Draginol

If our only objective in Iraq was to remove Saddam as you claim, then we should have removed our troops in May 2003.

Bush made two major errors.

First Saddam was no threat to the United States so the premise you stated for invading Iraq was wrong was wrong.

We should have removed our troops from Iraq after we defeated Saddam.

Draginol


If in addition to removing Saddam we intended to establish a new government in Iraq and provide stability we needed the 500,000 troops to prevent the sectarian violence and to insure that outside terrorists did not get a chance to set up operations. Guess what we have allowed both these things to take place because we never had the force levels to prevent them from taking place.

Draginol

"The job of the US President is to act in America's best interest, not please the chattering classes in Europe. "

This is the most important job of the president and the one Bush has failed to perform!!!!!!!!

The Bitter Debate Over September 11th

tagesanzeiger.ch/dyn/news/ausland/663864.html


Penetrating questions are repeatedly asked in the United States, and also in Switzerland, about the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11) and the resulting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

By Daniele Ganser
Translated by Jesse Goplen

The Iraq War is not about fighting terror, it's primarily about the control of globally diminishing inventories of petroleum and natural gas, the American Fadel Gheit, former manager at the petroleum concern ExxonMobil, is convinced. “Our way of life in the US requires 20 million barrels daily, of which half must be imported. We resemble a patient on petroleum dialysis,” according to Gheit. “This is about life and death here.”

Contrary to the allegations of Vice President Dick Cheney, Saddam Hussein, the deposed dictator of Iraq, bears no responsibility for 9/11 and did not seek an atomic weapon, protests Scott Ritter, former UN inspector in Iraq. “We were told a lot of lies, and the media follow blindly and repeat these lies. The Bush Administration manipulated the data in order to provide a basis for the invasion of Iraq.”

Afghanistan serves as a conduit country for oil and gas pipelines from the Caspian Sea to the Indian Ocean as well as a military base, to surround the Middle East “under the pretense of fighting terrorism,” says Michael Ruppert, former police officer with the Los Angeles Police Department.

Three Theories

The thesis of the great geostrategic battle of the superpowers (US, Russia and China) over the dwindling oil and natural gas reserves is at first glance plausible, and widely held, also in Europe, not least because of the climbing oil price. The theory is nonetheless problematic. For this theory raises the fundamental question of whether the US Administration is primarily hunting terrorists or crude oil.

It is therefore not astonishing that the acrimonious debate in the US does not remain confined to the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but has also encompassed 9/11, the largest terror attack in history with 2973 dead. In the past five years, various films, websites and books about 9/11 have been published in the US. Today these form a nearly unmanageable mass of allegations and counter-allegations.

Three mutually exclusive 9/11 theories stand in opposition to one another. All three theories are conspiracy theories, although their proponents may well deny this. They are conspiracy theories because they all assume a secret agreement between two or more actors before September 11th as a given.

The first theory, the so-called “Surprise Theory,” comes from the US government and is supported by the official American investigation, the 9/11 Commission Report by Thomas Kean, which appeared in the Summer of 2004. This is the official 9/11 story: Osama bin Laden planned the attacks together with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed first in Afghanistan, then a group of 19 Muslims led by Mohammed Atta carried out the terror attack in the US with four airplanes. Bin Laden and his network are guilty of the criminal act.

The second theory, the so-called “Let It Happen On Purpose Theory” (LIHOP), alleges bin Laden and the Al Qaeda network had planned and carried out the attack. Portions of the US government found this out, but despite this deliberately did not avert the attack and sacrificed almost 3000 people to legitimize a series of wars, of which those in Afghanistan and Iraq are only the first two. Both bin Laden as well as portions of the US government are guilty of the criminal act.

Finally, the third theory, the so-called “Make It Happen On Purpose Theory” (MIHOP), maintains the attacks were carried out but the Pentagon and/or the US intelligence agencies, the videos of bin Laden are faked. Almost 3000 people were sacrificed in cold blood, and the people in the US and the world were deceived, in order to legitimize a series of wars. Portions of the US government are guilty of the criminal act.

Kevin Barrett, who teaches a seminar on Islam at the University of Wisconsin – Madison, is a MIHOP proponent, as he explained in June 2006. Other Americans were appalled. Barrett “is embarrassing for the University and the people of Wisconsin,” according to the Republican State Representative Steve Nass, who together with other Republicans called for the University to dismiss Barrett immediately.

The Provost of the University, Patrick Farrell, resisted, stressing freedom in teaching and research. “We cannot permit political pressure by critics of unpopular ideas to block the free exchange of opinions,” said Farrell. “That would open the door to still stronger and broader restrictions.” The students are by all means in a position to analyze deviating theories and form their own opinion. “Knowledge grows, when opinions are debated,” according to Farrell.

Also James Fetzer, emeritus Professor of Philosophy of the University of Minnesota, considers the “surprise theory” nonsense. He thinks LIHOP or MIHOP depicts the truth better. For this he has been repeatedly attacked, but this doesn't scare him or other Americans off. “We will continue this,” said Fetzer, facing CNN. “Our role is to find out what really happened on September 11th.”

