Wtc 7, It Own Story Of Controled Demolition And Cover Up.

[Booko]

The reason America doesn't argue with the conspiricy theorists, is because you can't. They make up a theory for every event. Anyone with a creative imagination can do this in 5 minutes and make it sound believable.

And why should they defend themselves against such disgracful, unpatriotic ****. The majority of these people have no expertees in the matters they are talking about.

:clap :clap :clap

 

[cardero]

The reason America doesn't argue with the conspiricy theorists, is because you can't. They make up a theory for every event. Anyone with a creative imagination can do this in 5 minutes and make it sound believable.

And why should they defend themselves against such disgracful, unpatriotic ****. The majority of these people have no expertees in the matters they are talking about.

Look at half of the inbreds Michael Moore is putting in his documentaries. They know nothing about nothing. And Michael Moore is just one of many. He is also a proven liar.

Anyone can get on the internet and start a page about some conspiricy theory. You are quick to doubt the government, but why do you completely fail to doubt these fools and their theories, which are completely groundless. They have no concrete evidence whatsoever to back up their fantasies.

I think it would be very interesting to see a televised investigation on the matter. Not so much an argument or a trial but a chance to hear from both sides. Each party brings their best speakers and their best evidence to discuss and finally decide whether to put these conspiracy theories to rest or if there is a legitimate reason to investigate these theories further. If our government has nothing to hide, then I do not understand why they would have any problem with addressing these theorists in an open public arena. There are enough people interested in it and if it is televised it would be an opportunity for the American viewers to watch and make up their minds for themselves with all the expert testimony presented and decide what to do with the final findings and where to go from there.

 

[greatcalgarian]

I think it would be very interesting to see a televised investigation on the matter. Not so much an argument or a trial but a chance to hear from both sides. Each party brings their best speakers and their best evidence to discuss and finally decide whether to put these conspiracy theories to rest or if there is a legitimate reason to investigate these theories further. If our government has nothing to hide, then I do not understand why they would have any problem with addressing these theorists in an open public arena. There are enough people interested in it and if it is televised it would be an opportunity for the American viewers to watch and make up their minds for themselves with all the expert testimony presented and decide what to do with the final findings and where to go from there.

Good proposal. But do you think President Bush will accept the debate challenge put forward by Iran President? The same will happen with the 9/11 commission and the conpiracy theorists

 

[greatcalgarian]

The reason America doesn't argue with the conspiricy theorists, is because you can't. They make up a theory for every event.

Same reason why GWB refused to response to Iran President personal letter special delivery to him, and also the challenge for a TV public debate.

Why bother to argue, if you are just about ready to carpet bomb the country and you do not need to give any justification since you are America:yes:

 

[cardero]

Good proposal. But do you think President Bush will accept the debate challenge put forward by Iran President? The same will happen with the 9/11 commission and the conpiracy theorists

If the president doesn't want to participate, I think it will prick a few ears up. If for some reason he is busy, then he can select a panel to confront and debate the theorists, maybe we'll hear from him later, when his schedule clears up.

 

[cardero]

Same reason why GWB refused to response to Iran President personal letter special delivery to him, and also the challenge for a TV public debate.

My apologies, I did not know this was already offered or suggested. Still it would be a good idea, if anything, to get this country all pulling together and on the same page...peacefully.

 

[Booko]

I think it would be very interesting to see a televised investigation on the matter. Not so much an argument or a trial but a chance to hear from both sides. Each party brings their best speakers and their best evidence to discuss and finally decide whether to put these conspiracy theories to rest or if there is a legitimate reason to investigate these theories further. If our government has nothing to hide, then I do not understand why they would have any problem with addressing these theorists in an open public arena. There are enough people interested in it and if it is televised it would be an opportunity for the American viewers to watch and make up their minds for themselves with all the expert testimony presented and decide what to do with the final findings and where to go from there.

Good idea. Considering what it would take to present evidence, it could easily be a series though. Do you suppose PBS would take it on?

