See other 9/11 Articles
Title: Ex-CIA: 911 Almost Certainly A 'Monstrous Series Of Lies'
Source:
Rense
URL Source: [None]
Published: Apr 1, 2007
Author: Paul Chen
Post Date: 2007-04-05 11:26:02 by WTC7 911Smoking Cannon
Keywords: None
Views: 1121
Comments: 70
David Ray Griffin is widely recognized as one of the leading spokespersons of the 9/11 truth movement. This is by virtue of his previous four books on the subject. Professor Griffin and a growing list of scholars, other researchers as well as diverse experts and activists, reject the official Islamist mastermind conspiracy theory about 9/11 advanced by Establishment interests. Although the 9/11 truth movement was long ignored by the U.S. government and the mainstream media, recent polls have shown that (as Time magazine has acknowledged) the rejection of the official theory has become "a mainstream political phenomenon." It is not surprising, therefore, that the U.S. government and the Big Business controlled media have shifted tactics. No longer ignoring the 9/11 truth movement, they have released a flurry of stories and reports aimed at debunking it. In David Ray Griffin's new book entitled Debunking 9/11, shows that these attempts can themselves be easily debunked. "Debunking 9/11 is a superb compendium of the strong body of evidence showing the official U.S. Government story of what happened on September 11, 2001 to be almost certainly a monstrous series of lies. Tragically, the entire course of U.S. foreign and domestic policies since that date has grown out of these almost certain falsehoods," says Bill Christison, former senior official of the CIA. Mr. Christison further indicates that, "This single book could (and should) provide the basis for the United Nations International Court of Justice, or some specially constituted global body (independent of the U.S.) to investigate with highest priority, and publicly report its findings about, the charge that unknown elements within the U.S. Government, and possibly some individuals elsewhere closely allied to the U.S., caused or contributed to causing the events of September 11 to happen." Besides demonstrating the pitiful failure of "Debunking 9/11 Myths" (published by Popular Mechanics and endorsed by Senator John McCain), Professor Griffin critically challenges recent reports and stories put out by the US Department of State, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the New York Times, Vanity Fair, and Time magazine. Professor Griffin also responds to criticisms of these efforts by left-leaning and Christian publications -- which one might have expected to be supportive. Throughout these critiques, Griffin shows that the charge that is regularly levelled against critics of the official theory -- that they employ irrational and unscientific methods to defend conclusions based on faith -- actually applies more fully to those who defend the official theory. "Considering how the 9/11 tragedy has been used by the Bush administration to propel us into immoral wars again and again, I believe that David Ray Griffin's provocative questions about 9/11 deserve to be investigated and addressed," says Howard Zinn, author of A People's History of the United States. "Professor Griffin is the nemesis of the 9/11 cover-up. This new book destroys the credibility of the NIST and Popular Mechanics reports and annihilates his critics," says Paul Craig Roberts, Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury during the Reagan administration. "David Ray Griffin hits another one out of the park by taking on the left gatekeepers and the mass media for the lies and cover-up called 'the official story of 9/11/01,' which is the greatest conspiracy theory ever perpetrated on the American public. I highly recommend this book for all thinking Americans," further indicates Meria Heller, Producer Host of the Meria Heller Show (<http://www.meria.net).>http://www.meria.net>http://www.meria.net). This book, by debunking the most prevalent attempts to refute the evidence cited by the 9/11 truth movement, shows that this movement's central claim -- that 9/11 was an inside job -- remains the only explanation that fits the facts. David Ray Griffin is professor of philosophy of religion and theology, emeritus, at Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University in Claremont, California, where he remains a co-director of the Center for Process Studies. His 30 books include The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 (2004), The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (2005), 9/11 and American Empire (2006, ed. with Peter Dale Scott), and Christian Faith and the Truth behind 9/11 (2006)
Poster Comment: Although the 9/11 truth movement was long ignored by the U.S. government and the mainstream media, recent polls have shown that (as Time magazine has acknowledged) the rejection of the official theory has become "a mainstream political phenomenon." Hey, BeAChooser, suck on that.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-29) not displayed.
