Just remember:

There are many, many facets of the official 9-11 story which should make anyone with half a brain wonder if they are being lied to.

Afterall, if you believe that Bush caused the deaths of 1700+ American soldiers based on a lie (not to mention tens of thousands of Iraqis)-- then how different is it to believe that this same administration, at the very least, allowed another "Pearl Harbour" event to occurr.

I watched a professor in the U.S. answer a very good (and common) question posed to him about the possibility of this happening without any leaks occurring. He shrugged his shoulders and said, "What about the Manhattan Project?"

You may view it here:

David Ray Griffin Reveals Major 9/11 Cover-up on C-SPAN

Brad,

This is extremely important.

Anyone got a link to this story in the Times?

I must have the Times' version.

It's good to see some new comments here from STOP_George ... we haven't had anything from him lately and some of us must have wondering ...

There are many, many facets of the official 9-11 story which should make anyone with half a brain wonder if they are being lied to.

and for those who would like to know more, follow this next link to an article that does a great job of gathering information and presenting it.

Thanks to Jeff Wells at "Rigorous Intuition" for: The Coincidence Theorist's Guide to 9/11

Times url. UPI broke the story.

http://washingtontimes.c...0050613-102755-6408r.htm

MrBlueSky - I've added the Washington Times link to the article. Meant to put it there previously, but overlooked it. Now updated to include it.

I haven't drawn any conlcusions in regards to buildings 1 & 2, however building 7 was --- without a doubt --- taken down with charges.

Also, below, for anyone who hasn't seen it, is a video of firefighters giving some interesting observations of what they observed during the first collapse.

http://911research.com/w...cussion_in_firehouse.mpg

The link doesn't work. The text has been removed.

Damn... we must be on to them!

Still works for me.

You have to scroll past an ad.

Brad-

Here's something I found today on US Government web site (via some links in a Buzzflash.com article).

Good old Congressman Sensenbrenner was part of the group that presented the bill ...wonder why????

Some Republican members of Congress want to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States'.

We better get adjusted to "King" GW Bush.

FYI-
-------------------------------------------------------------

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution. (Introduced in House)

HJ 24 IH

109th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. J. RES. 24

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 17, 2005

Mr. HOYER (for himself, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. SABO, and Mr. PALLONE) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

`Article --

`The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is repealed.'.

re #7 --- what link are you having trouble with? maybe we can fix it.

I am very disturbed..............Frankly, Reynolds logic do make sense. Well. my brain is numb...... Feeling like I will pass out..................

To me this article was a collection of murky statements without posing any evidence. I watched the live broadcast that day as the the first tower collasped, begining at the level where the airliner struck. A B767 full of jet fuel and subsequent fire was all the demolition needed. Although it wouldn't surprise me if there was forknowledge of an attack.

Thanks for posting this Brad.

Raindream, there is plenty of evidence. Simply search the web.

Also, Larry Silverstien admitted on a PBS documentary that he ordered buildings 6 & 7 to be "pulled," which is the industry term for executing a controlled demolition.

For more information about the possibility of the Bush admin being complicit in 9/11, please see the following websites:

www.911truth.org
www.911citizenswatch.org
www.reopen911.org

And PLEASE, if you're so inclined, sign the petition to reopen the investigation at the last site! They have requested NY Attorney General Eliot Spitzer and DA Morgenthau to do so, and have provided them with volumes of evidence to support the case. All these guys need do is investigate! (Of course, AG Spitzer is planning a run for governor, so that puts him into a difficult position.)

Rain Dream - Below is an article by Reynolds explaining his position.

http://www.lewrockwell.c...reynolds/reynolds12.html

Especially good article on why 9/11 is such a crucial issue, The Mother Of All Issues, that touches on every single one of our current complaints and issues, both domestic and foreign:

http://www.911truth.org/...?story=20050204100025495

If 9/11 were exposed, all the other cards would fall.

Thanks for the link Brad.... finally got it.

Now, I can refute friends and family who think it "propaganda" to believe in anything but the official version of events.

Hopefully, the "official version" will go the way of the Warren Commission report!

Thanks for the link Brad.... finally got it.

Now, I can refute friends and family who think it "propaganda" to believe in anything but the official version of events.

Hopefully, the "official version" will go the way of the Warren Commission report!

#11 Bando Bling

That feeling will last for a few days - at least that's what I experienced when I connected the dots.

Welcome to the nightmare.

OOPS... sorry for the double post.

My bad.

I checked out the Arctic Beacon site after reading the article Brad referenced. Looks interesting, but that's all I know. Here are a couple of links:

journalist for hire

voices of freedom

"Besides printing the truth about why America is being destroyed by the neo-conservatives and globalists, we are also seeking your individual story about why you think America is headed in the wrong direction and needs to be changed from the inside out."

"With this in mind, please email us your story today to patriott2424@aol.com.We want to know why you feel America needs new leadership and new direction. Along with your story of no more than 200 words, please include your name as well as city and state of residence..."

TopGun?