Somehow I doubt the gov't would be willing to take part in any such program, but there's no reason why you couldn't find some extragovernmental folks who would take it on. There must be engineers, ex-CIA spooks, security experts, etc. who would be willing to take it on.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Good proposal. But do you think President Bush will accept the debate challenge put forward by Iran President?

God I'd love to see that happen. There's no way in hell that Bush will accept the offer, but God...that'd be a debate for the ages, I think!

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Good idea. Considering what it would take to present evidence, it could easily be a series though. Do you suppose PBS would take it on?

No way. This Congress has had PBS in their target sights for years, and their running a program such as that could well start the Death-to-PBS cries on Capitol Hill.

Somehow I doubt the gov't would be willing to take part in any such program, but there's no reason why you couldn't find some extragovernmental folks who would take it on. There must be engineers, ex-CIA spooks, security experts, etc. who would be willing to take it on.

The thing is, there really ought to be some kind of formal, independent investigation on what really happened on 9/11. I'll be honest, Booko, I have a real hunch that the whole mess may well have been fabricated, but I know of no primary evidence on any respectable website. Whether that is due to fear of the Bush Administration or just a plain lack of knowledge, I do not know. But we the people deserve to know one way for the other--and honestly, if 9/11 was legit, let's let the dirty laundry come out and have this matter put behind us.

 

[greatcalgarian]

No way. This Congress has had PBS in their target sights for years, and their running a program such as that could well start the Death-to-PBS cries on Capitol Hill.



The thing is, there really ought to be some kind of formal, independent investigation on what really happened on 9/11. I'll be honest, Booko, I have a real hunch that the whole mess may well have been fabricated, but I know of no primary evidence on any respectable website. Whether that is due to fear of the Bush Administration or just a plain lack of knowledge, I do not know. But we the people deserve to know one way for the other--and honestly, if 9/11 was legit, let's let the dirty laundry come out and have this matter put behind us.

This is a very reasonable request. However, my prediction is that, the world (or the American to be exact) will not know the truth of 9/11 until perhaps 100 hundred years later. If the truth came out now, I think it will turn American political scene upside down, as the pepetrators and real conspiracists (not David Ray or Alex Jones, they are patsie conspiracists) will resort to totalitarian action, and that will be the end of democracy in America.:yes:

 

[cardero]

No way. This Congress has had PBS in their target sights for years, and their running a program such as that could well start the Death-to-PBS cries on Capitol Hill.

Then come to find out that Grover was "whacked" or that Aloysius Snuffleupagus was mysteriously strangled by his own trunk.

 

[Matt]

George Bush would never hold a debate with the conspiricy theorists, there is no point. It is only a very small minority that are so easily led to believe such foolish theories. By holding a debate he would be giving these people a wider audience.

The people who make up these theories do not have any access to any evidence or files regarding the terror attacks. The majority of their writing is either guess work or made up.

 

[Booko]

No way. This Congress has had PBS in their target sights for years, and their running a program such as that could well start the Death-to-PBS cries on Capitol Hill.

You mean they'll make the Death-to-PBS cries louder.

The thing is, there really ought to be some kind of formal, independent investigation on what really happened on 9/11. I'll be honest, Booko, I have a real hunch that the whole mess may well have been fabricated, but I know of no primary evidence on any respectable website. Whether that is due to fear of the Bush Administration or just a plain lack of knowledge, I do not know. But we the people deserve to know one way for the other--and honestly, if 9/11 was legit, let's let the dirty laundry come out and have this matter put behind us.

Oh, I don't think it was any more fabricated than Apollo missions. Actually, faking the Moon Landing would have been easier.

Do I think everyone's been straight? Obviously not.

You can start with the deliberate suppression of EPA air quality results and go on from there to involvement on the part of Saddam Hussein.

 

[YmirGF]

I think it would be very interesting to see a televised investigation on the matter. Not so much an argument or a trial but a chance to hear from both sides. Each party brings their best speakers and their best evidence to discuss and finally decide whether to put these conspiracy theories to rest or if there is a legitimate reason to investigate these theories further. If our government has nothing to hide, then I do not understand why they would have any problem with addressing these theorists in an open public arena. There are enough people interested in it and if it is televised it would be an opportunity for the American viewers to watch and make up their minds for themselves with all the expert testimony presented and decide what to do with the final findings and where to go from there.

On the surface this sounds like a quite reasonable idea. However, it is not practical. There is little possibility that the conspiracy theorists will ever be appeased. What do you do then? Have yet another round of navel gazing? The cost of such an endeavor would also be rather high because extensive studies would have to be done to determine accuracy of the government's position. Likewise, the government would have to reply to any outstanding questions. Frankly, it would never end.

Aside from this, it would have to be done in front of the public eye. In the public eye America's enemies would be able to glean a huge amount of sensitive information about how the US deals with emergency situations. That could have horrific ramifications, especially with your gaping borders to the north and the south.

Even if it were done behind closed doors, under oath, etc... a report would have to be issued, if not several. I could just imagine the howls when that report hit with very large sections blacked out due to national security issues. That would go over well and the whole ordeal would begin anew.

Give the conspiracy theorists a platform and you will swell their ranks overnight by the millions with ill-informed armchair experts. Then you will have BIG problems. Can anyone say, "Anarchy!" because that is what you will end up with if people cease to trust their governing officials. You voted them in, after all. You must have trusted them at some point. And if you don't trust them already, just why would you believe any story they came out with now? It just makes no sense.

Any good doctor will tell you not to pick at a scab. You let it heal and resist scratching at it... no matter how great the temptation is, lest you risk infection.

 

[greatcalgarian]

On the surface this sounds like a quite reasonable idea. However, it is not practical. There is little possibility that the conspiracy theorists will ever be appeased. What do you do then? Have yet another round of navel gazing? The cost of such an endeavor would also be rather high because extensive studies would have to be done to determine accuracy of the government's position. Likewise, the government would have to reply to any outstanding questions. Frankly, it would never end.

Aside from this, it would have to be done in front of the public eye. In the public eye America's enemies would be able to glean a huge amount of sensitive information about how the US deals with emergency situations. That could have horrific ramifications, especially with your gaping borders to the north and the south.

Even if it were done behind closed doors, under oath, etc... a report would have to be issued, if not several. I could just imagine the howls when that report hit with very large sections blacked out due to national security issues. That would go over well and the whole ordeal would begin anew.

Give the conspiracy theorists a platform and you will swell their ranks overnight by the millions with ill-informed armchair experts. Then you will have BIG problems. Can anyone say, "Anarchy!" because that is what you will end up with if people cease to trust their governing officials. You voted them in, after all. You must have trusted them at some point. And if you don't trust them already, just why would you believe any story they came out with now? It just makes no sense.

Any good doctor will tell you not to pick at a scab. You let it heal and resist scratching at it... no matter how great the temptation is, lest you risk infection.

The truth will eventually surfaced, whether it will surfaced at the debate, or a hundred years later, when the Americans can have free access to all the government secret documents on 9/11. In the mean while, you can try to find answers for the 9/11 conspiracists, where no answers were forthcoming from the government, just to name a few:
(1) How did WC7 collapse
(2) Do we have a revised list of 19 Arabs? Or BBC is bs on those living Arabs?
(3) How come the US can be carrying such an air defence exercise coincidental on the date the 'terrorists' planned attack, coincidental? Murphy's law?
Obviously the government should be able to provide a good answer to all the above if they wanted to. Why not?
The only reason is the government intend to keep the issue to have only half truth given, and purposely did not punish those responsible for the 9/11 to take place, and keep on blaming Al Qaeda and Muslim militant/fundamentalist, a created non-existence shadow enemy for the US public to chase around.....

 

[cardero]

Matt writes: George Bush would never hold a debate with the conspiricy theorists, there is no point. It is only a very small minority that are so easily led to believe such foolish theories.

A president shouldn’t disregard the concerns of any “small minority”. Theorists believe that their ideas and research should be addressed seriously and considerately.

Matt writes: By holding a debate he would be giving these people a wider audience.

