Dear People at [Insert Media Name here],
I've included a link to a You Tube video that I think everyone at your [Newspaper/TV Station/Radio Station] should watch. The video explains why our troops should not be in Afghanistan:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwqLu8ZXIX0
Our troops must be withdrawn as soon as possible.
And note, there is no dishonour to our soldiers who have engaged in operations fully believing their missions were of vital defence importance to our country. Our forces have done the best they can under the circumstances and now it's time to disengage from this unnecessary fight.
The material in this clip is known to millions of people online in various other forms.
Thanks for you attention.
[Insert Name here]
--------------------------------------------------
Media Contact List
Write an E-Mail Message to Congress, the President and the Media!
A note to letter senders. The key value of this video is the experimental data cited that proves the official story is a lie. No matter what one says about other details of the murder the forensic material highlighted here shows the destruction of these buildings involved explosives.
|
|
|---|
Showing posts with label 9-11 Truth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 9-11 Truth. Show all posts
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Monday, December 13, 2010
The Argument of the 911 Truth Debunkers as Analogous to Denying the Existence of a Car.
These are some of the debunker "arguments" that have been made against the existence of the physical evidence proving nanothermite explosives, the freefall collapses of the towers, the evidence of melted steel etc:"Your car has a poor choice of tires, no sensible person could call that thing a car with those tires"
"The colour is all wrong. No car of the type you describe is of that colour. You're not describing any car known to science."
"The engine in your car is not a known or standard type, your car therefore has no engine. It can't really be called a car."
"The windshield on this car doesn't exist, even though it might appear to exist, is solid, is see-through, and keeps the wind and rain out. A car without a windshield is not a car."
"Your car cannot possibly be found where you claim, even though there are pics, witness reports, scientific reviews etc. Because we deem it impossible, the car cannot exist. Everyone who says it does, no matter the evidence, is a wacko."
"Because of all these "proven" deficiencies you don't have a car at all. It's not a car."
"Furthermore, we have calculated (even tho the official investigators couldn't) what you may think is a fully functioning car is actually just a bicycle. Of course, being troofers, you will be unable to see or understand what we are pointing out to you. Just trust our brilliance and accept what we are saying."
Dear readers, if you can suppress common sense, the laws of physics, a multitude of credible eyewitness reports (many from trained observers), and the findings of independent researchers & scientists, then you can believe in anything.
If you can think for yourselves you will believe only what the established evidence tells you.
911 was an inside job. The evidence is clear cut. (AE911truth.org)
Friday, October 22, 2010
Who is Really "Stupid and Wrong": Key Ideas and Evidence Concerning 911 that Prove the Attacks involved Inside Help. (911 Truth Debate in Australia)
A letter sent to Australian media:
Recently the President of the Trades Hall Council and Secretary of the Maritime Union of Australia, Kevin Bracken, telephoned into a local radio program that was discussing the Australian troop deployment to Afghanistan. Mr Bracken aired the implicit view that, in terms of the deployment's role in "stopping terrorism", we should be mindful that our commitment was, from the outset, completely unnecessary. His argument follows that we are fighting an unnecessary war because the attacks of 911 were orchestrated by a conspiracy originating closer to home, that Osama Bin Laden was merely a patsy.
Predictably, when this matter was raised in the Australian Parliament the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, quickly responded by characterising Mr Bracken's opinions as "stupid and wrong". However, when we compare the US Government's official story regarding 911 with the hard evidence relating to the World Trade Centre attacks we can quickly determine that the only people who are wrong here are those who back the official story.
There are four main points of physical evidence revealed in the destruction of the World Trade Centre Buildings that provide smoking gun physical evidence that completely undermines the official account; that fires caused the "collapses" of these structures:
Point One. The destruction of the Twin Towers, and World Trade Centre 7, exhibited features that were not at all consistent with a gravitational collapse. In fact these features can only be reasonably described as the products of explosive forces. World Trade Centre Building 7 in particular raises a huge red flag. Designed, like the towers, to withstand earthquakes, fires, and hurricanes, with only minor damage, and not hit by an aeroplane, this structure collapses in a manner identical to a controlled demolition seven hours after the disintegration of the Towers at 5:20pm. The collapse here defies the Laws of physics save for the use of explosives that would allow for such a rapid demise.