Tuesday, June 14, 2005 5:55 PM
econrn@cox-internet.com

Re: http://washingtontimes.c...0050613-102755-6408r.htm

Dear Professor Reynolds,

As we discussed today on the phone, I am attaching a link to a video that tends to support your "serious doubts..." In particular, please notice the people who are still alive despite temperatures of thousands of degrees that would have been needed to melt steel.

Sincerely,

http://70.84.33.210/%7Ei...70305martialpreview2.wmv

I did a google search on "Larry Silverstien" after reading #13.

Here's the first thing I found. Apologies for the long text, and also apologies if the rest of you already know this. I didn't.

more on the PBS documentary

Part of text from link:

"In a September 2002, PBS filmed a documentary called 'America Rebuilds' which was about the rebuilding of the world trade center. During the documentary, they interviewed Larry Silverstien, real estate tycoon, who received part of a multibillion (500 million to be exact) insurance compensation after the World Trade Center buildings 1, 2, and 7 were destroyed. In that movie which I have available for download (via prisonplanet), he explicitly said...

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

"This documentary was never aired, but PBS still released and sold copies. He said it right there! This is him telling publicly, that he made the decision to demolish WTC 7. I have both the clip of him saying it and one of the firefighters claiming that the building was indeed destroyed, not by fire, but explosions. The only possible way that could have happened so quickly was if there were charges placed inside WTC 7, prior to 9-11. And Mr. Larry Silverstien somehow made the decision to "pull" or demolish it. What's not to say that the twin towers had charges placed in them also? There is no way that the small fires started by debris, could have caused the building to implode and demolish exactly like a controlled demolition. Even the firefighters knew it was detonated!"

Thank you, Brad, for hosting this important information.

While it's important not to jump to conclusions, I would suggest
that anyone interested in 9/11 and in the WTC collapse start
with the books and the video of Dr. David Ray Griffin and the
911truth website.

Please note that signatories to the 911 Truth Statement include
three 2004 presidential candidates: Ralph Nader, David Cobb,
and Michael Badnarik.

Yes - Petgoat #24

Watch:
David Ray Griffin Speech

For others wanting to catch up and for some great links, visit:
April 30th Bradblog thread

Brad,

Community Assistant--- Any chance you could make this easier to find via your site? I discovered it only after reading about it comments on a previous story. As (Kira?) said, you have to bookmark it.

making clickable links is easy

Hey Kira- the transcription is going more slowly than I thought- I thought that Ray McGovern was speaking slowly, but he wasn't!!!!!!!!! VG

Very interesting...

But the problem with BradBlog entertaining *every* theory seriously, is that there may be some red herrings out there.

If newcomers think that BradBlog has quickly swallowed even red herrings as truth... they may not realize that BradBlog has a lot of information to offer that is very viable, proven beyond any doubt (eg. Curtis/Feeney vote-rigging-software)

RE: #3

Thanks, Winter!

I've returned back from Taiwan to Canada and that's why I've been quiet the last month or two.

I've been very busy lately, so Newsclip Autopsy may be a bit dusty these days --- not that you guys need me. Everyone's doing such a superb job these days! The poo poo is really going to start spraying soon in the U.S.! In the words of Howard Dean, "YEEEEEEAAAARRGGGGHH!!"

For all of you Canadians out there, you can check out my new site --- Telus - The present is hostile --- which is telling an unbelievable story about what I went through switching my DSL from Telus --- another reason I've been a bit slow getting back. The telecommunications industry in Canada is a freakin' mess!

Brad:

I checked out you audio archives of The Brad Show. Awesome, man! Awesome!!! Keep having those technical screwups. It can be your schtick, and it's very funny at times. It keeps it real.

Does anyone else find it curious that the right wing UPI and the uber right wing Washington Times reported this damaging assertion? I can't imagine that the Moonies would print anything of this nature without first checking in with Rove. So what's really going on here? Just asking...

Hey VG!!!!! Ain't that the truth? I thought it would go a lot faster, too, but I'm trying to be very accurate.

We'll get there eventually.

Hey Kira!!!! Good to hear from you. Glad (?) you are having the same experience, that is, glad to know I'm not a sluggard. It is intense work, which I can only do for a few hours (!) at a time, and not many light moments, except for McGovern turing off the humidifier, where in Washington, the heat has been on!

Thank you for posting this Brad!

Kitty27 #16 - EXACTLY what I've thought as well. This is the base of the iceberg, so to speak!!

Isn't it almost hard to grasp how much information we've all been aware for so long and it's only through the Internet that it's ever acknowledged? The fact that bits and pieces are slowly dripping out into the MSM is almost as surreal as it's been living in the parallel universe we've been in for so long!

The number and scope of lies and scandals is mind-boggling. I truly feel all our efforts are starting to bear fruit! Thank God for the 6 or 7 paying attention!

Leann #29 --- Lots of people are wondering why two Moonie media outlets would do this. But somebody else reminded us on another thread (yesterday?) that the Times did this with Poppy bush and the child sex ring scandal in 1989, and that he has a penchant for blackmail.

