to top it all off the top of one building broke to the side, reducing downward presure, yet the building fell evenly to its footprints, defying all logic.
(On second thought, I knew that beliefs can have such an overpowering affect on an individual that it can conceal important things like evidence, facts, and even reality. But these emails came from my people. Not necessarily nonbelievers, mind you, but liberals, freethinkers, and skeptics. Even the best of them can fall prey for scams, cons, illusions, frauds, and swindles.)
-This comment totally applies to the original story, where they conceal important evidence, like gettin rid of all the steel of the twin towers, and the government doing nothing to preserve the evidence, why they never reveal the inside trading in the stock market the days before 9-11, why the hid the tapes of the cameras sorrounding the pentagon, why they confiscated the firemen tapes, why they only show 5 frames from the pentagon explosion, when the cameras are 60 frames per second, and they are able to capture at least 20 frames from a object traveling at least 550 miles per hour, enought to capture a boing on video. Talk about the original story not making sense. Look at the big picture and not throught tunnel vision please.
(Of course we should allow anyone to ask any questions and speculate but these conspiracy theorists do not do this honestly. They leave out evidence that contradicts their theories, present out-of-context eyewitness reports, twist their words, and many times make things up. This makes them scam-artists and not worthy of respect. They use inductive reasoning (you cannot prove anything by inductive reasoning alone) and unsubstantiated deductive premises to explain them. Like all con-artists, they throw in their theories amongst actual facts to make them look as if they agree with the facts (they don't).)
-Of course we are asking question to the nonsense of the official explanations. Talk about leaving out evidence from the official explanations and the commission report. Talk about how the bush administration twist words by publicly saying: "We had no idea they could used hijack planes to attack us", when they where running simulations the same day about the same thing that happened on 9-11, not counting that inteligence had been telling the bush administration for months before that terrorist would used hijack planes to attack us, and to come in TV and claim they did not had any idea that would happen, is trying to hard to steer guilt away from them. How would you bush supporters responds to this discrepancies and lies known to be public. Talk about twisting facts, by invading iraq by making it seem there where ties of iraq to 9-11, when bush came on TV saying iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, when his letter to congress which you can find at whitehouse.gov justifying permission to go into iraq says that iraq was connected to the axis of evil that made 9-11 happen. Isn't that a boldface lie to us. That makes the official theory a conspiracy and far outlandish explanation to what happened on 9-11.
(For example, how could one not question the demolition theory of the WTC buildings? Think of all the people that would have to install explosives in every story of the buildings, lay miles of electrical detonation wires. It usually takes months for professional detonation crews to set up a large building for destruction and they also spend lots of time weakening structural columns with saws and torches.)
For example they where doing many 12 hour shift on secret, the where taking dog sneefing dogs for weeks before 9-11, plus bush brother was chief of security on those buildings. There is something call wireless technology nowadays people. and also you can easily deceive people by telling them building improvements being done, without telling them what materials they are using, or you could tell them its at complete rewire of certain systems in the building, that is without counting that most people that worked there died there. exept for some people that managed to survived but their stories have never been taken into account by the goverment and the media.
I could keep on debunking this argument but i think its enought to prove my point, if more debunking is needed i would be more than happy to go argument by argument with those protecting the official story.