.
.
.
#30. To: beachooser, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#16)
HOORAY FOR CHRISTINE Hooray for Christine, she put BAC down Christine's been friends with many a guy Christine knows both pity and shame Christine only does things that she wants to do Hooray for Christine, there's joy in her eyes
It must be SO frustrating for the promoters of the big lies about 9/11 to realize that after years and years of government lies about everything from the Gulf of Tonkin resolution to the Kennedy assassinations to.... well, heck, just about everything.. that finally we've reached a point where a majority of people no longer believe what the government says any longer. Looks like the little boy cried "wolf" one too many times.. and now nobody believes him any longer. Darn shame, isn't it? Must be ever so frustrating to be one of them now. I can almost feel sorry for them... almost...
you post links and quit the repeat spamming, BAC. those are the rules for you. abide by them or your evil ass gets dumped.
Hooray for Christine, she made BAC a clown
Hooray for Christine, she's got her tricks
Hooray for Christine, she's gettin' her kicks
She takes no crap; she just says goodbye
Hooray for Christine, BACs now on her list
He’s just a fool who shouldn't persist
She allows no jerks to play in her game
Hooray for Christine, she did it again
BAC’s gonna soon join the ranks of low fame
Never selfish or spoiled; but knows that she's cute
Hooray for Christine, she always gets things her way
But there's a time a-comin' we'll be able to say
Hooray for Christine, she made BAC cry
Hooray for Christine, she's always a love
Hooray for Christine, she does well as a dove
Hooray for Christine, there a smile in her eyes
Hooray for Christine, she made BAC cry
#31. To: Critter (#29)
 | Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#32. To: beachooser, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#21)
Common sense doesn't require a license - in case you missed that class. If a spaced-out crack whore gets an escaping license number correctly, subsequently discovered corroborating evidence makes her a hero. That's the real world, BAC; not the stuff of your disinformation and psyops attempts. Go away, BAC! Far away - and soon! Then name one.
#33. To: WTC7 911Smoking Cannon (#0)
BEALOOSER AND DESTRO will both refute this spook [how "expert" does one have to be to top a CIA agent???] because he doesn't "work for the steel industry." BWAHAHA!
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these.
- - IndieTX
"Peace? There's no money in peace! What we need is a war!"
--Three Stooges
#34. To: SKYDRIFTER (#30)
love it! :P
#35. To: IndieTX, WTC7 911Smoking Cannon (#33)
If he is not a spook anymore then how does he know what's up? CIA still speaks to him? I assume to be an expert you must practice your craft. Let me know when you hayseeds can think using logic.
BEALOOSER AND DESTRO will both refute this spook
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
#36. To: Arator (#11)
Shills like BAC and Destro repeat this same line over and over and over. Who is feeding them this crap and how much are they getting? Talking points are rather obvious.
significantly weaken the fireproofing damaged steel
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these.
- - IndieTX
"Peace? There's no money in peace! What we need is a war!"