I wonder if he sees bush falling, and wants to now play a part in that, as well as whatever might happen later (who becomes president?). Recall it was Murdoch's paper that released the DSM in May...maybe they're starting to eat their own, since bush is beginning to look like a lame duck.

Did y'all see this in the PDA e-mail this afternoon?:

"Your work has moved mountains because of your lobbying on the Woolsey Amendment and the leadership of her taking it to the floor, Republicans are beginning to regret their vote in support of this war. Congressman John Duncan Jr (R-TN) said last night:

'I have come here tonight, first of all, to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) for these remarks and for his leadership role that he has taken in this regard. I also want to commend our colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), because he feels so badly that he voted for this war and now he has seen what has happened. And certainly the most unfortunate thing has been the more than 1,700 young Americans who have been killed there now, and the some 12,000 who have been wounded, many of them severely wounded, maimed for life, in what was a totally unnecessary war.'
(ALL THREE Republicans)

So, let's start a pool and see how many Republicans jump ship between now and August...

Yes, let's watch the rats jump ship...just don't let them back on the next ship that comes by...anyone who DOESN'T KNOW that bombing and killing hundreds and thousands of innocent Iraqis to remove a dictator is WRONG...is brainless, immoral, reckless, stupid, dangerous, etc. It was NOT necessary; it was EVIL.

#33

Just a bit of info and personal opinion re: Rupert Murdoch and the Times in London. The UK Times is the most conservative newspaper (Tory) in Britain. Blair is the Labour Prime Minister, because the majority of MPs elected recently represent the Labour Party. I'm sure the Tories and the Times would like to overturn the Labour majority, so the Times leaks of the DSM etc. would be in line with a Tory political agenda.

That's not to say that the Labour MPs are exactly fond of Blair, either:

Labour calls for Blair to quit

Devlin #6,

True on building no.7 being demolished. The Twin Towers weren't as easy to understand. At first it was hard for be to understand the collapse of the Twin Towers. But then I learned what the "smoking gun" was concerning the theory of demolition for them as well: collapse time

The buildings collapsed at the free fall rate of a building that has had it's ENTIRE internal infrastructure compromised. This obviously would only be possible by way of charge cutting the internal core support columns.

If the buildings fell because of the "pan cake" theory where each floor collapses under the downward momentum of the floors from above, then the collapse time would have taken much longer than as we saw. It's a little more complicated than this, but essentially, at any point in the building, the building is designed to hold MUCH MORE weight than is above it at that point. So even if one floor was comprimised and snapped, the downward momentum of the weight above would have been met with a tremendous amount of UPWARD force strength by the floors immediately below it that were NOT compromised. The net effect would have been at the MOST, total collapse, but it would have taken at least twice to three times as long as the approx 10 second fall we all witnessed.

That is the weight of proof that convinces me. All the other evidence - fireman testimony of explosions going off, video footage of sequenced charges going off every 3 floors (~30ft), etc...is just iceing on the cake.

This is precisely why it is so difficult to get any traction on the real issues that confront us like the lack of integrity of the voting system and the utterly regressed state of our politics - because the "good guys" are almost equally regressed. For any of you who weren't there and didn't stay, as my family and I were and did - about a 1/3 mile from the WTC, you are talking through your fucking tin hats. Brad - you of all people should be the most wary of this nonsense.

"building 7 was --- without a doubt --- taken down with charges" #6 - Well, for your information, #7 was loaded with diesel fuel tanks that collapsed and burned - for about four months. Do you think that would have been enough fuel and fire to take a building down? I was there about 300 yards from the South Tower when it fell, and about a 1/2 mile from the North Tower when it fell. I saw the aftermath the next day, on site, for hours. I have read the 9/11 Commission conclusions and know that these are honorable people who did not get any of this wrong. Kean and Hamilton are probably two of the most decent men ever to have been in government. I have read the conclusions by structural experts on the two towers. It is, in some ways, a small miracle that they lasted as long as they did given the impact of the planes and the fuel they were carrying. I heard the first plane fly right over me at about 700 mph and heard the explosion. I heard the second explosion. Take deep breaths, clear your heads, my brothers and sisters, and focus on the real problems, not the ones that scare you the most. Al Qaeda would've used nukes if they'd had them.

Let's get the Bushistas for the things they have "really" done and then pick up the pieces and then we will, and particularly people like me who live in New York City, have a better chance at protecting ourselves and, at the same time, improving the world a bit.

Terrorism Risk Insurance Program.

I wonder whether this $100B Treasury Underighting Bill has the Halliburton - KBR's of this world in mind, who are selflessly trying to secure the oil for the greatful Iraqi people!

Although this reads like a bad Oliver Stone movie, it does explain many things. The collapse of the towers and the timing of the collapses were the stunning events that stay in my mind. I could not believe that the planes could do that.

Whoever did this really wanted the total destruction. We probably will never know the whole story. Do you feel that the murders of JFK, RFK and MLK have been resolved?

