Time for the true story about 9/11

[reprehensor]

Time for the true story about 9/11

by Matthew Hine, M.D., M.P.H.

The radical Bush Doctrine in foreign policy is founded on the official story of 9/11. The administration used our fear of terrorism to sway public opinion and justify its actions. We are slowly awakening to how the Bush administration manipulated our support for its preemptive invasion of Iraq, but most are still asleep.

According to a survey done by Stars and Stripes, 85% of our troops believe they are in Iraq because of Saddam Hussein's involvement in the attacks of 9/11/01. Much of the public believes the report of the 9/11 Commission provided a correct account of the events of that day. These beliefs are based on a misunderstanding of the facts.

Saddam Hussein was not connected to the 9/11 attacks, and the 9/11 Commission’s report is full of omissions and distortions. One of the largest is that it did not mention Building 7. This building was not hit by an aircraft, but it crumbled just the same. Evidence shows that Building 7 was demolished by pre-positioned explosives.

The Presidential 9/11 Commission report was more political exculpation than documentation of truth. It was subtitled “Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.” They dismissed anything not fitting into that preconceived paradigm. There was no mention of Building 7 or the anthrax attacks.

more@link

[mdmc]

1. kick

for the truth.

[patdem]

2. Had to click on this before it goes into the dungeon of Sept 11

will read the link, thanks!

[Warren Stupidity]

3. we don't want michelle malkin to embarass DU

by finding posters here who question the Official Story about 9/11, do we?

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

4. K&R! eom

[Sperk]

5. future generations will NOT believe the official lie....they won't have

had the benefits of "shock and awe" to muddle their critical thinking abilities.

[musette_sf]

6. k&r!! nt

[European Socialist]

7. Good post--Every American needs to know about WTC#7 and if...

we had a fair M$M they would.

[toymachines]

8. If DU relegates this to the dungeon...

then they are participating in the BIG lie. K&R

[file83]

12. At least it "slipped through" - 17 votes before...

...the Ministry of Truth "repositioned" it.

[soulcore]

9. K & R for truth and justice

Now, let's see how fast this gets censored and thrown in the 911 Dungeon and relegated to the bowels of this so-called progressive site.

On Edit: Too late, they moved it before I could even reply.

This is why I won't donate to DU.

Fucking bullshit is what this is.

[sabbat hunter]

16. if you dont like the site

if you hate the site, then why are you here? why dont you start up your own site?

[RedSock]

18. strawman

strawman alert!!

soulcore never said he hated DU.


****
This is why I won't donate to DU.
****

That is my reason too. I have donated in the past, but this site's policy on 9/11 is flat-out wrong imo.

When they change it and allow discussion of 9/11 in LBN and GD, I'll gladly open my wallet.


(I visit DU for the amazing collection of news headlines in LBN)

[Beam Me Up]

19. Same here RedSock

When are the administrators of DU going to learn that we are NOT going to be able to STOP these people from taking us down the bloody path to global war WITHOUT exposing 9/11 truth? Look at all the horrors that have been made public, and yet this administration and the interests that back it remain in power. WHY? The underlying answer is 9/11. They have created the MYTH that 9/11 was a terrorist attack against our nation. It is a LIE. 9/11 could NOT have happened without complicity from within our own military and government. At this point, although the details are debatable, there is sufficient forensic and circumstantial evidence to strongly suggest that this accusation is true. 3,000 American citizens were sacrificed to advance a domestic and foreign policy agenda. We do not live in a Democracy.

So, why isn't DU all over this? Especially given that quite often 9/11 posts in the GD get multiple Recs? Is it because Democratic strategy ALSO builds on and buys into the War on Terrorism (tm) MYTH? I think the answer is obvious.

Until this policy changes, I will not donate to DU and I will only donate to individual Democrats who I believe know the truth and are working to expose it. Conyers, Kucinich, McKenny, and a few others.

[mirandapriestly]

20. some think the debunkers work for the government

never mind I don't want to get tombstoned.

[sabbat hunter]

25. sounds like hatred to me

"Edited on Sun Mar-12-06 01:27 PM by soulcore
Now, let's see how fast this gets censored and thrown in the 911 Dungeon and relegated to the bowels of this so-called progressive site.

On Edit: Too late, they moved it before I could even reply.

This is why I won't donate to DU.

Fucking bullshit is what this is."

calling a so called progressive site. and slamming the DU. sounds like he doenst like it very much to me. perhaps i infer too much, but it certainly is no straw man.

[petgoat]

51. It certainly WAS a straw man

The poster called the policy of moving 9/11 posts to the dungeon "bullshit".

You then mischaracterized this as hating DU, and invited the poster to leave.

[sabbat hunter]

54. read what i said again

talk about a straw man! looks like no one reads fully what i read or what the poster i was refering to said.

he calls the site a "so called progressive site"

does that sound like someone who likes DU?