--Three Stooges
#37. To: aristeides, Destro, ALL (#23)
Christison had a 28-year CIA career when he retired in 1979. That's makes him about 73. Now let's see how good his reasoning still is ... From his article "Stop Belittling the Theories About September 11" (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/August2006/140806_b_Belittling.htm): ONE: An airliner almost certainly did not hit The Pentagon. Hard physical evidence supports this conclusion; among other things, the hole in the Pentagon was considerably smaller than an airliner would create. The building was thus presumably hit by something smaller, possibly a missile, or a drone or, less possibly, a smaller manned aircraft. He is a LIAR. The images of the Pentagon (that he has to have seen) prove the hole in the Pentagon before the collapse was more than 90 feet across. And there was damage on the face of the structure where the rest of the plane would have hit. No missile, drone or smaller aircraft could have made that. Nor knocked down the light poles that were spaced more than 100 feet apart perpendicular to the trajectory. Nor damaged and moved the trailer in front of the Pentagon. The story put out by the Pentagon is that the plane and its passengers were incinerated; yet video footage of offices in the Pentagon situated at the edge of the hole clearly shows office furniture undamaged. This is FALSE. What was seen was office space exposed AFTER the structure collapsed along a construction joint. Exposing office space that was not subjected to the direct effects of the blast and fire. The size of the hole in the Pentagon wall still remains as valid evidence and so far seems irrefutable. LIAR. Folks, here is the hole this joker denies exists: This was to the left of where the fuselage hit: This was to the right of where the fuselage hit: Over 90 feet in width and the damage to the facade beyond that is consistent with where the wing tips would have struck. Those who don't think a plane hit the Pentagon should check this out: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21568_The_Pentagon_Attack_Simulation&only TWO: The North and South Towers of the World Trade Center almost certainly did not collapse and fall to earth because hijacked aircraft hit them. ROTFLOL! Based on his expertise in structural engineering, demolition, impact, fire and steel? ROTFLOL! A substantial volume of evidence shows that typical residues and byproducts from such demolition charges were present in the three buildings after they collapsed. LIAR. The quality of the research done on this subject is quite impressive. Yeah ... research done by who? A physicist who spent the last 30 years working on sub-atomic particles and nothing else? And physicist who spent the last 30 years studying the micro structure of solar cells and nothing else? A mechnical engineer who specialized in dental materials (and who now says Professor Jones' research is wrong)? A structural engineer who worked in the oil industry for the last 30 years? An economist? A philosopher? A theologian? A janitor? A lawyer? What can one do but laugh? ROTFLOL! These first two points provide the strongest evidence available that the “official story” of 9/11 is not true. Then showing that the first two points are based on lies, distortions and foolishness must be the strongest evidence available that the "official story" of 9/11 is valid. It works both ways.
If Christison praises Griffin's work, that makes me trust Christison.
#38. To: christine, ALL (#25)
But they are still basically the same article. Clearly plagerized from one or the other. Are you saying that I can only respond to one and that the other gets a free ride here at 4um? And how about the case where the same article was posted twice ... even if by two different people? Is 4um's rule that I can only respond to one with a given set of text? That, unlike the article, I must be completely original if I respond to the other? Or am I at least allowed to plagerize my own post and need only rephrase it slightly in the second response? I just want to make sure that 4um's rule are CLEAR and APPLY TO ALL? Or do they, christine?
false comparison. different thread titles posted by different posters.
#39. To: BeAChooser (#37)
Is that all you have? Links from an agenda driven propaganda site like Little Green Footballs? Why don't you just post links to your magazine subscription sites instead? Thtat would be just as convincing.
.
#40. To: BeAChooser (#38)
i already told you. those rules are just for you.
#41. To: Arator, ALL (#26)
Actually, he did not say WTC could not be brought down by fire. And if you listen closely to what he actually did say, he does not think WTC 7 was a PRE-PLANNED demolition. His theory is that Silverstein decided AFTER the collapse of the WTC towers to demolish WTC 7 rather than try to repair it ... an insurance scam. And he came to that conclusion after seeing a video shown to him by a conspiracist (obviously not all the data available). Before reaching his conclusion, he wasn't told the building was involved in 9/11, wasn't told the building had been on fire for hours and hours, and wasn't told that firemen had said the structure was leaning and going to collapse well before it actually did. And by the way, he also said that the WTC towers were NOT controlled demolitions.
Here's a Dutch demolitions expert Danny Jowenko of Jowenko.nl, a major Dutch demolitions firm, who says WTC 7 could not have been brought down by fire.
#42. To: BeAChooser (#38)
Quit being an ass. Stop posting your idiotic repetitive spam. You know what she means. Your attempt to muddy the waters is childish. Stop your goddamned whining and pouting and grow up.