Obviously, a group of demented people wanted a "Pearl Harbor" to happen. I doubt that the Bush bumblers could have planned this but they sure seized the political capital. I think we must continue to assume that Arab extremists planned this (including the explosions) unless more evidence appears.

Re #37 Bill Hewitt:

Perhaps you can answer this question, for starters:

If your proximity to the towers on that day makes you a more credible "expert" than those who live hundreds or thousands of miles away, then how can you dismiss the statements of those who were actually in the towers at the time and who heard bombs going off all around them?

They were a hell of a lot closer than you were!

I think Bill Hewitt ought to look at the videos taken on 9/11 of the collapse. When the footage is slowed down, you can see explosions around the perimeter of the buildings every 3 floors or so throughout the collapse.

Maybe viewing the videos is clearer than the view through the dust after the 1st building collapsed.

Anyway, there are far too many unusual events surrounding the day of 9/11 & the days just before and after. There are many, many unanswered questions.

To Bill Hewitt #37

Here is a video clip --- from a PBS documentary --- of Larry Silverstein saying he "pulled" WTC 7...

http://www.infowars.com/Video/911/wtc7_pbs.WMV

(I do not support everything infowars.com has on their site. This was the only host I could find.)

For the record, Larry Silverstein said:

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the [WTC 7] building collapse,"

Here is another clip from the same documentary.

http://thewebfairy.com/9...1/pullit/pull-it2_lo.wmv

From the clip:

"Hello? Oh, we're getting ready to pull building six."

"We had to be very careful how we demolished building six. We were worried about the building six coming down and then damaging the story walls, so we wanted that particular building to fall within a certain area," said Luis Mendes, NYC Department of Design and Construction.

#37 Bill Hewitt

I agree with your statement, we need to stay focused.

#40 Not to put down anyone's 9/11 statments. However, during any crisis people tend to think they hear and see much that is not part of the actual experience. But part of a wild imagination that takes hold and amplfies every part of the event 1000 fold.

#36

9-11 and after was traumatic for those of us not in NYC, so I can't even begin to imagine what you and your family experienced.

It must be hard for you to read things that sound like they are coming through our "tin hats". Brad usually posts on issues that are nearer to the core of what the "Bushistas" have really done. Thus, the present story, and the various comments here, are probably reflecting our shock at realizing that even though we have thought the "worst" of Bush, the worst might be even worser than we've known. Once people start to entertain the notion that Bush et al. might have actually been complicit in the 9-11 tragedy, the level of doubt increases, so that it becomes much more possible for more people to believe the truth about the things the Bushistas have "really" done.

I hope you will bear with us on this account. I am pained that you had to confront Ground Zero on 9-11, in the most personal way.

PAX,

VG

Arab extremists planned this (including the explosions)???

OH PLEASE !!!

That makes even less sense than the official cover story!

oops! I meant to reference #37, Bill Hewitt

G. --- watch the videos --- watch them over & over.

Think about what the pResident did on 9/11 (or didn't do.) If it was a terrorist attack --- why did he stay at the well-publicized school, endangering all the kids? Hmmm?

Bill Hewitt (and G) - Your points are well enough taken. As you likely know, I have not covered this issue at all until this posting. And as mentioned, in the article, it was largely done because the fact that a former Bush Admin official made the statement was --- for me, anyway --- the notable news there. And worth reporting on.

Also worth noting is that I don't currently have a position to express one way or the other about the matter (and said as much). However --- like so many other issues of late virtually impossible to believe at first, like a stolen national election or a major international war based on lies --- may well have their basis in truth as we have seen on those matters.

When such issues go largely unexamined and uninvestigated by the media it becomes virtually impossible to know the truth.

If helping to raise the point leads to further investigation (which may either prove or disprove a theory), I believe it's ultimately in service to the country.

As well, Ray McGovern, noted 27 CIA Analyst had an interesting point or two to make on the matter on last weeks BRAD SHOW. His expert opinion is, I believe, worth at least examining.

When a man of his background says (paraphrasing) "The Secret Service let George Bush stay in that school, which is crazy, unless they knew he'd be safe for some reason," I believe it's worth paying attention to.

Hope that clarifies. If not, well, it wouldn't be the first time I've been called a "conspiracy theorist" with no particularly good reason. Though, I'll admit it's never fun to see it occur from amongst "the troops".

Reading Bladblog as the Ray Lemme suicide pics were found was my first O MY God moment.

People on this blog responded in real time with new VERIFIED info --people from bradblog went on the ground in Valdosa, GA and R. Lemke phone locations discussing timeline.

Brad and posters (Kira and others) knew where to get links that I could go to, like Govt documents, actual statements to press.
Lots of opinions, which lead to discovering new facts about electronic election fraud. And the repeated refusal of MSM report the facts.

So anyway. My point is that if you take the time, it's fucking amazing what you will find about the
incredable Buchco hidden agenda and lies. Including what actually happened on Sept 11, 2001.

I posted this before: go to www.911forthetruth.com

Philadelphia attorney Phil Berg has a RICO lawsuit against "Bush and his cronies", for complicency in 9-11. He, and a cast of others, have just finished a European speaking tour, to bring attention to this in the European press, because he thinks the American press is blacking this out. Among his witnessed, is a WTC maintenance worker, who claims bombs went off before and after the planes hit, while he was still in the building. He's one of only 5 people who had a skeleton key for the WTC complex. Maybe when I posted this before, it sounded whacky. But, now that the MSM reports that a former Bush team member thinks the WTC went down with controlled demolition, you should now visit www.911forthetruth.com . Maybe it seems more credible now.

To Bill Hewitt #37

Did you notice that as one tower fell (not sure which without watching again) the top 10-15 floors remained intact for the first 3-5 seconds and actually tilted over 30-35 degrees from the vertical and looked like it was about to free fall all the way to the ground ,only to have the remaining lower floors pull it back as they fell at "free fall speed" below it.
Tell me about the missing "Black Boxes" from ALL the flights on 911 and how they all vapourized but ATTA's PAPER passport survived ?
Also why was ALL the steel and wreckage tracked by GPS from Ground Zero to Fresh Kills and the docks?
Why was a driver "sacked" while carrying rumble away just because he "left the official route" to the dump (to get lunch)?
Building #7 ,how can diesel fuel soften/melt STEEL ,if it burnt for 4 months ,maybe,but I don't think a pond of diesel fuel the TOTAL SIZE of Building #7 would burn for 4 months, maybe THERMITE would.
Justice should be SEEN to be done ,not just given lip service , it wasn't.

It don't matter how much "lipstick" you put on it !

Brad,
Yes!
I started my post before yours, but I take a long time to compose my thoughts.
It takes a lot of blog space to prove or convince people how corrupt the elections in the USA have become.
On second thought. No, it takes a doubt and the will to research. 911 could be a doubt.

Okay Sports Fans,

Here's my last effort on this:

(1) The 9/11 Commission gave us the facts. They had no reason to lie. It was not the government, notwithstanding what you may believe. By the way, you are hand in glove with the jihadists who believe it wasn't them. Try reading up on them: "The Age of Sacred Terror" is a good place to start.

(2) See Nova's "Why the Towers Fell" - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/ - Aren't we always whining about how the Bushistas want to eliminate public television? So here's something from them.

(3) See NY Times article from 3/2/02, "Burning Diesel Is Cited in Fall of 3rd Tower" - http://911research.wtc7....s/nty_burningdiesel.html - It was diesel oil to fuel generators for St. Rudy's emergency command center.

(4) If these aren't enough, try Collapse of the WTC at Wikipedia, particularly the bit about the 7 WTC theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/...f_the_World_Trade_Center

For Winter Patriot, on #37, I have talked to many, many people who were in and around the towers - people I know. One told me that he thought the North Tower was going to topple over at the impact of the first plane. I saw the goddamn hole in the building about 20 seconds after it hit. It was the whole side of the building. As to experts, see the engineers' analyses. Also, on #45, see my note #1 above. Yes, Al Qaeda did it. Sorry to break it to you.

On Kira's comments, I have seen the videos - and I also saw the second tower go down in real time, and ran like the wind to get away from the debris from the first collapse.

For G, good points. For Valley Girl, thanks for your empathy.

For Devlin, Larry Silverstein, like most NYC developers is a megalomaniac. (Anyone out there heard of a guy named Donald Trump?) He didn't have dick to say about what happened to the buildings. The NYC DDC did. (One of our few really efficient city agencies.) See also the Wikipedia article cited above on this and the NY Times article.

For Brad: the media, numerous investigatory bodies, historians, and others have covered this all thoroughly. See my note #1 here and my original post. As to Bush's behavior at the school, put it down to the ineptitude and sloth that ignored all the warning signs - as the media, Brad, as well as others have reported at length. Give them their due on some things. Yes they failed us on WMD (see Michael Massing's excellent piece in the NY Review - http://www.williambowles...media/massing_media.html), and they've failed us on the election, but they've gotten other things right.

Brad - stay away from this stuff. We need you to be on the voting integrity, MSM, and DSM beats. You are an ace.

Cheers.

Bill Hewitt - Again, it's not *me* making the claim about Bush in the school. It's someone who's credentials I certainly respect. Wasn't saying he was right, but was saying he said it. And I had to take notice.

That said, are you suggesting that McGovern should not be given such credence?

(Not a challenge, just a question...since I ask 'em for "a living"

#37 Bill
#43 G

For the most part, I'm with you guys on the events of 9/11. Unless irrefutable evidence is presented that points towards a demolition, I'll have to accept the hijacker story. All I can say about 9/11 thus far with all the facts available is that the Bush admin is incompetent, to say the least. In the words of Richard Clarke, “Your government failed you.”
That is not say I'm not open to the possibility of an inside job. Just saying the evidence has to be there.

Okay, I have to brace myself. I can feel the stones being thrown at me.

My promise to: Horkus, Bill Hewitt, G, and any others who do not buy the idea that 9/11 was an "inside job":

I may disagree with you but I will never throw stones.