I must reiterate that if the president and others have nothing to hide and if their evidence is strong and irrefutable than this should dissipate any doubts and disperse such crowds and further reasoning along these lines.

Matt writes: The people who make up these theories do not have any access to any evidence or files regarding the terror attacks.

Most likely because the physical evidence was whisked away and locked up leaving testimonial evidence still unchained and outspoken.

Matt writes: The majority of their writing is either guess work or made up.

The majority of their research is eyewitness testimonies and actual video recordings available from those events. This evidence is certainly acceptable in a court of law but the discussion that we are proposing is not a trial.

The hours spent from those theorists is immeasurable and the research sincere. In fact most theorists who have researched similar patterns in our country’s history will tell you that they hope the information they have collected and researched is not true.

 

[cardero]

YmirGF writes: : Any good doctor will tell you not to pick at a scab. You let it heal and resist scratching at it... no matter how great the temptation is, lest you risk infection.

I didn’t quote the whole post but there is much wisdom in your statement. I believe what the theorists are proposing is that this is compared to a cancer that has seemed to have been growing for many years. Any doctor would suggest that if the symptoms have not gotten too far, the cancerous tissue should be removed (even if this is for the greater concern of the nation). I think what we are suggesting here is not so much a surgical procedure but just a suggestion that this nation is long overdue for a "check-up".

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

You mean they'll make the Death-to-PBS cries louder.

Yeah, true.

Oh, I don't think it was any more fabricated than Apollo missions. Actually, faking the Moon Landing would have been easier.

See I don't know if that's true or not. But...let's just suppose for a moment that it is, that it was indeed jihadist terrorists who took out the WTC. If that is so, if that really is the true story, then it's all the more reason why this administration has become such a failure. We had the support of virtually the entire planet when we invaded Afghanistan. We had bipartisan support not just in Congress but throughout society as not seen in decades. Bush, then, received a golden opportunity to go down as one of our nation's greatest presidents. Instead, he will go down as one of the worst.

Do I think everyone's been straight? Obviously not.

You can start with the deliberate suppression of EPA air quality results and go on from there to involvement on the part of Saddam Hussein.

Thankfully, many people are realizing the sheer depth of the latter problem. But it is like the former never even happened--you hardly hear about it on the news.

 

[Ryan2065]

Hrm... I have a quick question here...

Why would the government wire the twin towers with exposives when they are crashing planes into the towers? For one the planes alone would do enough damage to promote their war on terror... For two there is too great of a chance the "wired explosives" would no longer work after a huge plane hits the building they are in.

Its too much of a chance to wire the building with explosives when hitting planes into the buildings would do what they wanted... I mean its the first major organized attack on United States soil by non-americans in a very long time... There wern't any in the 1900's... not sure if there were any in the 1800's.

 

[greatcalgarian]

George Bush would never hold a debate with the conspiricy theorists, there is no point. It is only a very small minority that are so easily led to believe such foolish theories. By holding a debate he would be giving these people a wider audience.

August 3, 2006 -- More than one-third of Americans suspect federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a new poll.
The survey also found that 16 percent of Americans speculate that secretly planted explosives, not burning passenger jets, were the real reason the massive Twin Towers of the World Trade Center collapsed
http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/one_in_3_americans_say_u_s__aided_9_11_nationalnews_thomas_hargrove______and_guido_h__stempel_iii.htm

The people who make up these theories do not have any access to any evidence or files regarding the terror attacks. The majority of their writing is either guess work or made up.

You call the work of a Theologian professor highly esteem in the Christian community to make up story?

David Ray Griffin (born 1939) is a retired professor of philosophy of religion and theology, and a conspiracy theorist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ray_Griffin

9/11: The Myth and the Reality

David Ray Griffin

Although I am a philosopher of religion and theologian, I have spent most of my time during the past three years on 9/11—studying it, writing about it, and speaking about it. In this lecture, I will try to make clear why I believe this issue worthy of so much time and energy. I will do this in terms of the distinction between myth and reality.
I am here using the term "myth" in two senses. In one sense, a myth is an idea that, while widely believed, is false, failing to correspond with reality.
http://www.anthonyflood.com/griffin911mythandreality.htm

You should really buy and read this book:
Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11: A Call to Reflection and Action (Paperback)
by David Ray Griffin
http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Faith-Truth-Behind-Reflection/dp/0664231179
Griffin's Best Book on 9/11, August 6, 2006
Reviewer:Thomas C. Fletcher (Petaluma CA USA) - See all my reviews
"Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11" is David Ray Griffin's best book on 9/11. It should be read by every American citizen.

In Chapter 1, Griffin reviews the long history of U.S. government-sponsored "false flag" operations worldwide, in which the CIA and its subordinate allied agencies in NATO and foreign governments collaborated to create the appearance of "terrorism" by killing unnumbered innocent ordinary people. The shock of the mass murders allowed passage of draconian legislation and controlled the politics of countries of special concern to U.S. interests, especially in Europe. In other words, there is extensive historical evidence that 9/11 was only the largest-scale among many comparable secret operations by the U.S..

In Chapter 2, Griffin quotes from and summarizes the extensive testimony by firefighters and other first responders at the WTC on September 11 which proves beyond any doubt that multiple bomb explosions occurred throughout both towers both before and after the buildings were struck by flying objects. Some of this testimony he has culled from news reports, but the majority of the accounts comes from newly released oral histories collected by the FDNY but suppressed until last summer by the City of New York.

In Chapter 3 Griffin demonstrates conclusively that the two towers as well as WTC 7, a 47-story steel-framed building, were brought down by controlled demolition. He exhaustively catalogues the characteristic features of controlled demolitions which were all exemplified in the collapses of the WTC buildings.

In Chapter 4 Griffin presents a streamlined overview of the many lies and distortions put out by the 9/11 Commission to "explain" the innumerable suspicions which have arisen with respect to the flights of the hijacked airliners and the lack of standard response to them (the standdown).

In Chapter 5 Griffin concludes Part I with a demonstration that the "prima facie" case for government complicity in the mass murders established in his first two 9/11 books has now become a "conclusive" case.

In Part II Griffin shifts from presentation of evidence about what happened on that black day to the broader questions which they raise. In Chapter 6 he establishes an array of "imperial motives" for the "New Pearl Harbor" of 9/11, showing that from the perspective of government planners the benefits to be gained made the risks of all sorts seem insignificant. Loss of life they have no concern for, as shown in Chapter 1, and the necessary changes in society that would ensue (exemplified by the PATRIOT Act) were desirable from the standpoint of the imperial planners.

In Chapter 7 he first shows how the U.S. Empire is remarkably similar to the Roman Empire of 2000 years ago in its sense of divine authorization, its overwhelming military power, its use of terror to intimidate, its use of puppet rulers in countries under its control, and its exaction of "tribute and taxation" from subordinate populations. He then shows that Jesus of Nazareth, the central historical personage for Christians to this day, was the founder of an "anti-imperial gospel" that called upon his compatriots to resist the oppression and idolatry of the Roman Empire.

In Chapter 8 Griffin brings his many decades of philosophical and theological work on the nature of evil to attempt an explanation of the magnitude of the evil we face. He presents a concept of the "demonic" as a social force which has risen to a level capable of thwarting "divine" intentions for the world. The chapter is profound and rewarding, illuminating deep issues that are difficult to penetrate.

In Chapter 9 Griffin demonstrates the the American Empire exemplifies the most highly developed demonic force in the world today, and that 9/11 can only be understood from this perspective.

Finally, in Chapter 10, Griffin addresses fellow Christians directly, asking what "the church" can do to resist today's "Roman Empire". He concludes with suggestions for how Christian churches could engage with the demonic power of the American Empire and fight back, as Jesus clearly exhorted them to do.

In summary, Griffin has written his most original and substantial book on 9/11 to date. The specifically Christian concerns and appeals do not make the book inappropriate for non-Christians in any significant way. The book should be read by everyone.