Are you saying that I can only respond to one and that the other gets a free ride here at 4um?
.
#43. To: ..., ALL (#39)
You didn't bother looking at the video at that site, did you. ROTFLOL!
Links from an agenda driven propaganda site like Little Green Footballs?
#44. To: BeAChooser (#38)
Stop whining. Grow a pair and grow up loser.
Is 4um's rule that I can only respond to one with a given set of text?
.
#45. To: BeAChooser (#43) (Edited)
You didn't bother looking at the video at that site, did you. ROTFLOL! Ahhh. Choser changes the subject. Means I am correct in my allegation. The support for your bullshit comes from an agenda drive propaganda site. Thank for confirming this.
Links from an agenda driven propaganda site like Little Green Footballs?
.
#46. To: BeAChooser (#43)
Now go back to whining to Christine about your ridiculous victimhood little boy.
.
#47. To: christine, ALL (#40)
Could you clarify them for me? If a second thread has the same article as another thread that I've already responded to (or something basically plagerized from a first thread's article), can I repeat the comment I made in the first thread in the second thread? Yes or no? If not, can I modify it slightly (i.e., plagerize my post like the second article plagerized the first)? Yes or no? If not, must I be entirely original? Am I allowed to repeat any of the facts I listed in the first thread. Or must I come up with entirely new facts. How afraid of the inconvenient facts are you, christine?
i already told you. those rules are just for you.
#48. To: BeAChooser (#47)
No, you are not worth the effort.
Could you clarify them for me?
.
#49. To: BeAChooser (#47)
Yes.
f not, must I be entirely original?
.
#50. To: BeAChooser (#47)
No. Other people can do this, but you have abused the system with your spam. And that has consequences.
Am I allowed to repeat any of the facts I listed in the first thread.
.
#51. To: BeAChooser (#47)
No, because experience has shown that you will abuse the privilege.
If not, can I modify it slightly (i.e., plagerize my post like the second article plagerized the first)? Yes or no?
.
#52. To: BeAChooser (#47)
Now stop your fucking whining little boy and grow up.
.
#53. To: beachooser, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#37)
You're the LIAR - BAC! Damage is one thing; but there is no tangible evidence that anything of high speed did the damage to the 9-11 Pentagon. As you led me into, yourself, the collapsed vertical sections would have been compressed into each other - they would not have been roughly parallel. You're the LIAR, BAC. He is a LIAR. The images of the Pentagon (that he has to have seen) prove the hole in the Pentagon before the collapse was more than 90 feet across. And there was damage on the face of the structure where the rest of the plane would have hit. No missile, drone or smaller aircraft could have made that. Nor knocked down the light poles that were spaced more than 100 feet apart perpendicular to the trajectory. Nor damaged and moved the trailer in front of the Pentagon.
#54. To: beachooser, Destro, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#47)
You have so many on this forum so totally disgusted, that those rules are uniquely yours, BAC. {Enjoy!} If you're not smart enough to keep from insulting Christine, BAC, you deserve to go back to ElPee & Goldi. How afraid of the inconvenient facts are you, christine?
#55. To: IndieTX, Arator (#36)
The steel industry. What hayseeds feed you your info?
Who is feeding them this crap and how much are they getting?