[petgoat]

55. Sounds like someone who is frustrated with it. nt

[sabbat hunter]

56. ill buy that

i can buy that he is fustrated with it. :)

[petgoat]

57. Well my nt remark was weaseley--you're right I missed

the "so-called" dig. :)

Peace and Love.

[rman]

61. As to some, critisizing * = hatred of America. nt

Typical RW response: skip even denying any accusations, and go for the "why do you hate"-line right away.

[sabbat hunter]

62. excuse me

talk about baseless accusations. i am about as progressive as they come. but the person in question called the site "so called progressive" doenst sound like he really likes the site does he? and considering he is fairly new here one wonders why he stays here on this site. while he is free (to the point of following the DU rules) of criticizing it. or he can start his own site.

there is nothing keeping him on this site if he doenst like it. and apparently he doenst think DU is a progressive site.

[Old and In the Way]

10. Until we have a complete and independent investigation into

why 9/11 occurred, we really are no better prepared for another attack. Really, what has changed with those in control of our government?

[Tuesday_Morning]

11. R if I could

still can K tho

[wakemewhenitsover]

13. Could someone explain why I can't recommend this?

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Twist_U_Up]

65. kick

[glitch]

14. So you can't recommend threads in this forum. That's remarkable.nt

[mirandapriestly]

21. well, we don't want anyone to actually SEE 911 posts.nt

[psychopomp]

45. Unbelievable, isn't it?

Don't mention to anybody that many of the people alleged to have hijacked those planes are STILL ALIVE.

http://911truth.tripod.com/hijackers.html

[mdmc]

17. basement tapes

[Laelth]

22. Agreed.

Controlled demolitions. MIHOP. It's the only explanation that fits the evidence. It's the only explanation that jibes with the laws of physics.

-Laelth

[wakemewhenitsover]

23. I'm confused. Why can't this be recommended?

[Maven]

24. Good article, but

not very comprehensive--i.e., not a good "primer" for the uninitiated.

I prefer Griffin's account here:

http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html

Well laid-out, comprehensive, and tinfoil-hat-free. Good link to send to those who haven't yet made the "jump" over to MIHOP.

Edit: Add my voice to the why-can't-we-recommend outcry.

[reprehensor]

26. Harvey...

I loved your work on the Carol Burnett show.

[theSaiGirl]

27. Harvey .....

When does buddy Tim Conway show up ?

[Maven]

29. Sadly, he's at Free Republic. n/t

[reprehensor]

30. Noooooooooooooooooooo - oooooooooooooooooooo

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

[Maven]

40. Yes!

It's twue, it's twue. :(

[Pooka Fey]

38. Thanks for posting this link. :-)

[Maven]

39. You're very welcome. :)

[autorank]

28. Reprehensor, thank you for the TRUTH...a rare commodity these days.

Tried to recommend it buddy but it said I couldn't. It's the thought that counts in the case. I'll do the deed later;)

[reprehensor]

31. Got buckets of what I think is the Truth about 911...

...here.

http://reprehensor.gnn.tv

Honestly, all I want is a real investigation, unhampered by Partisan bullshit.

[autorank]

36. Got it and it rocks! n/t

[pberq]

48. A real investigation! Yes!!

How simple, yet how seemingly impossible.

See "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions" by David Ray Griffin

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1566565847/104-9800366-5092719?v=glance&n=283155

[petgoat]

52. For a briefer treatment, see "The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie"

By Dr. Griffin here:

http://ny911truth.org/articles/571-page_lie-DRG.htm

39 outright lies, and 76 critical omissions.

[pberq]

53. Thanks for the link, petgoat.

[petgoat]

58. Print it out, copy it, leaflet it. nt

[corbett]

32. Loose Change Second Edition DVD Selling Briskly

If you haven't checked out the website, you owe it to yourself:

http://www.loosechange911.com

Excellent footage also may be dowloaded for free from

https://secure.reopen911.org/freedvd.php

[mom cat]

41. Thanks for the links. I had seen the first one several times. The

evidence has become too big to ignore.

[truckin]

33. I've asked this question a couple of times and no one has ever

responded, so I'll try again. If you believe the MIHOP theory, and that the * admin took down the towers so they could lead the country into war, why did they need to also take down Building 7? Wouldn't taking down the Twin Towers be enough to accomplish their goal and wouldn't taking down Building 7 only bring unneeded attention to them?

I ask this question not to stir the pot but to become more informed about this issue.

[mirandapriestly]

34. There is speculation

that since the Secret Service, the Department of Defense, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the "SEC", the Mayor's Office of Emergency Management, the "IRS", and the Central "CIA" had offices there that they may have been trying to destroy evidence relating to the planning of 9-11 and other things. Also, I have read that there was Enron information they wanted to cover up, too.
Actually, this is a really good question I don't know why it is not discussed more probably because there isn't enough information.
Other than destroying information, cover up, I don't remember hearing anything. If the answer could be discovered that would unlock a lot of 911 info, I think.

Interesting trivia - a rare 1933 golden double eagle coin (which sold for the highest ever recorded price at auction for a single coin) was housed at the wtc7 , but was moved to Fort Knox in July 2001 -how convenient!

