Posted on 01/30/2006 12:50:09 PM PST by ChuckShick
Mon Jan 30, 11:37 AM ET
(PRWEB) - Duluth, MN (PRWEB) January 30, 2006 -- A group of distinguished experts and scholars, including Robert M. Bowman, James H. Fetzer, Wayne Madsen, John McMurtry, Morgan Reynolds, and Andreas von Buelow, have concluded that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11.
They have joined with others in common cause as members of "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" (S9/11T), because they are convinced, based on their own research, that the administration has been deceiving the nation about critical events in New York and Washington, D.C.
These experts suggest these events may have been orchestrated by elements within the administration to manipulate Americans into supporting policies at home and abroad they would never have condoned absent "another Pearl Harbor."
They believe that this White House is incapable of investigating itself and hope the possibility that Congress might hold an unaccountable administration accountable is not merely naive or wishful thinking.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
I like this one, specially. Half truths are formidable weapons when addressing the ignorant.
It has been repeated over and over that the World Trade Center was designed to survive the accidental strike of the largest airliner of the period, a 707.
Nothing further is stated.
Ignored is that local "holding pattern traffic" which might account for an accidental strike is a) relatively empty of fuel, and b) traveling at roughly half the speed that the sandmaggots used when they committed their mass murder.
I suppose that most of these nobel laureates know the "square" rule relationship between velocity and total energy in a kinetic system?
Are these guys the ones who helped out M. Moore with his movie?
I took at look at the web page. It angers me that a university in the USA would waste a position on its faculty for a person whos critical thinking skills are so much mush. Truly sad and pathetic.
Are your comments with regard to building 7?
Well, I guess I'm the twit today. I did not know that.
Exactly. Every time I see the video of the second aircraft strike, I'm amazed that the floors above the hit didn't start down right then. And indeed the second tower hit did pancake down first.
What is it about denominations with "United" in their name?
"I believe there was a conspiracy to get JFK, but this is just pure bunk."
So does James H. Fetzer:
http://www.assassinationscience.com/bookthree.html
Thought you'd find that interesting.
Yes they can. Neither the phone nor the cell tower "knows" that the phone is in an aircraft. The problem is that many towers can see the phone when it's in an aircraft. That could cause problems in the cell routing, as the system tries to route the call through the "best" tower, but not much, because the same sort of thing can happen on the ground, just with fewer towers involved, so the system is designed to deal with it.
The Pentagon is a reinforced concrete structure, it doesn't have facia per se. That outer wall is structural, not just to hold the weather out. You couldn't build a tall building that way, it would be too heavy to hold itself, but it is strong. And it doesn't use nearly the steel a steel framed building would, which is why they built it that way, during WW-II's shortages of everything, especially steel (for ships, tanks, cannon, rifles, etc). The aircraft might as well have run into a giant rock. Parts of the aircraft did penetrate, but not large ones. That side of the building had just been updated, especially the windows, and that accounts for some of the lack of damage in areas not immediately adjacent to the impact point.
Actually they did have ammunition. But it was light practice ammunition, with no explosives or fuses, which would just punch 20mm holes in a aircraft, unless you got lucky and hit something very important. They were willing to have a go with it though, they just couldn't get there fast enough, once called.
"I consider Wayne Madsen a savvy guy..."
If you're being sarcastic, I missed it. This nutjob writes for CounterPunch, leads off his webpage with a Cynthia McKinney press release, and has his own listing at DU.
Thanx
I believe that tonight after I go to sleep the tooth fairy will stuff my pillow with $100 dollar bills.
If you're being sarcastic, I missed it. This nutjob writes for CounterPunch, leads off his webpage with a Cynthia McKinney press release, and has his own listing at DU.
Of course I am being sarcastic I contradicted my own statement by including Madsen's prediction of us attacking Iran 2 weeks before the presidential election to insure a Bush victory.
As far as him being a nutjob,after reading the article I classify him now as a distinguished nutjob. - Tom
I would have expected to see more pieces of the plane on the grounds at the Pentagon; all I saw was a few bits and that one obvious plane part. They could have "planted" it there as far as I am concerned, not because I believe that but because I wasn't paying attention to anything like that initially. In the initial hours and days, I wasn't looking at hows and whys, believed everything 100% that was claimed to be known by the officials, and like most everybody else, I was numb with shock.
I hate the conspiracy stuff, and I know that group is left of left, and thought it was kook stuff. Maybe most of it is. I'm still not 100% sure of all the official explanations now.
I haven't talked to anybody on a plane with a cell phone lately, actually never that I know of, haven't flown for years, and only vaguely understand how the signals are transmitted/lose communication until the next tower is approached/contacted, etc., etc.
How high altitude can a plane be and still make contact with the ground towers via regular cell phones? Are some cell phones more capable than others? It kind of blew me out of the water when I read that theory, can't remember where. I know aircraft air-to-air and air-to-ground/reverse communications are different, so that is not an issue, especially with terrorists at the controls.
I appreciate not being flamed because I have questions and wish I'd paid more attention to it early on. I did read the Popular Mechanics article which made sense from a lay person pov and have seen one tv documentary twice.
the last guy on the list is just named "Brad".
i think i heard of him!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.