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
#56. To: BeAChooser, christine (#41) (Edited)
That is a f*cking lie. No demolitions expert would say that they decided and wired WTC 7 to implode in the chaotic hours after the destruction of Towers 1 and 2. They wouldn't say it because even non-demolition experts know that such a feat is impossible. WTC 7, if it were brought down with explosives (and it was), had to have been pre-wired to blow before 9-11, which means it was PRE- PLANNED. Jowenko did not say otherwise. Because of the shamelessness of your transparent lie about Jowenko, I now wash my hands of you, BAC. If chrissy wants to ban your sorry ass, I won't stand in her way. You have ZERO integrity, ZERO respect for truth and, therefore, ZERO value to this forum (or to this life in general, for that matter). Good riddance to bad rubbish, I say. You are a lost soul, BAC. Adrift on an ocean of lies and black propaganda. And I don't think there's any hope of saving you. You may become the last Bushbot standing, the last one to fully buy into and peddle their shit. But no one here is buying it. And soon, only a marginalized leperous handful will, but they will be social outcasts and pariahs just like the last believers in and followers of the Hitler cult are today. Just as a monster like Hitler has his totally deluded accolytes who not only still believe but live out his lies even today, so Bush will always have you. And you deserve each other. Truly.
Actually, he did not say WTC could not be brought down by fire. And if you listen closely to what he actually did say, he does not think WTC 7 was a PRE-PLANNED demolition. His theory is that Silverstein decided AFTER the collapse of the WTC towers to demolish WTC 7 rather than try to repair it
Check out my blog, America, the Bushieful.
#57. To: Arator, Jethro Tull, scrapper2, ..., Minerva, Red Jones, Morgana Le Fay, AGAviator, SKYDRIFTER, robin, Destro, HOUNDDAWG, Zipporah, angle, Diana, bluedogtxn, IndieTx, Kamala, wbales, hammerdown, tom007 (#56) (Edited)
Ping to Arator's outstanding post.
#58. To: christine (#57)
bookmarked
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
#59. To: Arator (#28)
"To Kill a Mockingbird", page 66.
Tom, what's up with the twisting cube and that disturbing pic of Jackson and Spears? Are you trying to trigger some MKUltra-programmed assassin lurking on 4?
#60. To: Arator, BeAChooser, christine (#56)
No. When the Twin Towers fell they gauged out the side of WTC making the building list over and setting the thousands of gallons of diesel fuel in the storage tanks inside the building on fire. Several hours later the building collapsed. The conspiracy is in why the USA allowed in known terrorists (many of whom worked for the CIA overseas in Bosnia for example), allowed them to train and dvelop their plans in America unhindered and how they lost track of them - wink -wink - somehow to allow them to hijack 4 planes, etc.
. WTC 7, if it were brought down with explosives (and it was), had to have been pre-wired to blow before 9-11, which means it was PRE- PLANNED. Jowenko did not say otherwise.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
#61. To: Destro (#60)
List over?? WTC-7 was in no manner listing. Look at it over the shoulder of the BBC reporter who was reproting that WTC-& had collasped while it was still standing in the background. No listing there. That "listing" building fell straight down on all sides. The conspiracy is in why the USA allowed in known terrorists (many of whom worked for the CIA overseas in Bosnia for example), allowed them to train and dvelop their plans in America unhindered and how they lost track of them - wink -wink - somehow to allow them to hijack 4 planes, etc. PNAC wanted and got thier "New Pearl Harbor".
When the Twin Towers fell they gauged out the side of WTC making the building list over and setting
Supporters of Bush and the Iraq war for Israel and oil are traitors to America and they hate American troops.
#62. To: wbales (#61)
Yes it did. Very neatly.
That "listing" building fell straight down on all sides.