Point Two. Despite the building fires being too weak to melt structural steel there is ample evidence showing the melting of steel during and after the building destruction. The phenomena of melted steel is an impossible occurrence under the observed fire conditions witnessed in the buildings and can only have resulted from the presence of chemical incendiary (superhot burning) devices.
Point Three. Investigations by independent scientists showed the signature of the chemical incendiary THERMATE in multiple dust samples (and also upon a previously melted section of steel frame). The amount of material present in the dust samples indicated that many tons must have been used and provided clear evidence of foul play.
Point Four. In the last few years an international team of researchers looking into the WTC dust found high tech explosive particles (nano-thermite chips) in every sample collected. This military grade product, found in quantities that also indicated many tons were present, cannot be explained in any conventional way. This was the final nail in the coffin of the official story that fires had caused the World Trade Centre building collapses.
These four points of forensic proof indicate an attempt had been made at deceptively demolishing these three buildings. The deception was only partly successful.
The immediate question following this evidence is how could so many tons of explosive and incendiary materials be brought into these buildings ? At this point no one can surely say except to point out that the evidence is, nevertheless, there. One thing we do know is that an elevator modernisation program was underway in the Towers during the months leading up to the attacks providing plenty of opportunity to thoroughly rig these structures.
So what about the official investigations ? When it came to conducting the scientific "investigations" into the building collapses the FEMA and NIST studies basically ignored or whitewashed these obvious signs of inside work. In fact the "separate" investigations consisted of the same people who had connections & contracts to the US military. Some of these individuals even had connections to nano-thermite (explosive) research !
When we look at 911 from an objective stand point it is obvious that the attacks involved a large degree of inside help and that a cover-up was, and still is, in operation. The problem with successfully communicating this information to those who remain skeptical are twofold:
1. There is a strong reluctance by people, who have been psychologically conditioned to accept the official account, to take a second look at any evidence that interferes with their established views (and this includes the Australian Prime Minister), and
2. There are numerous liars in the US corporate media and Government who will try to keep a lid on anything that greatly rocks the establishment. They'll censor or deride all attempts at having a reasonable debate on this matter and push false counter claims to the truth evidence (debunking) so as to mislead the public.
In terms of the Australian experience involving our own terrorism "experts", the academics and bureaucrats who brief our media and the Government also appear to either not recognise the truth or deliberately go along with the lie.
On the other hand, our intelligence heads at the ONA and ASIS, who should be less susceptible to deception than others, almost certainly recognise the truth and more than likely push the lie about 911 to those not in the know. Their mission, like that of the CIA, is to "play the game" and protect strategic and corporate interests. The 911 lie is simply too big to let out of the bag, the repercussions for the shadowy intelligence community being too great.
In the middle of this mess is the Australian media's inability to report on such matters. Our investigative journalists, who should have been more curious and critical of the official 911 story, seem to be as misled as the general population.
The time has passed to gloss over the "conspiracy theories" concerning the 911 attacks. When we are talking about having our troops remain in Afghanistan, potentially for up to 10 more years, we need to be honest with ourselves and not trumpet the false belief that we are preventing more terror attacks like 911. That assertion is plainly ridiculous.
Anyone who engages in enough research can determine who is telling the truth about 911, either the US Government or independent researchers. The fact is that Australian troops arrived in Afghanistan under mistaken pretenses and now we have to decide whether they should stay for humanitarian reasons or withdraw.
Please visit these vital 911 truth sites and make a reasoned judgement on what to believe: Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth, 911Blogger, and (for counter-disinformation) Debunking the Debunkers Blog [Google them].