Debate in Switzerland

“I'm not surprised that after the difficulties in Iraq and in Afghanistan, 9/11 is now also debated,” says Kurt Spillman, Emeritus Professor of Security Policy at Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule (ETH) Zurich. “But one has to investigate carefully, as the LIHOP and MIHOP theories have an unbelievable explosive political force.”

Which theories the Swiss population prefers is yet unknown. “A broad debate on these theories is, to my knowledge, not yet public in Switzerland or being conducted on a grand scale. But they flare up here and there consistently,” according to Professor Karl Haltiner, director of the annually appearing compendium Sicherheit (“Security”) of the ETH's military academy.

That American intelligence had a hand in 9/11, Weltwoche Journalist Hanspeter Born considers a “monstrous suspicion,” as he writes in an article on the anti-Americanism that is also widely prevalent in Switzerland. “If it were so, then America would actually be a rotten, sick country to its very core.”

Philipp Sarasin, Professor of History at the University of Zurich, produced a book about the anthrax attacks that followed 9/11 in which he critically scrutinizes the politics of fear and advocates the thesis that these letter-attacks were possibly an “inside job.” 9/11, Sarasin states, remains fully unexplained: “Which of the three 9/11 theories is true must be further investigated by historians. But already today it can be said that the official version - we could never have imagined that we would be attacked by civilian aircraft – is at least in one point provably false: such attacks have been taken into consideration as a possibility for years; in November 2000 an attack on the Pentagon by civilian aircraft was even practiced on a large model building.”

World Trade Center 7 (WTC 7) is among the many complicated factual matters the three theories dispute. It is little known that on September 11th in New York not two skyscrapers collapsed – WTC 1 and WTC 2, the familiar “Twin Towers” - but three. The third building was the 170 meter tall WTC 7 that collapsed in on itself in seven seconds at 5:20pm.

Mistrust Due to WTC 7

In a May 2006 Zogby poll 43% of Americans revealed they had never heard anything about WTC 7. This was largely because only the twin towers were shown repeatedly on television. An unsettled 42% declared they believed the US government and the 9/11 investigation would conceal something.

“Americans have been poorly and one-sidedly informed about 9/11, first and foremost the 'surprise theory' has been disseminated through every channel,” according to Professor Albert Stahel of the University of Zurich. “Now that is taking its toll. Alternative media have launched a counter-attack, spreading LIHOP and MIHOP theories. Who wins will only be shown in the future. The mistrust of government is great.”

“There is a problem with WTC 7,” explained the actor Charlie Sheen, known for his rolls in Platoon and Wall Street. “And if there is a problem with WTC 7, then there is a problem with the entire 9/11 story,” Sheen said on the radio in March 2006. WTC 7 could not have been brought to a collapse by an airplane, as it was never in fact hit by an airplane. It could also not have been broken down by an earthquake or by the collapse of the twin towers, because almost seven hours passed between the collapse of the twin towers and WTC 7. Possible causes are said to be only fire or demolition.

In fact there was a small fire in WTC 7. But Sheen doubts that this fire caused the collapse of WTC 7. Anyone who believes that “needs psychiatric evaluation,” says Sheen. A demolition requires multiple days of preparation. It was hardly Osama bin Laden and his helpers, as they were never accused of it. Therefore only MIHOP remains.

Sheen's statements led to a fierce debate. “How can any rational person believe that our government attacked our own people?”, asked a CNN viewer via e-mail. Another opined: “This is a very important issue that must be discussed by the general public. It is our patriotic duty to find out why and how 9/11 could have occurred.”

Sheen, supported by Hollywood star Sharon Stone, stuck to his question: “I am simply an upstanding American citizen who pays taxes, loves his country, and who resists the propagation of such great nonsense over such obvious truths.”

If one searches in the 566-page long Kean Report for WTC 7 and the cause of its collapse, one will be disappointed. WTC 7 is not mentioned once in the official report on 9/11. Theology professor David Ray Griffin sharply criticized this “omission and distortion” and published a book on the many deficiencies of the Kean Report which has received much attention. He writes: “The 9/11 Commission bypasses another embarrassing problem – the explanation of how WTC 7 could collapse in practically free-fall – as it simply does not mention the collapse of the building.”

“If the official and final investigation of September 11th only speaks of the collapse of two skyscrapers, while in fact and truth three skyscrapers collapsed in Manhattan, then it is difficult to classify the Kean Report as a solid historical source for the monumental incident that is 9/11,” said history professor Georg Kreis of the University of Basel. “Only the fewest know of these details, but they are alarming.”

Fire or Demolition?

Peter Forster, President of the Swiss federal Konsultativkommission für innere Sicherheit (Consultative Commission for Interior Security), emphasizes that it is also very important for Switzerland to know if the “war against terrorism” is a subterfuge for capturing energy resources. “The debate about WTC 7 one has to keep an eye on, certainly. But the LIHOP and MIHOP theories are very explosive, that would be enormous.”