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
#63. To: Arator, christine, ALL (#56)
You didn't listen to Jowenko's video did you, Arator. To prove you are wrong, here's the video of Jowenko talking. Listen carefully. http://911blogger.com/node/3231 Let me quote him from Part 1 of the video: ********* Jowenko - Are you sure it was the 11th? That can't be. Interviewer (conspiracy type) - Seven hours after the World Trade Center came down. Jowenko - Then they worked hard. I don't know the construction of the building but then they very rigorously, very quickly placed charges. ********** At the end of part 1, he talks about how fast the charges could be laid and the building taken down. He never once talks about the charges being place BEFORE the event. Sorry Arator but he's clearly saying he thinks they placed the charges AFTER the WTC Towers collapsed (and mind you, this is consistent with the fact that he does NOT think the WTC towers were controlled demolitions). As further proof, in part 2 of the video, while talking about the damage to WTC 7 from falling debris, Jowenko says the following: ********** Jowenko - It strikes me that, that could be a reason for Silverstone or stein ... The owner. The owner of the building that he says: look, this will cost me a lot of pennies and what do I get back, still the same old building. And on such a moment I think that Giuliani easily would give a license to demolish, here you are if you want to get rid of it, asap. *********** Do you have problems understanding what he just said, Arator. Or did you not view the video? He clearly said the reason they decided to demolish WTC7 was it was damaged and would cost a lot to repair. That's an AFTER THE FACT decision. Not PRE-PLANNED. And in part 3 of the video there is this exchange, again after a discussion of the damage done to WTC 7 by falling debris and fire: ************ Jowenko - Yes, then Silverstein must say bring it down because once there is fire, if it became hot you have to replace your steel. Do you know what it cost if you have to replace the bottom columns and jack up the rest? That will not be cheap for a building with 47 floors. Then you say: away with it. And if there is a company, you so much million, we do it for 1 million. That's how it goes. Business goes very fast in such a situation. And they do it. ************ Again, what he says is very clear and exactly what I said he said. I'm surprised you missed it, Arator, if you actually did listen to what Jowenko said. To bad the facts don't back you up, Arator. You should be embarrassed. I think I've proven here who is the one adrift in a sea of lies and propaganda.
"Actually, he did not say WTC could not be brought down by fire. And if you listen closely to what he actually did say, he does not think WTC 7 was a PRE-PLANNED demolition. His theory is that Silverstein decided AFTER the collapse of the WTC towers to demolish WTC 7 rather than try to repair it"
That is a f*cking lie. No demolitions expert would say that they decided and wired WTC 7 to implode in the chaotic hours after the destruction of Towers 1 and 2. They wouldn't say it because even non-demolition experts know that such a feat is impossible.
Because of the shamelessness of your transparent lie about Jowenko, I now wash my hands of you, BAC. If chrissy wants to ban your sorry ass, I won't stand in her way. You have ZERO integrity, ZERO respect for truth and, therefore, ZERO value to this forum (or to this life in general, for that matter). Good riddance to bad rubbish, I say.
You are a lost soul, BAC. Adrift on an ocean of lies and black propaganda.
#64. To: Destro (#60) (Edited)
Once you subscribe to that, how the buildings collapsed is really immaterial anyway.
The conspiracy is in why the USA allowed in known terrorists (many of whom worked for the CIA overseas in Bosnia for example), allowed them to train and dvelop their plans in America unhindered and how they lost track of them - wink -wink - somehow to allow them to hijack 4 planes, etc.
Supporters of Bush and the Iraq war for Israel and oil are traitors to America and they hate American troops.