Please vote!
Herald Sun Poll: 65% Agree that the Official 9/11 Story does not Stand up to Scientific Scrutiny
Related Info:
Visibility 9-11 Welcomes Australian Union President, Kevin Bracken – A True Working Class Hero!
Defending The 9/11 Truth Tellers
Aussie Trades Unionist Exposes 9/11 Cover-up
Recently the President of the Trades Hall Council and Secretary of the Maritime Union of Australia, Kevin Bracken, telephoned into a local radio program that was discussing the Australian troop deployment to Afghanistan. Mr Bracken aired the implicit view that, in terms of the deployment's role in "stopping terrorism", we should be mindful that our commitment was, from the outset, completely unnecessary. His argument follows that we are fighting an unnecessary war because the attacks of 911 were orchestrated by a conspiracy originating closer to home, that Osama Bin Laden was merely a patsy.
Predictably, when this matter was raised in the Australian Parliament the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, quickly responded by characterising Mr Bracken's opinions as "stupid and wrong". However, when we compare the US Government's official story regarding 911 with the hard evidence relating to the World Trade Centre attacks we can quickly determine that the only people who are wrong here are those who back the official story.
There are four main points of physical evidence revealed in the destruction of the World Trade Centre Buildings that provide smoking gun physical evidence that completely undermines the official account; that fires caused the "collapses" of these structures:
Point One. The destruction of the Twin Towers, and World Trade Centre 7, exhibited features that were not at all consistent with a gravitational collapse. In fact these features can only be reasonably described as the products of explosive forces. World Trade Centre Building 7 in particular raises a huge red flag. Designed, like the towers, to withstand earthquakes, fires, and hurricanes, with only minor damage, and not hit by an aeroplane, this structure collapses in a manner identical to a controlled demolition seven hours after the disintegration of the Towers at 5:20pm. The collapse here defies the Laws of physics save for the use of explosives that would allow for such a rapid demise.
Point Two. Despite the building fires being too weak to melt structural steel there is ample evidence showing the melting of steel during and after the building destruction. The phenomena of melted steel is an impossible occurrence under the observed fire conditions witnessed in the buildings and can only have resulted from the presence of chemical incendiary (superhot burning) devices.
Point Three. Investigations by independent scientists showed the signature of the chemical incendiary THERMATE in multiple dust samples (and also upon a previously melted section of steel frame). The amount of material present in the dust samples indicated that many tons must have been used and provided clear evidence of foul play.
Point Four. In the last few years an international team of researchers looking into the WTC dust found high tech explosive particles (nano-thermite chips) in every sample collected. This military grade product, found in quantities that also indicated many tons were present, cannot be explained in any conventional way. This was the final nail in the coffin of the official story that fires had caused the World Trade Centre building collapses.
These four points of forensic proof indicate an attempt had been made at deceptively demolishing these three buildings. The deception was only partly successful.
The immediate question following this evidence is how could so many tons of explosive and incendiary materials be brought into these buildings ? At this point no one can surely say except to point out that the evidence is, nevertheless, there. One thing we do know is that an elevator modernisation program was underway in the Towers during the months leading up to the attacks providing plenty of opportunity to thoroughly rig these structures.
So what about the official investigations ? When it came to conducting the scientific "investigations" into the building collapses the FEMA and NIST studies basically ignored or whitewashed these obvious signs of inside work. In fact the "separate" investigations consisted of the same people who had connections & contracts to the US military. Some of these individuals even had connections to nano-thermite (explosive) research !
When we look at 911 from an objective stand point it is obvious that the attacks involved a large degree of inside help and that a cover-up was, and still is, in operation. The problem with successfully communicating this information to those who remain skeptical are twofold:
1. There is a strong reluctance by people, who have been psychologically conditioned to accept the official account, to take a second look at any evidence that interferes with their established views (and this includes the Australian Prime Minister), and
2. There are numerous liars in the US corporate media and Government who will try to keep a lid on anything that greatly rocks the establishment. They'll censor or deride all attempts at having a reasonable debate on this matter and push false counter claims to the truth evidence (debunking) so as to mislead the public.