In the US, FEMA produced an interim report in May 2002 explaining that WTC was a completely custom building. The Pentagon, the CIA and the US Secret Service had rented portions of the building. In the basement were large diesel generators to supply the building with energy during emergencies. It was “presently still unknown,” according to the conclusion of FEMA, “how the fire could have caused the collapse of the building.” The New York Times commented that WTC 7 was the “great secret” of the attacks, because until that day in the US a building made of steel and concrete had never collapsed due to fire.

“We simply don't know what exactly happened in WTC 7,” said Mario Fontana, sitting Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction at ETH-Zurich. At conferences of structural analysis experts one has discovered only very little on the collapse of WTC 7. It is at least thinkable that a long, on-going fire could have caused the collapse of the building, according to Fontana.

FEMA forwarded the WTC 7 file to the government's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) . Whereupon unsettled Americans and journalists called and wanted to know from NIST why WTC 7 collapsed. “I don't understand this fascination people have with WTC 7,” retorted NIST speaker Michael Newman in March 2006.

“In my opinion the building WTC 7 was, with great probability, professionally demolished,” says Hugo Bachmann, Emeritus ETH-Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction. And also Jörg Schneider, likewise emeritus ETH-Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction, interprets the few available video recordings as evidence that “the building WTC 7 was with great probability demolished.”

The owner of WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7, Larry Silverstein, reminisced on US television one year after the attacks in September 2002 about the collapse of WTC 7. The fire department informed him that there was a fire in the building. After that Silverstein recounted his own statements: “Perhaps it's best if we pull it.” “And so they decided to pull it, and we watched as the building came down.” Later Silverstein defended himself, by “pull it” he meant “evacuate the firefighters.” 9/11 critics like US millionaire Jimmy Walter point out that this makes no sense, “it” would have to refer to a thing.

Steel Beams in Asia

To find out whether fire or demolition led to the collapse of WTC 7, one would have had to examine the steel beams. But they're gone. “Over 80% of the WTC steel has already been sold, most, if not all, before the scientists and criminologists could examine it,” protested Anthony Weiner, US Representative from New York, in March 2002 in the US Congress. The steel was recycled in Asia. Professor Frederick Mowrer of the University of Maryland's Fire Protection Engineering Department, who, together with other experts, had to investigate the collapse of the WTC buildings, criticized this action sharply: “I find the speed with which important evidence was taken away and recycled alarming.”

* Daniele Ganser is a historian at the University of Zurich. His book “NATO's Secret Armies” explores staged terrorism in the Cold War. He contributed a chapter to a new collection by David Ray Griffin (“9/11 and American Empire: Academics Speak Out”).



video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=2507263054811686324

Steel Beams in Asia To find out whether fire or demolition led to the collapse of WTC 7, one would have had to examine the steel beams. But they're gone. “Over 80% of the WTC steel has already been sold, most, if not all, before the scientists and criminologists could examine it,” protested Anthony Weiner, US Representative from New York, in March 2002 in the US Congress. The steel was recycled in Asia. Professor Frederick Mowrer of the University of Maryland's Fire Protection Engineering Department, who, together with other experts, had to investigate the collapse of the WTC buildings, criticized this action sharply: “I find the speed with which important evidence was taken away and recycled alarming.”

So sorry but your source does NOT know what he's talking about.

The collapse of New York City’s World Trade Center structures following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, was the worst building disaster in recorded history, killing some 2,800 people. More than 350 fire and emergency responders were among those killed, the largest loss of life for this group in a single incident. In response to the WTC tragedy, the National Institute of Standards and Technology conducted a 3-year building and fire safety investigation to study the factors contributing to the probable cause (or causes) of post-impact collapse of the WTC Towers (WTC 1 and 2) and WTC 7; expanded its research in areas of high-priority need such as prevention of progressive collapse, fire resistance design and retrofit of structures, and fire resistive coatings for structural steel; and is reaching out to the building and fire safety communities to pave the way for timely, expedited considerations of recommendations stemmng from the investigation.

If 3 years was not a long enough investigation, then what is. Please noptice the "s" on the end of "structures". That would include WTC7. Read it and weep.

Link

Barrett, Fetzer and BBC Reheat 9/11 Truth to a Wisconsin-wide Boil

badgerherald.com/oped/2006/10/02/fractured_fairy_tale.php

Having won his initial battles with rightwing censors in the Wisconsin legislature, 9/11 truth champion Kevin Barrett continues to stoke illuminating controversey at the university and in the local press. This Sunday Kevin and Scholars for 9/11 Truth colleague James Fetzer again convulsed the UW campus under the poetic auspices of the UW folklore department. The Badger Herald, \"the largest fully independent daily campus newspaper in the nation,\" seems clearly torn by the issue, running sympathetic coverage of the event as their lead story today, but simultaneously attacking it in a sniffy editorial which we include at the end. UW\'s other campus rag, The Daily Cardinal, was even cuter, running Barrett\'s photo on the front page with just a terse caption, \"UW-Madison lecturer Kevin Barrett delivers a seminar discussing Sept. 11, 2001 Sunday in Social Sciences. The lecture was taped by the British Broadcasting Corporation.\" Kevin\'s truth-telling again took on statewide implications when the lawmakers campaigning for his dismissal heard about the BBC taping and renewed their howl that Barrett be silenced and fired.


-----------------------
badgerherald.com/news/2006/10/02/barrett_fetzer_disc.php

University of Wisconsin lecturer Kevin Barrett and University of Minnesota-Duluth professor James Fetzer took time Sunday afternoon to explain their Sept. 11 theory that has been the source of recent widespread media attention and legislative debate.

Barrett and Fetzer belong to a group called Scholars for 9/11 Truth, whose members believe the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated by the Bush administration. The duo presented pictures, videos and sound bites as evidence throughout their lecture to support their point of view.

\"If our research is correct,\" Fetzer said, \"The American government has been practicing terrorism on the American people.\"

The UW folklore department sponsored the lecture, which attracted several media outlets. Director of the UW folklore program Jim Leary said he originally felt like he went out on a limb sponsoring Barrett and Fetzer\'s lecture, but is ultimately happy with his decision.

Leary said he \"got some heat\" from state Rep. Steve Nass, R-Whitewater, and even went so far as to challenge Nass\' legislative aide to a fight.

However, Leary said Barrett and Fetzer\'s lecture was interesting from a folklorist\'s point of view.

\"Any time you have governments or corporations who are putting out official stories, there are also unofficial commentaries that circulate through jokes and rumors,\" Leary said. \"And so folklorists are interested in how people use their cultural resources to communicate ideas.\"

Barrett shared Leary\'s sentiments on the study of folklore, and said the \"insider-outsider split\" between people who believe the information in the 9/11 Commission Report and those who challenge it could be solved with a \"couple of stiff drinks\" to get people talking.

\"Nowhere is there a more significant gap between official and unofficial business than the contemporary debates over 9/11,\" Barrett said.

Fetzer showed play-by-play video of the World Trade Center being hit by airliners followed by statistics about the time it took the buildings to collapse. According to Fetzer, the American government attributes the collapse of the two towers to burning jet fuel that melted the steel uprights of the buildings, along with a fireball that fell down the elevator shaft to cause sub-basement damage.

Fetzer called the government\'s explanation \"impossible\" because the buildings did not burn long enough or hot enough to melt steel. He further suggested the 110-story buildings fell because of an explosion the Bush administration knew about rather than an unforeseen terrorist attack.

\"Realize now,\" Fetzer said, \"This is not a collapse; these buildings are blowing up from the top down.\"

Fetzer also presented and defended the lecturers\' belief that the Pentagon was not hit by a Boeing 757 as the Bush administration reported, but rather blown up by another form of explosive, such as bombs in adjacent garbage cans or a missile fired by an A3 Sky Warrior, a smaller Navy plane.

\"It is easy to say they lied,\" Fetzer said. \"It is far more demanding to figure out what actually happened.\"

The two lecturers referred to the 9/11 attacks as \"a farce,\" and Barrett said people who question the validity of the 9/11 Commission Report and support beliefs of Scholars for 9/11 Truth are bound together by a communal sense of danger.

\"We worry about further false flag attacks to institutionalize non-institutional thinkers,\" he said.

Barrett said 9/11 is a sacred myth for many Americans, defining a myth as \"a narrative that is told as true, but at its core is a debated belief.\"

After listening to the lecture sponsored by his department Leary said he entered the room as a skeptic with questions about the truth behind the attacks, but left with his eyes opened to some possibilities.

\"I can\'t say I am completely convinced,\" Leary said. \"I think these things are so important that even if people are ultimately wrong, you have to have this discussion.\"



--------------------------------------------

Major General Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army (ret) - Commanding General of the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM). Former head of Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence.

Video: “One of my experiences in the Army was being in charge of the Army’s Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence during the Cold War. I measured pieces of Soviet equipment from photographs. It was my job. I look at the hole in the Pentagon and I look at the size of an airplane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon. And I said, ‘The plane does not fit in that hole’. So what did hit the Pentagon? What hit it? Where is it? What\'s going on?”

www.undersiegemovie.com/media/stubblebine.wmv

Fetzer called the government\'s explanation \"impossible\" because the buildings did not burn long enough or hot enough to melt steel. He further suggested the 110-story buildings fell because of an explosion the Bush administration knew about rather than an unforeseen terrorist attack.

The physics of the burning and subsequent falling of the WTC, do NOT support this theory either. The steel did NOT melt. It did get red hot. Which the building burned hot enough and long enough to do. Once steel gets red hot....it can very easily be bent. Once it can bend, the steel is no longer capable of holding "any" load. Hence the fall. If you're going to talk about this subject at least know what you're talking about. And quit wearing that tin-foil hat!