[truckin]

46. Thanks. I do not know a lot about this topic but I do know that

there are a lot of unanaswered questions that we may never find out the real answers to.

[reprehensor]

35. More speculation...

This is theorizing by 9/11 researcher Eric Hufschmid;

Hufschmid suggests that the "suicide pilots" didn't actually fly the planes to their targets, the planes were following a homing beacon. The homing devices and other facilitating devices in WTC7 had to be destroyed.

Some suggest that WTC7 fell from collateral damage resulting from debris from the Tower collapses and fire.

What does this look like to you?



Apparently there will be a new study on the "collapse" of WTC7 later this year.

[truckin]

47. Having no knowledge of thermal or structural engineering it

would be impossible for me to make any judgement of what caused the collapse of building 7. It is interesting, though, how little press it received and how few people are aware of this event.

[rman]

60. FEMA also doesn't know

"...the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurence"

FEMA
World Trade Center Building Performance Study
http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm (pdfs)
Chapter 5
5.7 Observations and Findings

"This office building was built over an electrical substation and a power plant, comparable in size to that operated by a small commercial utility. It also stored a significant amount of diesel oil and had a structural system with numerous horizontal transfers for gravity and lateral loads.

The loss of the east penthouse on the videotape suggests that the collapse event was initiated by the loss of structural integrity in one of the transfer systems. Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."


.html

--

"No steel framed skyscraper had ever collapsed due to fire."
Says the editor of "Fire Engineering Magazine" http://fe.pennnet.com/
He also called the investigation "a half-baked farce"
In the jan 2002 issue.

---

also


World Trade Center Building Performance Study
Apendix A
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apa.pdf

In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cordington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900 C (1,500-1,700 F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600 C (1,100 F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments).

[rman]

43. otoh, how to explain WTC7 collapse if it was not MIHOP?

[mirandapriestly]

59. Gosh, how would you?nt

[pberq]

49. See Crossing the Rubicon

My recommendation is to read "Crossing the Rubicon" by Michael Ruppert. On p. 583 he gives a plausible explanation. I would copy some of it here, but it really requires a lot of background reading earlier in Ruppert's book.

Here's something that gives a little hint, but is not related directly to Ruppert's explanantion:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=Tripod+II&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=+Go+

Before 9/11, New York City was scheduled to have a biological terrorism exercise on this day called Tripod II. As Mayor Rudolph Giuliani later testifies, “hundreds of people ... from FEMA, from the federal government, from the state, from the State Emergency Management Office” come to New York to take part in the exercise. Presumably many have already arrived when the 9/11 attacks occur. Giuliani notes that the equipment for the exercise is already there, so when his emergency bunker (in WTC Building 7) is destroyed in the attacks, he moves his response center to the planned site of the Tripod exercise.

[truckin]

50. Thanks, I'll try to check it out

[dailykoff]

64. Asbestos litigation timebomb

Apparently all three buildings were loaded with asbestos and were already involved in some kind of lawsuit, according to this note in an NIST "Status of Data" report:

"August 2003 -- Asbestos litigation documents from PANYNJ."

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/docs_info_received.htm

It also seems that the quantity of asbestos used in the buildings would have made mitigation extremely costly, exceeding the value of the buildings themselves:

"Towers' Destruction 'Solved' Asbestos Problem"

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/asbestos.html

So it looks like Silverstein cut a deal with the Port Authority that put a few extra million in his pocket and got himself an asbestos-free WTC 7.

[DemInDistress]

37. Good story and good website....nt

[MrSammo1]

42. Which story would that be.........

The one they told us?

Or the one they sold to congress?

===============================================================
"Where were our aircraft, when a missile is heading toward the Pentagon" - Jamie S. Gorelick <9/11 Commission>
===============================================================

[Peter Frank]

44. Dig deeper... n/t

[mirandapriestly]

63. A bit of the TRUE story

“We were about 50 feet from the escalator up to Church St and I was saying to Ruth ‘we’re okay, we get up this escalator and we’re okay’, and then there was a big rumble and a huge roar and everybody shouted ‘run’ and then a huge wind came through there. I remember distinctly being lifted off my feet and blown down the hall, I don’t know how far. Ruth was holding onto me but we were ripped apart. I had no conception of what was happening. It went through my mind that a bomb had gone off in the subway. Then the plume came through and there was an opaque blackness. It was not an absence of light. It was opaque. My glasses were gone. I put my hand in front of my face and I couldn’t see it. I thought ‘a bomb has gone off and I’m going to die right here of smoke inhalation’. Then I realized that it wasn’t smoke, that it was just very heavy air. There was all this stuff on the floor but it was light stuff. I was coated in it, as if I’d been immersed in a vat of butter. And the exposed skin on my arm was all pocked from tiny glass shards, maybe 100 of them.

http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/AmericanBureauofShipping.htm

[Debunking911]

66. The truth about Building 7...

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/pull.htm