I have a hard time believing conspiracies, but this 1956 IBM movie about air defense and radar really had me shaking my head about the likelihood that someone could pull something like 911 off. I'd imagine that our air defense has improved since 1956.

Watch this

Response to Bill Hewitt, Post #54.

I will underline your statements so I can address each point specifically.

The 9/11 Commission gave us the facts.

The 9/11 Commission does not mention WTC 7 once.

See NY Times article from 3/2/02, "Burning Diesel Is Cited in Fall of 3rd Tower":

http://911research.wtc7....s/nty_burningdiesel.html

It was diesel oil to fuel generators for St. Rudy's emergency command center.

First of all, this article is cached on that website because it is cited in this article. Please read it. Among other things, it notes how FEMA’s report, which the NYT article was based on, concluded by saying:

"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence."

Read that again.

They had no reason to lie.

Lie, noun, --- 1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

Example: “The 9/11 plotters eventually spent somewhere between $400,000 and $500,000 to plan and conduct their attack. … The origin of the funds remains unknown.” –9/11 Commission Final Report – Chapter 5, Section 2

Fact: Two of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers had a support network in the United States that included agents of the Saudi government, and the Bush administration and FBI blocked a congressional investigation into that relationship, Sen. Bob Graham wrote in a book to be released Tuesday.

And in Graham's book, Intelligence Matters, obtained by The Herald Saturday, he makes clear that some details of that financial support from Saudi Arabia were in the 27 pages of the congressional inquiry's final report that were blocked from release by the administration, despite the pleas of leaders of both parties on the House and Senate intelligence committees. --Miami Herald, 9/5/04

By the way, you are hand in glove with the jihadists who believe it wasn't them. Try reading up on them: "The Age of Sacred Terror" is a good place to start.

For you, I would say The Power of Nightmares is a good place to start. If interested, you can download it here.

I wish I had enough time to respond to your entire post, but it is late and I’ve already taken my fair share of space. Thank you for your time.

Bill Hewitt
(1) 911 Com gave us the facts.
No they didn't.
(1a)Why would they lie?
I don't know-follow the money? or fear of retribution?
(1b)We who question are hand & glove with Jihadists.
That ad hominum attack shows you are scared.
No more time for 2 etc. Goodnight

I am not going to tell anyone a story here or impose on anyone a theory. I'm simply going to suggest that people research the "dancing Israelis" at the moment of the WTC impacts, the fact that Israeli citizen employees were mysteriously absent from their WTC offices that day, the fact that, when apprehended, the "dancing" aliens were revealed to be Mossad agents, the fact that traces of explosives were found in their fake moving van, etc., etc., etc. The fact that their story has been "classified."

Now I am going to ask everyone to look at the stock market prior to the attack and notice the unusual pattern of sales and stop-loss whatevers just before 9/11.

Now I am going to ask everyone to look at AIPAC and Larry Franklin and discover the direction in which "information" was actually being planted.

Now I am going to take the logical next step and ask you - is this OUR country or a fabulous tool of Zionist mythologizers, who see the "Promised Land" as a hegemony of corporatist interest and "religious" intolerance, a land of subjugation and Muslim inferiority? Did you know that Likudnik Israel denies proprietorial, voting and employment rights to anyone who is not Jewish? Think about it.

Now I'm going to urge you to open your eyes to the way the world has been working, notice that the Air Force was on standdown on 9/11/2001, and DO SOME GOOGLING while you still can.

Hofstader did not focus on the JBS per se

“Pseudoconservativism is among other things a disorder in relation to authority, characterized by an inability to find other modes for human relationship than those of more or less complete domination or submission … The pseudo-conservative is a man who, in the name of upholding traditional American values and institutions and defending them against more or less fictitious dangers, consciously or unconsciously aims at their abolition … [He] sees his own country as being so weak that it is constantly about to fall victim to subversion; and yet he feels that it is so all-powerful that any failure it may experience in getting its way in the world … cannot possibly be due to its limitations but must be attributed to its having been betrayed.”
–Richard Hofstadter, The Paranoid Style in American Politics and Other Essays, 1965.

Articles that further inform:

WTC Collapse Likely a Controlled Demolition
http://www.sbindymedia.o...e/display/2387/index.php

Why did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse?
http://www.lewrockwell.c...reynolds/reynolds12.html

Key Researcher Casts More Doubt on WTC Collapse
http://www.americanfreep...html/key_researcher.html

A Personal Decision
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0506/S00144.htm

Threshold Fears and Unanswered Questions about 9/11
http://www.911truth.org/...?story=20050307174111734

I believe 9/11 was an inside job in as much as it was allowed to happen.

But...

To all the decent (non-repug.) bloggers out there...

Stick with the DSM, stick with the lies we were told, stick with the hardcore fact... (harder to ridicule).

Do NOT jump on this story immediately... just poke it with a stick from a distance until we know whether it's just another Rove attempt at discrediting the "center" and the "left".

I'm sure the repugs would love us to drop the DSMinutes and everything else to report on this so they can ridicule us... don't bite until you know whether it's food or bait!!!

There seems to be a consensus that this is not the Blog for the ins and outs of September 11. Why don't we leave it at that, and get on with supporting Brad, Conyers, and those taking the lead on voting, the MSM failures, and the DSM?

I've always been on the side of believing the official story but I am concerned about how the buildings imploded so "nicely" and how ironic it was that John O'Neill died there.

Who did O'Neill replace?

Yes. This thread has been facinating. But others have been working on the unanswered questions about 911.

Bill, with all due respect, truly, we don't censure anything here. Last I checked anyway. Sometimes discussion of one topic leads to ideas about another completely different topic (prime example DNA double helix).

There was a good article written by Michael Shermer in the last issue of Scientific American that addresses this possibility of the Twin Towers being taken down with explosives. I think everyone should read the article - it will help to inject some reality back into the discussion. I think this theory is going over the edge a bit. I am saying this as a person that does not trust the Bush administration.

Larry Silverstein, the controller of the destroyed WTC complex, stated plainly in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY decided jointly to demolish the Solomon Bros. building, or WTC 7, late in the afternoon of Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html

Just another piece of info.

And another good article debunking the Scientific American article...(sorry, Tadd)

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/sciam_reply.htm

Although I feel very strongly that the investigation into 9/11 should be reopened, I also do not want to distract Brad, et. al., from the very important work that he and comrades do here. BradBlog should not be turned into a 9/11 forum--there are plenty of other excellent sources for that information. But thank you Brad, for posting the UPI/WaTimes article. I think it helps to at least get some folks thinking, and perhaps even researching the evidence on their own.

However, one last note to Bill H.: If you want evidence that there was foreknowledge, just take a look at the excessive put options on United Airlines, American Airlines, and Morgan Stanley (which occupied I think 22 floors of the WTC, as well as some other companies housed there) just days before 9/11. Whomever did that fully expected those stocks to tank in a matter of days.

Our intelligence folks are very adept at analyzing bizarre stock market behavior in REAL TIME, the purpose of which is to foretell disasters of this type (among other things). And these traders (traitors) made millions on those trades. To date, nobody has investigated the identity (or released the conclusions to the public anyway) of these folks who HAD to know what was going down, and WHERE, and USING WHICH AIRLINES.

http://www.tvnewslies.or..._the_proof_you_need.html

Ok, I think I'm done now. Thanks for letting me get one last 9/11 comment in here.

Hey everyone!

Don't forget about Sibel Edmonds. She has a gag order on her to keep her from revealing the dark secrets about 9/11 that she uncovered working at the FBI.

Also, I was wondering if anyone could provide a link to the "official" version of 9/11. I'm a little hazy on the details we're supposed to believe.

But why is building 7 not addressed in the 911 Commission report? And why is it common knowledge that diesel brought it down, when the owner of the building admitted on camera that they were going to demolish it...is it coincidence that this building far away from the other wreckage sustained enough damage to have them want to blow it up, and then just have it collapse? I agree that it's hard to believe that never in modern history has a steel structure collapsed from raging fires, but then we have 3 in one day...

And if it was so raging...why were there people standing in the gaping holes without crisping?

Too many questions...not enough answers...and really, they don't want answers...why would FEMA lock away the debris from investigation? This is not a question of whether we landed on the moon...this is about the legitimate questions surrounding some implausible occurances.

9/11 - ALL THE PROOF YOU NEED! by TvNewsLIES.ORG - April - 2005

I think this is one topic where the "conspiracy theory" label actually does apply. Most of the arguments raised are based on misinterpretations or oversimplifications. For example, it's true that jet fuel cannot burn hot enough to melt steel, but the steel wouldn't have to MELT for the buildings to collapse!!! It loses strength as temperature increases; at 1500 degrees it would have been well below 50% of its usual strength, so it would start to bend and buckle.

If you want to see more of those questions addressed, have a look at Wikipedia's section on responses to the conspiracy theories.

The fact that a former member of the administration might be buying in to the ideas doesn't make them any more credible. It just demonstrates that people in government don't always think any more clearly than the rest of us (hasn't Dubya proved that to us already?)

right...but Reynolds says that studies of the footage doesn't show the building buckling at all, in fact looking like it is maintaining its strength...that and there were people in the gaping holes, and firemen said the fires were dying in the buildings. Of course most of those tapes are gagged.

Also, though, why was FEMA allowed to take off with the wreckage without a proper investigation, which would give a clear indication of the state of the beams when it fell. A lot of questions that have no logical reason to be denied answers...

Again...this isn't about a moon landing...it's about logical inconsistencies put together with mounting circumstantial evidence (along with all the pushing back on proper investigations of all those involved or possibly involved (what? we aren't going to follow the money trail?))...a lot of things are coming together...is it no wonder that this is possible so fast in this day and age of the instant peer reviewability of the internet?