One more thing....does this professor hold an engineering degree? NO he does NOT! So he should just shut up since he is very obviously not a engineer of any type, including structural engineer! Which whether or not you want to admit it, would be "required" to make that kind of judgement call. But then what would you expect from someone that has appeared on the Jerry Springer Show or Air America?

From Wikipedia

James H. Fetzer was born in Pasadena, California in 1940 and attended South Pasadena High School where he received The Carver Award for leadership. After completing high school, he went on to study philosophy at Princeton University and graduated magna cum laude in 1962. After four years as a commissioned officer in the Marine Corps, he resigned his commission as a Captain to begin graduate work at Indiana University. In 1970 he completed his Ph.D. in the history and philosophy of science. Many of Fetzer's claims are spurious, unsubstantiated speculations

Link

Michael Berger, Media Coordinator for 911Truth.org, was invited to debate Matthew Rothschild, editor of The Progressive Magazine, Sept 28, from 11am to 1pm Mountain Time, on the Dino Costa show, www.dinocosta.com.

The debate was streamed live on dinocosta.com/listenlive. Plus 87% of Colorado also received the show on local stations.

The Audio is available for download here:

part1: www.911truth.org/911truthmedia/Audio/Dino_Costa-9-28-06-hour_1.mp3
part2: www.911truth.org/911truthmedia/Audio/Dino_Costa-9-28-06-hour_2.mp3

Michael Berger is also director of the new movie, Improbable Collapse, co-written with Rebecca Cerese, award-winning documentary filmmaker (February 1: The Story of the Greensboro Four). The movie addresses the demolition of the towers on 9/11, with the concurrent demolition of our Republic.

Matthew Rothschild recently authored Enough of the 9/11 Conspiracies, Already, published on September 11, 2006 at the Progressive.org.

Dino Costa introduces Mr. Rothschild as believing, \"any talk about a coverup are [sic] wrong and irresponsible.\"

------------------------------

The following letter was sent by Eric Harrington, a physicist who lives in Ojai, CA, to Vincent Carroll at the Rocky Mountain News...

Dear Mr. Carrol,

I am responding to your article slandering the legitimate questions posed by numerous scientists, engineers, pilots, even international (often Republican) politicians regarding the flaws in the \"official account\" of 9/11.

\"Let us dip our toe again into\" a couple of the bogus rebuffs posed by the \"experts\" at Popular Mechanics.

Pop Mech- \"As the fires blazed and the temperatures rose within the buildings, NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) believes, the remaining core columns (those not severed by the planes during impact) softened and buckled, transferring most of the load to the building\'s outer structural columns. The floors . . . began to sag from the heat, pulling those columns inward and adding to the burden on the outer columns.\"

Debunking: For anyone who as actually watched the WTC video\'s carefully, you will note that the south tower was struck near the corner, almost insuring it sustained NO damage to the central core columns. It also had by far the largest fireball produced, indicating a substantially larger portion of the fuel was burned in the initial impact and for the most part outside the building. Oddly, it was the south tower which fell first after burning for only 55 minutes, and at a point when the fires had greatly diminished.

In addition, as given by Kevin Ryan who was responsible for the thermal testing of the WTC Steel when it was certified, the samples tested for the WTC were certified to withstand a temperature of 2,000 deg for 6 hours without failing their rated load characteristics. And that is without insulation. The WTC beams were insulated. Jet fuel burns at only 1200-1300 degrees with an ideal oxygen mixture, something not indicated by the black smoke that issued from the fires. There was nothing contained within the buildings that could have raised this figure, and those that use the example of ancient furnaces that tempered steel as a argument, again, do not understand the principles involved. I suggest that if you want the truth, and wish to actually act like a journalist for a change, you broach this subject with a real expert, Mr. Ryan. I can put you in touch with him upon request.

But more important than the issue of the likelihood of the steel failure, is the FACT (not conjecture) that ALL THREE buildings collapsed into their own footprint at FREEFALL SPEED (i.e. the unimpeded acceleration of gravity). That means, drop a rock off the roof, at the moment of collapse, and the roof would hit the ground at the same time as the rock. This implies, (regardless of what happened at the fire zone) that the when the top section of the building began to fall it managed to plow through 70-80 odd floors of pristine and undamaged steel -- literally thousands of huge beams and concrete pads-- with absolutely NO RESISTANCE (i.e.. slowing of the rate of fall) WHATSOEVER. And this sir, is physically impossible and verging on the absurd, and I (a physicist), and anyone with a shred of knowledge of engineering, physics, or just plain common sense can understand that.

And there is a $1,000,000.00 cash challenge (to date unanswered) to anyone that can suggest a legitimate solution to this nagging little problem. And lastly, if the official pancake theory is correct, it lends no explanation whatsoever for why the central core of 47 HUGE beams, all connected together at numerous levels, would not be left standing like a spire as the floor connectors failed and the floors pancaked symmetrically around them. The less resistance to this collapse scenario exhibited by the building\'s design, the more likely the central core would remain virtually untouched. It is a paradox.

Watch the videos. Study the evidence. Talk to the experts and the scientists who simply can no longer tolerate an explanation so at odds with the physical evidence and the physical principles of the universe. And these experts I refer to are ready and willing to debate these issues with ANYONE you and your ilk choose, ANYTIME and ANYWHERE, as long as it can be videotaped for posterity.

I will not even get into the dozens of other patently absurd explanations that Popular Mechanics and other government shills and publicity hacks have posed to make the painfully obvious physical evidence at both the WTC and Pentagon fit the official fairy tale, while suppressing the numerous eyewitness accounts that disagree, but suffice to say that when \"journalists\" (and I use that term EXTREMELY loosely with you), continue to disparage those who simply demand the truth, and not propaganda; who examine the evidence with open minds and simply request that the investigation of this murder of 3,000 innocents be pursued with the same objectivity and forensic vigor that a common mugging would be given; they only contribute to the ignorance pervasive and growing in this country, reduce the once noble journalistic trade to nothing more than corporate propaganda machines, and deface the sacrifice of the 3000 who were murdered.

As for your contemptuous tone of which I have tried to mimic in this reply, to quote Shakespeare, \"Me thinks thou dost protest too much.\"

Sincerely,

Eric Harrington
Ojai, Ca


--------------------------------

Barbara Honegger - Senior Military Affairs Journalist at the Naval Postgraduate School (1995 - current), the Navy’s advanced science, technology and national security affairs university. Honegger served as Special Assistant to the Assistant to the President and White House Policy Analyst (1981-83)

Essay: “The US military, not al Qaeda, had the access to plant explosives inside its own most heavily defended world headquarters, the Pentagon. The US military, not al Qaeda, had the access to plant the explosives Willy Rodriguez heard and felt go off deep in the sub−basement of the World Trade Center. The US military, not al Qaeda, had the sustained access weeks before 9/11 to also plant controlled demolition charges throughout the superstructures of WTC 1 and WTC2, and in WTC7, which brought down all three buildings on 9/11. The US military, not al Qaeda, had access to the sulfur−enhanced military−grade thermite (thermate) detected in the sub−basement levels of the WTC needed to melt the steel found molten there weeks later. The US military, not al Qaeda, would have chosen the least populated and most reinforced section of the Pentagon−−its newly upgraded west wedge−to strike, minimizing casualties. Real terrorists would have maximized them. A US military plane, not one piloted by al Qaeda, performed the highly skilled, high−speed 270−degree dive towards the Pentagon that Air Traffic Controllers on 9/11 were sure was a military plane as they watched it on their screens. Only a military aircraft, not a civilian plane flown by al Qaeda, would have given off the \"Friendly\" signal needed to disable the Pentagon’s anti−aircraft missile batteries as it approached the building. Only the US military, not al Qaeda, had the ability to break all of its Standard Operating Procedures to paralyze its own emergency response system.”

blog.lege.net/content/Seven_Hours_in_September.pdf

Debunking: For anyone who as actually watched the WTC video\'s carefully, you will note that the south tower was struck near the corner, almost insuring it sustained NO damage to the central core columns. It also had by far the largest fireball produced, indicating a substantially larger portion of the fuel was burned in the initial impact and for the most part outside the building. Oddly, it was the south tower which fell first after burning for only 55 minutes, and at a point when the fires had greatly diminished.

This is so much BS! Does this clown really "think" (that's a stretch) that a plane moving @ 500 m.p.h. merely ran into the corner of a building and stopped exactly at point of impact? Contrary to his belief, I'm reasonably sure the plane or parts there of continued on to the core, since once past the outer edge of the building there wouldn't be much to impede it's progress. Once again he is "not" an engineer of any sort...structural or aeronautical. And that as such what he puts out is merely his opinion and is not a fact.

Barbara Honegger - Senior Military Affairs Journalist at the Naval Postgraduate School (1995 - current), the Navy’s advanced science, technology and national security affairs university. Honegger served as Special Assistant to the Assistant to the President and White House Policy Analyst (1981-83)

And all of this qualifies her to do what exactly?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_z8VMKL1ww

The video clip above is an excerpt from a Dutch television program called, Zembla investigates 9/11 theories. It can be watched in its entirety at this link:

cgi.omroep.nl/cgi-bin/streams?/tv/vara/zembla/bb.20060911.asf


Here's some background information about Danny Jowenko's statments in Zembla investigates 9/11 theories:

ImplosionWorld.com lists Danny Jowenko as being a contributor to their production of "A History of Structural Demolition in America". Scroll down to "Interviews and conversations with the following licensed blasters and associates":
Link: www.implosionworld.com/history4.htm

Jowenko owns a demolition firm called, Jowenko Exposieve Demolitie B.V.. Information about his company's qualifications can be found posted on their website:
Link: www.jowenko.com/index.php/1,3,2

Here's another video clip, from Dutch TV's Zembla investigates 9/11 theories, of Danny Jowenko performing controlled demolition:
video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-8443392152386421421&hl=en-CA


Building 7 Demolition Quotes:

Reporter Al Jones: "People started to run away from the scene [WTC7] and I turned in time to see what looked like a skyscraper implosion -- looked like it had been done by a demolition crew -- the whole thing just collapsing down on itself and another big huge plume of gray and white smoke shooting up into the air and then more of the smoke billowing up the street here... so that’s number one, number two, and now number seven that have come down from this explosion."