In terms of the Australian experience involving our own terrorism "experts", the academics and bureaucrats who brief our media and the Government also appear to either not recognise the truth or deliberately go along with the lie.
On the other hand, our intelligence heads at the ONA and ASIS, who should be less susceptible to deception than others, almost certainly recognise the truth and more than likely push the lie about 911 to those not in the know. Their mission, like that of the CIA, is to "play the game" and protect strategic and corporate interests. The 911 lie is simply too big to let out of the bag, the repercussions for the shadowy intelligence community being too great.
In the middle of this mess is the Australian media's inability to report on such matters. Our investigative journalists, who should have been more curious and critical of the official 911 story, seem to be as misled as the general population.
The time has passed to gloss over the "conspiracy theories" concerning the 911 attacks. When we are talking about having our troops remain in Afghanistan, potentially for up to 10 more years, we need to be honest with ourselves and not trumpet the false belief that we are preventing more terror attacks like 911. That assertion is plainly ridiculous.
Anyone who engages in enough research can determine who is telling the truth about 911, either the US Government or independent researchers. The fact is that Australian troops arrived in Afghanistan under mistaken pretenses and now we have to decide whether they should stay for humanitarian reasons or withdraw.
Please visit these vital 911 truth sites and make a reasoned judgement on what to believe: Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth, 911Blogger, and (for counter-disinformation) Debunking the Debunkers Blog [Google them].
Please vote!
Herald Sun Poll: 65% Agree that the Official 9/11 Story does not Stand up to Scientific Scrutiny
Related Info:
Visibility 9-11 Welcomes Australian Union President, Kevin Bracken – A True Working Class Hero!
Defending The 9/11 Truth Tellers
Aussie Trades Unionist Exposes 9/11 Cover-up
Saturday, February 13, 2010
There are civilized debunkers out there. Just gotta know where to look!
This is a debate I had with a debunker awhile back. This discussion I had is total proof that it is possible to have a rational and intellectual debate with a debunker. (The tone of this debate, as you will see, is completely in contrast with my previous debate.) Here is my discussion with debunker Gunny467, regarding the thermite theory and nano-thermite paper. It's a short debate, but a refreshing one:
AdamT:
Hello Gunny. I wanted to pick up from where we left off in our discussion. I see from your channel that you are open to a civil debate that you would like to finish. And that's fine, just keep the debate civil on your end as well. Now, to pick up from where we left off on the chain of custody issue, I have a few questions. The claim I keep hearing from many is that there is no proper chain of custody for the four samples Dr. Jones has obtained, therby the samples are possibly contaminated. However, the one thing I have yet to hear explained is what this alleged contamination is supposed to have done to the samples. What exactly do you think happened to the samples that caused Dr. Jones and the others to come to the conclusions that they did? Because as far as I know, other studies by other groups such as the RJ Lee group and the USGS group have found similar elements in their own samples, particularly finding the iron-rich spheres. I would really like to hear your input. Thank you.
Gunny:
Well, with no clear chain of custody it can't be proven that the samples he tested were from ground zero. It's possible they were substituted en route to a destination. Another possibility is that they were contaminated by improper handling. The motive for tampering is easy, money. He's made a substantial dollar amount doing lectures and tours about his findings. Money he wouldn't have made if there wasn't a paper. If a chain of custody issue had been raised with the official samples most conspiracy theorists would have said it indicated proof of a conspiracy. I see no reason to hold Dr. Jones to the same standards. Iron rich spheres by themselves aren't indicative of a thermite reaction. His paper starts with the answer he wants and devises questions to get there. He ignores any data that doesn't fit his theory. It's bad science.
AT:
The first thing I should point out is that you're right, the samples didn't come from Ground Zero. They came from areas away from Ground Zero such as the Brooklyn Bridge and other buildings in the city. That proves that they were not contaminated by the cleanup efforts. Second, I really doubt he is doing this for money. He basically gave up his job to investigate 9/11. And I see no evidence what so ever that Dr. Jones is just lying about the dust. Again, other studies have essentially found the same things. Also, didn't NIST start with a conclusion and tried to find evidence that supported their conclusion? I do think the iron spheres are extremely important because their presence implies that iron had melted. Iron does not melt until temperatures of 2800 degrees F. I can't think of anything that could cause that except thermite.
Gunny:
Well not necessarily. Acetylene torches welding steel can have that effect, so someone collecting a sample that had been contaminated from cast of near a construction site not in the immediate vicinity of Ground Zero. Specifically, if a sample was collected from the Brookline bridge, the amount of contamination from vehicle cast of would be enormous. Any truck carrying welded scraps to or from a dump could have left iron sphere contaminated dust on the bridge. The samples weren't collected by professionals, but by supposedly by random people who wanted some of the dust. He didn't then test the samples for four years after they were collected by people with no experience in handling evidence. This casts considerable doubt on the initial integrity of his samples. In addition certain types of paint (specifically rust preventative paints) have varying levels of them as a byproduct of their manufacturing process. College professors don't really make a lot of money, unless they publish an important paper. I've read the NIST report. It doesn't have a specific conclusion at all. It's presented facts indicate to an almost certain degree of probability that events happened in a manner consistent with a catastrophic failure due to an impact with a jetliner. The steel didn't melt. It was weakened by several hours of exposure to a high intensity fire caused by burning fuel. The already massive damage to the superstructure resulted in a systemic failure of the support structure resulting in collapse. In addition to the information already sent, I would like to note that the molten metal pouring from the building is suspected to be from the remains of the Jetliner itself, as it's aluminum body melted from the intense heat.
AT:
To address the iron sphere issue, I would agree with you about them except for the fact that they were also found by the RJ Lee group and the USGS group. Particularly the RJ Lee group who obtained their samples from the Deutchse Bank building for environmental studies. They found the exact same type of iron spheres across the street from the WTC, so the cleanup could not possibly have produced the spheres at least there anyway. The USGS also found these spheres in their own dust analysis. The acetylene torches have been raised as a possibility, but they are a highly unlikely cause since spheres from thermite and spheres from torches have distinct differences. This is a good video that addresses this issue:
Also, the material flowing out of the South Tower does not appear to be from the plane. I have made a video addressing this issue:
Gunny:
Well, I really want you to understand that this is not a brush off, but instead me gathering my files and taking some time to address those points in turn from the second video. This response might take a while. Perhaps by Sunday I'll have a list of compiled statements and counter theories. Is this acceptable? The amount of time needed to address all these points is something I'm going to have to juggle in my off time between retraining from injury, redeployment and continuing education. If things go well I should be out of the hospital by Saturday which will give me enough time to put a proper counter-argument together.
AT:
That's fine. Whenever you get around to it is fine with me. I'm in no rush.
Gunny:
Thank you for your generosity! In case you hadn't noticed you've made my Cool Wall in my profile for your continued good natured debating, in addition to your well articulated and presented arguments.
AT:
I did notice, and thank you. I am always open to a civil debate.
___________________________________________________________
Since then, Gunny has not responded back, but it was quite nice to have a rational debate for a change(I don't get many). You can get a good conversation out of Gunny467. As long as you're civil with him, he'll be civil with you. Which, of course, is how it always should be.