#65. To: BeAChooser (#63) (Edited)
So let me get this straight: The story now is that WTC 7 was, in fact, brought down by explosives? Because I clearly remember you chastising me earlier on another forum for even suggesting that possibility. So is this the new story? That, in fact, WTC 7 was indeed brought down by explosives set up in the time between 10:05 am (the time that the South tower collapsed) and 5:25 pm (the time that WTC 7 collapsed)? So you're saying that it is possible to rig a 47 story building to be brought down in a controlled demolition with explosives set up in less than a few hours? So, was the decision to bring WTC 7 down in a controlled demolition made at 10:06 am that day? Or was that decision made after 10:29 am, when the North tower collapsed? Now, that would leave less than seven hours for the decision to be made, the demolition experts to be contacted, for them to get the materials in hand, to get to the site, to plan the controlled demolition, to rig the building, and then get clear of it before it came down. All of this while choking thick dust clouds, smoke and fire are blanketing the area. All of this as people are panicking and freaking out from death and destruction all around. Roads blocked by debris, people, bodies and chaos; police, fire and emergency services overloaded and overwhelmed. Communications breaking down everywhere, people's nerves frayed, people screaming in agony, people crying and screaming in panic, pain and fear... and in the midst of this hellish maelstrom of panic and fear and death and destruction, a steely-nerved team of explosives experts supposedly arrived with hundreds of pounds of high explosives, walked into a burning building, designed a demolition plan on the spot and rigged it in a few short hours to come down in a perfectly controlled explosive demolition, bringing the building down into its own footprint. By the way, the "into its own footprint" form of explosive demolition is THE hardest thing of all to do, being considered the VERY highest form of the art of explosive demolition, something that only a tiny handful of experts in the world are considered qualified to be able to do. So, given all of that, Is THIS what you are claiming now? I just want to be clear on this story. For some detailed information on just what it takes to plan and execute a successful building implosion by explosives, and how very complex and difficult an "into the footprint" demolition is, check out this link:
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#66. To: Elliott Jackalope (#65)
great post. and now, don't forget the BBC news of 7 being demolished when it's clearly standing in the background behind the reporter. (snicker)
#67. To: Elliott Jackalope, ALL (#65)
No. I'm only repeating what the ONE AND ONLY demolition expert on your side of the debate said. He's a KOOK. But even his theory, wacky as it is, doesn't match that of you folks ... that WTC 7 was a PRE-PLANNED demolition.
So let me get this straight: The story now is that WTC 7 was, in fact, brought down by explosives?
#68. To: Elliott Jackalope (#65)
nice link and post dust to dust...
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
#69. To: BeAChooser (#63) (Edited)
Quit parsing. He said, emphatically and without equivocation or qualification, in the February 2007 phone converasation that I linked you to (click on his name in my post above), that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition. If X is true, then Y cannot also be true. If he says that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition, he is also saying that WTC7 was NOT brought down by fire (as YOU claim). So, I'll concede that my rather heated reply to you was based on my hearing of his recent phone conversation (not the video when he was first presented with WTC7 and was rather unprepared to address all the issues of that day in full) if you will concede that you were in error when you posted that no demolitions expert in the world believes that controlled demolitions were used on 9-11. Listen to his phone conversation again, BAC. He notes that the reason North American demolitions experts aren't telling the truth about 9-11 (like he has) is that they fear losing government contracts. Does that sound plausible to you? If so, wouldn't that explain why so few have come forward?
Actually, he did not say WTC could not be brought down by fire.
Check out my blog, America, the Bushieful.
#70. To: Arator, ALL (#69)
But he did NOT say it was PRE-PLANNED. And therefore, you have a problem with your government conspiracy theory. He also does not think WTC 1 and WTC 2 are controlled demolitions. He said it would have taken trained professionals approximately a year to place all the explosives and wiring necessary. Again, you have a problem with your conspiracy theory. I did not say that. I said there were none that claim a PRE-PLANNED demolition. Not really, when folks come out as whistleblowers at the risk of there jobs on much less important matters all the time. You have to have a pretty low opinion of structural engineers, demolition experts, structural material experts, fire experts, seismologists and macro-world physicists to believe controlled demolition of the WTC structures is as obvious as you and Jowenko claim yet NONE of them have come forward in a case where 3000 Americans were murdered. Your theory also doesn't explain why except for Jowenko and 2 related structural engineers in Switzerland no one in the above disciplines has come forward from ANY country outside the US to agree with you and Jowenko. Surely you don't think they are also dependent on the US government for their livelihood?
He said, emphatically and without equivocation or qualification, in the February 2007 phone converasation that I linked you to (click on his name in my post above), that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition.
if you will concede that you were in error when you posted that no demolitions expert in the world believes that controlled demolitions were used on 9-11.
He notes that the reason North American demolitions experts aren't telling the truth about 9-11 (like he has) is that they fear losing government contracts. Does that sound plausible to you? If so, wouldn't that explain why so few have come forward?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest