[Peace-discuss] Final 9/11 comment

[Chas. 'Mark' Bee]

  Can you show us one single group not devoted to their own 9/11 view that backs up your theories?  You know, a group created for a different purpose, whose main business is something other than 9/11?

  I find your characterization of the resources you provide as 'unbiased' a little shaky, and would be interested in some actual unbiased sources.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Chuck Minne 
  To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net 
  Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 12:25 PM
  Subject: [Peace-discuss] Final 9/11 comment


  I would like to make a few final comments regarding 9/11 and then I will let it drop unless someone wants to continue.
   
  First, to be an out-of-the-closet conspiracy nut is almost a sure way to hurt yourself professionally. In a university setting, almost all scientific research is funded by government or institutions that definitely don't want to see this particular boat rocked.

    Perhaps more to the point, a University's reputation rests directly on its members making sense.

   (It's sort of what it would have been like to have a great job in the UI Athletic Department in the past while being rabidly anti-Chief. You better keep that a secret if you want to get anyplace. Actually, I suspect that Guenther and the coaches would have loved to be rid of him long ago, but never uttered a word of that. I digress.) Republicans largely run businesses, and you know where they stand. I am retired, if I were still employed, my mouth would be shut tight. 

    Business, also, relies on its principals' credibility.
   
  Along these lines, I am convinced that Tim Johnson and virtually everyone who is anyone in Washington knows that an airliner did not hit the Pentagon and that the three WTC buildings were brought down with controlled demolition. Ditto anyone who has done any significant demolition work. Ditto any scientist or engineer who has actually given the problem serious study. (Well, not the Purdue team that explained that there was no wing wreckage at or wing damage to the Pentagon because the wings must have "liquefied;" another first.

    You left off your cite.

   Jesus, can you believe that?) In other words, I think a huge number of people know that it was a hoax, but that they know that it would be political, financial, business, and perhaps personal death to utter a sound about it, so they, like Guenther, smile and back the party line.

    Yes, huge numbers of people are always capable of keeping a secret.

   I think that very few of these people know how it was done; they just know it was done. (I personally think we had the Arabs fly the planes and missile (if it was a missile,) but I don't know who planted the explosives.)

    Of course, there is stil no real evidence of explosives.  If there were, it would be used by the administration to bolster the terrorism angle.

   
  I say this because I don't think that anyone with freshman chemistry and physics who hears the various architects, engineers, and scientists explain how explosives are the only way it could have happen the way it did, can say they are wrong.

    No, it's pretty easy.

   For example, how many of you knew that the twin towers were designed to take many hits from the largest airliners being built at the time?

    You left off your cite again.

   The architect describes their construction with regard to airliner hits as being like a screen being hit by a bullet; and the evidence is clear that the impact shock had nothing to do with the eventual collapse.

    I'll bet he does.  =)  And no, I see no way the evidence can produce no such outright rule-out of the severed structural supports from the impact.
   
  But of course you won't find these interviews being replayed on the media (almost all of the early media comments were "disappeared" and not ever repeated.) But they are on DVDs, of which there are many. However, those DVDs are not acceptable citations because they are "propaganda." So what are in many cases replays of earlier newscasts becomes propaganda and not worth viewing.
   
  Second, it is well understood by people on both sides of the controversy that there never would have been an investigation into the events of 9/11 had it not been for the persistence of a handful of family members, mostly the widows, of the actual victims. And these family members would not have really been successful in getting an investigation had it not been for a web site by Paul Thompson, so you might say that Paul Thompson is the father of the very loose-knit 9/11 truth movement.

    It may be very loose-knit, but I had to go through 20 worthless highly repetitive google pages of it in my search.
   
  I have given links to three hours of DVDs that are excellent. Here is a link to one that must be bought to view:
   
  http://www.911pressfortruth.com/timeline
   
   
  I have not given it before because I think the ones with the engineering and physics details are harder to deny - I mean you can't deny virtual free-fall speeds,

    There were, of course, no real free fall speeds involved in the structural collapse, only the loose debris.  Nothing _collapses_ at free fall speeds, not even intentionally demolished buildings.  All materials resist deformation.

   the physical evidence, when investigated is compelling - and this one relies very little on science. This DVD tells the story of the family members and Paul Thompson and deals with the forming of the commission and what they ignored as far as the NORAD response, and our actions in the Middle East which allowed bin Laden to continually escape. It also gives evidence that the money to support the hijackers in the US was funneled by the general who was head of Pakistani intelligence (who was in Washington DC on 9/11.) It also shows how Bush appointed Kissenger to head the commission and the widows got him removed after he refused to tell them if he had clients named bin Laden, but how he was then replaced by Zelikow whom they later determined was a crony of Rice but refused to step down when they requested it. Former senator and commissioner Max Cleland is shown raging that the commission cannot see White House data. He resigned.
   
  Here are links to the two previous DVDs I have linked:
   
  9/11 Revisited  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1951610169657809939
   
  9/11 Intellectuals Speak Out http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3195658770053494633
   
  These three videos are about five hours of viewing. Considering the importance of 9/11 I don't think that five hours is an inordinate amount of time for an unbiased examination of what people who are obviously not nuts have to say. If you are willing to spend that five hours and still think I am nuts or a liar, feel free to tell me so. 
   
  However, if you just dismiss it as silly crazy propaganda not worth watching, then you are simply the biased juror who only listens to one side and then renders his verdict.

    No, you see, there are plenty of other sources besides DVDs put out by organizations 100% devoted to their specific cause.  But I'm willing to watch the free materials as soon as I have a high spped connection somewhere else besides my job.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20070223/c3da495b/attachment.htm