Live 9-11 Report from 1010 WINS NYC News Radio, presented in the documentary "911 Eyewitness" (Forward to 28:25)
Video: video.google.com/videoplay?docid=65460757734339444&q=911+eyewitness

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Emergency worker: "We were watching the building [WTC7] actually ‘cause it was on fire… the bottom floors of the building were on fire and… we heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder… turned around -- we were shocked to see that the building was ah well it looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building and the windows all busted out… it was horrifying… about a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that… we saw the building crash down all the way to the ground… we were in shock."

Live 9-11 Report from 1010 WINS NYC News Radio, presented in the documentary "911 Eyewitness" (Forward to 31:30)
Video: video.google.com/videoplay?docid=65460757734339444&q=911+eyewitness

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-Guns & Butter Radio interview - April 27th 2005:
Hosted by Bonnie Falkner
Guest: Indira Singh (Ground Zero Emergency Worker)

Bonnie: How long did you work as an emergency medical technician and exactly what is it that you were doing (at ground zero)?

Indira: ...when I got there we were setting up triage sites (at ground zero), close, very close to the area. The triage site that I was setting up was behind, well, to the east of Building 7 where Building 7 came down...
...we were setting up triages as close to the pile as possible… so what we were doing was setting up different kinds of stations… IV stations, cardiac stations, wound stations, burn stations ...just trying to have an organized space. What happened with that particular triage site is that pretty soon afternoon, after mid-day on 9/11 we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down... I do believe that they brought Building 7 down... By noon or one o'clock they told us we had to move from that triage site up to Pace University a little further away because Building 7 was going to come down or being brought down.

Bonnie: Did they actually use the word brought down and who was it that was telling you this?

Indira: The fire department... the fire department and they did use the word "we're going to have to bring it down."

Excerpt from above is heard approximately ten minutes into the interview.
Audio: www.gunsandbutter.net/archives.php?si=78


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Columbia Journalism Review – May/June 2003, by Thomas Franklin

Excerpt from an article written by award winning photographer, Thomas Franklin, who snapped the world famous photo of firemen raising the American flag at ground zero. In the article Franklin explains that all of ground zero was evacuated less than an hour before WTC 7 was demolished at approximately 5:20 pm on 9/11:

"Much of what happened to me on September 11 is a blur, but this moment I clearly remember: It was 4:45 p.m., and all the firemen and rescue workers were evacuating Ground Zero after word came that a third building -- WTC 7 -- was ready to fall. I had only a few frames left, and an entire day's worth of pictures to develop, so I prepared to head back to New Jersey."

Article: archives.cjr.org/year/02/2/franklin.asp


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CBS News Anchor, Dan Rather, makes comments after Building 7 falls down:

“Amazing, incredible pick your word. For the third time today, it’s reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down.”
Video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BcquyD_DcQ

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WTC lease holder Larry Silverstein's comments about Building 7 in the PBS documentary, America Rebuilds (2002):

“I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.”

Video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=CahEva8zQas


In the same documentary, America Rebuilds, a clean up worker at ground zero uses the term "pull" when preparing for the controlled demolition of Building 6: (Use of the word “pull” as slang for “demolish”)

Unidentified Construction Worker: "Hello? Oh, we're getting ready to pull building six."

Luis Mendes, NYC Dept of Design and Construction: "We had to be very careful how we demolished building six. We were worried about the building six coming down and then damaging the slurry walls, so we wanted that particular building to fall within a certain area.”

Video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNEoiOP76QQ


Larry Silverstein Answers WTC Building 7 Charges: Says "pull it" meant to evacuate firefighters, but there were no firefighters in the building:

Article: www.informationliberation.com/index.php?id=4718

#40 by interview w/ Controlled Demo Expert Danny Jowenko (Anonymous user) Wed, October 04, 2006 10:49 PM

Once again not one structural or areonautical engineer! Just a big bunch of "I think I know it all's"!