AdamT:
Hello Gunny. I wanted to pick up from where we left off in our discussion. I see from your channel that you are open to a civil debate that you would like to finish. And that's fine, just keep the debate civil on your end as well. Now, to pick up from where we left off on the chain of custody issue, I have a few questions. The claim I keep hearing from many is that there is no proper chain of custody for the four samples Dr. Jones has obtained, therby the samples are possibly contaminated. However, the one thing I have yet to hear explained is what this alleged contamination is supposed to have done to the samples. What exactly do you think happened to the samples that caused Dr. Jones and the others to come to the conclusions that they did? Because as far as I know, other studies by other groups such as the RJ Lee group and the USGS group have found similar elements in their own samples, particularly finding the iron-rich spheres. I would really like to hear your input. Thank you.
Gunny:
Well, with no clear chain of custody it can't be proven that the samples he tested were from ground zero. It's possible they were substituted en route to a destination. Another possibility is that they were contaminated by improper handling. The motive for tampering is easy, money. He's made a substantial dollar amount doing lectures and tours about his findings. Money he wouldn't have made if there wasn't a paper. If a chain of custody issue had been raised with the official samples most conspiracy theorists would have said it indicated proof of a conspiracy. I see no reason to hold Dr. Jones to the same standards. Iron rich spheres by themselves aren't indicative of a thermite reaction. His paper starts with the answer he wants and devises questions to get there. He ignores any data that doesn't fit his theory. It's bad science.
AT:
The first thing I should point out is that you're right, the samples didn't come from Ground Zero. They came from areas away from Ground Zero such as the Brooklyn Bridge and other buildings in the city. That proves that they were not contaminated by the cleanup efforts. Second, I really doubt he is doing this for money. He basically gave up his job to investigate 9/11. And I see no evidence what so ever that Dr. Jones is just lying about the dust. Again, other studies have essentially found the same things. Also, didn't NIST start with a conclusion and tried to find evidence that supported their conclusion? I do think the iron spheres are extremely important because their presence implies that iron had melted. Iron does not melt until temperatures of 2800 degrees F. I can't think of anything that could cause that except thermite.
Gunny:
Well not necessarily. Acetylene torches welding steel can have that effect, so someone collecting a sample that had been contaminated from cast of near a construction site not in the immediate vicinity of Ground Zero. Specifically, if a sample was collected from the Brookline bridge, the amount of contamination from vehicle cast of would be enormous. Any truck carrying welded scraps to or from a dump could have left iron sphere contaminated dust on the bridge. The samples weren't collected by professionals, but by supposedly by random people who wanted some of the dust. He didn't then test the samples for four years after they were collected by people with no experience in handling evidence. This casts considerable doubt on the initial integrity of his samples. In addition certain types of paint (specifically rust preventative paints) have varying levels of them as a byproduct of their manufacturing process. College professors don't really make a lot of money, unless they publish an important paper. I've read the NIST report. It doesn't have a specific conclusion at all. It's presented facts indicate to an almost certain degree of probability that events happened in a manner consistent with a catastrophic failure due to an impact with a jetliner. The steel didn't melt. It was weakened by several hours of exposure to a high intensity fire caused by burning fuel. The already massive damage to the superstructure resulted in a systemic failure of the support structure resulting in collapse. In addition to the information already sent, I would like to note that the molten metal pouring from the building is suspected to be from the remains of the Jetliner itself, as it's aluminum body melted from the intense heat.
AT:
To address the iron sphere issue, I would agree with you about them except for the fact that they were also found by the RJ Lee group and the USGS group. Particularly the RJ Lee group who obtained their samples from the Deutchse Bank building for environmental studies. They found the exact same type of iron spheres across the street from the WTC, so the cleanup could not possibly have produced the spheres at least there anyway. The USGS also found these spheres in their own dust analysis. The acetylene torches have been raised as a possibility, but they are a highly unlikely cause since spheres from thermite and spheres from torches have distinct differences. This is a good video that addresses this issue:
Also, the material flowing out of the South Tower does not appear to be from the plane. I have made a video addressing this issue:
Gunny:
Well, I really want you to understand that this is not a brush off, but instead me gathering my files and taking some time to address those points in turn from the second video. This response might take a while. Perhaps by Sunday I'll have a list of compiled statements and counter theories. Is this acceptable? The amount of time needed to address all these points is something I'm going to have to juggle in my off time between retraining from injury, redeployment and continuing education. If things go well I should be out of the hospital by Saturday which will give me enough time to put a proper counter-argument together.
AT:
That's fine. Whenever you get around to it is fine with me. I'm in no rush.
Gunny:
Thank you for your generosity! In case you hadn't noticed you've made my Cool Wall in my profile for your continued good natured debating, in addition to your well articulated and presented arguments.
AT:
I did notice, and thank you. I am always open to a civil debate.
___________________________________________________________
Since then, Gunny has not responded back, but it was quite nice to have a rational debate for a change(I don't get many). You can get a good conversation out of Gunny467. As long as you're civil with him, he'll be civil with you. Which, of course, is how it always should be.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
The 9/11 Masterminds?????
I was listening to the news the other day and I heard the latest regarding the alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and 4 others that confessed?? under questionable (torture) circumstances.They alleged masterminds are to be tried in New York.
They are to be tried for the murders of 2,900 plus people on 9/11.
(Is this the real reason New York refused to honor the petition with 80,000 signatures for a new 9/11 investigation?)
Quite a few things went through my mind and I have a few questions.
#1. Haven't we been told for years by our Presidents that Osama-Bin-Laden was the mastermind behind 9/11? Remember the wanted dead or alive thing?
Here is something from Wikipedia regarding:
"The United States government determined that Al-Qaeda, headed by Osama bin Laden, bore responsibility for the attacks, with the FBI stating "evidence linking Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden to the attacks of September 11 is clear and irrefutable". The Government of the United Kingdom reached the same conclusion regarding Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden's culpability for the 11 September attacks."
#2. Didn't Bush try to convince us all that Osama-Bin-Laden was responsible for 9/11 and in charge of those who supposedly flew the planes into the Twin Towers?
#3. Didn't our military go bomb Afghanistan, and send troops over there after Osama and the rest of the Taliban that Osama was supposedly in charge of?
#4. If we have had the masterminds of 9/11 in custody for years then why are our solders still over there in Afghanistan? Why are we sending more to catch a possible non existent Al-Qaeda?
#5. Can we really believe what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed says after he has publicly stated "I make up stories"?
#6. What about the scientific peer reviewed paper that talks about the Thermitic material that was found in the dust of the towers?
#7. What about the lack of NORAD response to 9/11?
#8. What about Bush,Cheney and Rumsfeld's failure to do their jobs the day of 9/11?
#9. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is a Bosnian Citizen as well as a Pakistani citizen NOT A AFGHANISTAN citizen. Did we attack and wage war in the wrong country? Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was born and captured in PAKISTAN NOT AFGHANISTAN.
#10. What about tower 7's collapse?
#11. What about the 9/11 commissioners statements saying the investigation had been obstructed by our own government and 9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton saying; "There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn't have access . . . ."?
#12. What about the ex-CIA veterans that challenge the official reports about 9/11?
#13. If Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the others are the masterminds of 911 then either our government lied or was extremely wrong in everything they have told us regarding Osama and 9/11.
Which is it and how can I ever trust anything they say ever again?
Saying that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed masterminded 9/11 does not answer the questions of the 9/11 families regarding 9/11. It does not explain why whistleblowers told 9/11 family member Patty Casazza that before 9/11 the government knew the exact date and exact targets.
This also does not explain the many anomalies and unanswered questions that have been brought up worldwide regarding the events of 9/11.
Just because they have found a "Mastermind" (possible Patsy) to blame 9/11 on does not answer any of the questions I have regarding 9/11 and our governments involvement in some form or another. As a matter of fact it just brings more questions. I wonder if the government hopes that if they make a huge deal out of this "911 Mastermind??" will we the Truthers just go away?
The answer to that is NO.
Right now the old saying that Truth is stranger than fiction is proving itself to be a fact.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