before the Ist gulf war Iraq had a huge debt from its war with Iran. saddam fought the Shia on behalf of saudi and Kuwait (Sunni) with open backing from US. Drop of $1 per gallon was costing Iraq $1 billion in revenue per year. A week before Iraq invasion of Kuwait US officials told Saddam that they donot have any desire to interfere in Arab-Arab conflict.
Bush sr. liberated kuwait at the cost of weakening Saddam which increase the power of iran. After the debacle of USSR many hundrerds nuclear unemployed technicians were hired by Iran. In 1990's US was happy to control Iraq, Iran had free run for its nuclear ambition.
Now Iran enemies are at each throat (US-Iraq). in 1999 Sunni Taliban and Iran were at loggerhead and fight bewteen them were seen imminent. 9/11 happened. Now iran had to supply weapons to Taliban to keep US busy in Afghanistan. It is ironical that Taliban came into being with blessing from US friends ISI and oil companies. The shortest way of centeral Asia gas is through Iran or Afganistan. Iran was out question. To secure Afghanistan from warlord a new force was needed. So Taliban came into beinf. It is interesting that students from Islamic schools from Pakistan one day decided to fight and defeated the battle harden Mujahideen fighters. teh same fighters who few years back had defeated the mighty USSR forces.
In West asia everyone from where Hizbollah forces got their training and weapons and tons of us $$$. In iraq it had give money and weapon to resistance and Mehdi army to do its work.
Ancient chiense writer Sun Tzu wrote that war should be last resort. while Iran seems to be following the ancient wisdom the US is yet to recover from 9/11 loss.

before the Ist gulf war Iraq had a huge debt from its war with Iran. saddam fought the Shia on behalf of saudi and Kuwait (Sunni) with open backing from US. Drop of $1 per gallon was costing Iraq $1 billion in revenue per year. A week before Iraq invasion of Kuwait US officials told Saddam that they donot have any desire to interfere in Arab-Arab conflict.
Bush sr. liberated kuwait at the cost of weakening Saddam which increase the power of iran. After the debacle of USSR many hundrerds nuclear unemployed technicians were hired by Iran. In 1990's US was happy to control Iraq, Iran had free run for its nuclear ambition.
Now Iran enemies are at each throat (US-Iraq). in 1999 Sunni Taliban and Iran were at loggerhead and fight bewteen them were seen imminent. 9/11 happened. Now iran had to supply weapons to Taliban to keep US busy in Afghanistan. It is ironical that Taliban came into being with blessing from US friends ISI and oil companies. The shortest way of centeral Asia gas is through Iran or Afganistan. Iran was out question. To secure Afghanistan from warlord a new force was needed. So Taliban came into beinf. It is interesting that students from Islamic schools from Pakistan one day decided to fight and defeated the battle harden Mujahideen fighters. teh same fighters who few years back had defeated the mighty USSR forces.
In West asia everyone from where Hizbollah forces got their training and weapons and tons of us $$$. In iraq it had give money and weapon to resistance and Mehdi army to do its work.
Ancient chiense writer Sun Tzu wrote that war should be last resort. while Iran seems to be following the ancient wisdom the US is yet to recover from 9/11 loss.

The photographs attached in this non-profit distribution are for securing volatile, important evidence on 9/11 for discussion and education. Author hereby grants full permission to reproduce the drawing 'The Bombs in the WTC' and his writings. You are encouraged to mail, publish and mass produce these documents or your enhanced versions of them. Due to concerns for his personal safety, the author has chosen to remain anonymous.

* The 9/11 Operation: A Summary
* The Bombs in the WTC
* The Development of Bomb Technology Related to the 9/11 Operation
* Observations Suggesting the Use of Small Hydrogen Bombs
* View of a Military Expert: Why the Towers of the World Trade Center Collapsed

link: www.serendipity.li/wot/finn/military.htm

--------------------------------------------------

FBI inspector general’s report: more evidence of government complicity in 9/11 attacks
15 June 2005

A report released June 9 by the FBI’s Office of the Inspector General raises new questions about the role of the US government in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The internal FBI study provides several important revelations about how US intelligence agencies ignored and even suppressed warnings in the period leading up to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon that killed nearly 3,000 people.

Press accounts published within hours of the report’s release gave a very distorted picture of the document, which runs to more than 400 pages. No follow-up reports, based on a thorough study of the text, have yet appeared in the mass media.

The initial media commentary invariably voiced the now-standard claim that the FBI and CIA were guilty of a “failure to connect the dots,” due to bureaucratic lethargy, individual incompetence, inter-agency rivalries, even poorly performing software systems. This presentation of events is utterly unserious.

The US intelligence apparatus is the most powerful instrument for spying in the world, not a group of Keystone Cops. If it ignored warnings and suppressed information, a legitimate presumption is that it did so willfully. The question must be posed: did one or more agencies or high-level officials provide protection for known Al Qaeda associates who ultimately participated in the hijack-bombings?

Exactly who knew what, and at what level of the government, is not yet clear. But the political benefits of 9/11 for the Bush administration are undeniable. It used the terrorist attacks as a lever to swing American public opinion behind a major shift in policy, both foreign and domestic. Without 9/11, it would have been politically impossible for the government to embark on military interventions in Central Asia and the Middle East and launch an unprecedented attack on civil liberties at home.

link: www.wsws.org/articles/2005/jun2005/fbi-j15.shtml


---------------------------------------------------------


WTC Fire video: iwilltryit.com/wtcfire1.htm

I'm beginning to think loons attract to each other.