Re: Bill Hewitt, post #37, assertion that Hamilton and Kean of the 9/11 Commission are honorable, first note the article by Morgan Reynolds (remember him?) from September on general 9/11 skepticism in which he lists conflicts of interest of Commission participants Kean, Hamilton, and Zelikow.

http://www.lewrockwell.c.../reynolds/reynolds7.html

Note also major conflicts of interest of ALL the Commission members:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission

Note also that several of the alleged hijackers turned up alive in the weeks after 9/11 and the 9/11 Commission failed to address that in their report.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter if the WTC was exploded or not. The official theories could be stipulated to and there's still plenty of evidence that Bush was complicit in the 9/11 attacks. In that way, Morgan Reynolds's 9/04 article linked above is more important that the WTC article from 6/9.

I would agree that for Brad to take on 9/11 at this point would be
a waste. There are so many issues to deal with: voting
machines, Ohio 2004, Downing Street Memo, 9/11. Everyone
can't do everything.

re #78: I think this is one topic where the "conspiracy theory" label actually does apply.

Any explanation of the events of 9/11 necessarily involves a "conspiracy theory", unless you happen to believe that four airplanes were hijacked simultaneously by nineteen men who were working together by sheer coincidence.

So, yes, the official story of 9/11 is a conspiracy theory. And it has been thoroughly debunked, here, for instance.

I just want to offer this bit of info, and a reminder:

"Politics makes for strange bedfellows."

I have no idea what the mechanism of the structural failure of the Twin Towers was and we may have to wait years for a definitive final analysis. For instance, 51 years after the Tacoma Narrows Bridge ...

"It is then demonstrated that the ultimate failure of the bridge was in fact related to an aerodynamically induced condition of self-excitation or "negative damping" . . . This paper emphasizes the fact that. physically as well as mathematically, forced resonance and self-excitation are fundamentally different phenomena."
Resonance, Tacoma Narrows bridge failure, and undergraduate physics textbooks
by Yusuf Billah and Bob Scanlan, (Am. J. Phys. 59 (2), February 1991))

However,

Since the attacks, there has been much speculation concerning their planning and execution. A Zogby International Poll (http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855) published August 30, 2004 reported that half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens overall believe that some U.S. leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act." There are stories of phone call warnings, even weeks in advance that went unheeded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11

As far as strange bedfellows goes, I have noticed that Ron Paul gets linked to here and other right wing folks from time to time. Is he a libertarian? He says he is, and there are many flavors of libertarians, even socialist, or anarcho-syndicalist libertarians. But the fact that Ron Paul gets linked to The John Birch society should concern you all a bit.

http://www.thenewamerica...ublish/cat_index_1.shtml

You guys are progressive left, but for some reason, trolls like Buckshot seem to think this is fertile recruiting ground. For myself, I think this administration may have turned a blind eye to the dangers, not realizing the magnitude of the disaster, but they didn't really care. They had their own agenda.

The wiki entry on the John Birch Society is quite illuminating, but hardly the full story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society

Just be careful what dogs you lay down with, you could get bitten, or wake up with fleas.

Brad,

My only intent is to see you keep up the good work and stay focused on the real stuff. I think there is much we need to know about what really happened in so many of the historical events that have occurred since the beginning of this century, 9/11 included. The Historian Richard Hofstader, not that you have time to read:

http://www.columbia.edu/...ctions/html/4079537.html

And this fellow has been filing FOIAs on the FBI's JBS files for some time, a good resource.

You might have missed it at Wiki.

http://birchers.blogspot.com/

A few more links for those intrepid adventurers (those who do know how to dissect truth from fiction) please, use your wits and intelligence and please DO visit every site you can to find the truth. Only the rightwingnuts want you to only listen to one side of things. Please prove you are able to hear both sides and make your own rational judgement based on irrefutable facts.

Madrid's Towering Inferno & The 9/11 Building Collapse Cover-Up

Anomalies surrounding the planes and the buildings involved in the 9/11 events

!!!! THE REASON WHY THE WTC-STEEL WAS MOLTEN...!!!! *PIC*

the similarities between the reichstag fire and 9/11 are too eerie to ignore..

brad, if you start covering 9/11 related news more please check out my site as i try to link to any new 9/11 related 'alternative' news as it comes out.

thanks for covering this article!

Yet another former high-ranking U.S. official doubts the official story of 9/11. Last week it was Morgan Reynolds, this week it is former assistant secretary of the treasury under president Reagan, Paul Craig Roberts.

http://www.911blogger.co...cretary-of-treasury.html

Does these latest events have anything to do with the cencorship and control of popular media in American society?

Could the fear, violence and paranoia in our schoolsystem be a side effect?

http://realterrorists.blogspot.com/

This is truly depressing. There is no evidence of controlled demolitions, holograms, blue fairies, etc. etc.

All this crap obscures the many ways in which Bush Administration was complicit with the attack, and at the very least cynically allowed it to happen and facilitated its happening.

Look to the ISI and it's communications with the Pentagon BEFORE 9/11.

PS: Tower 7 fell down because a whole bunch of crap landed on it.

I HAVE THE FUTURE FOR STORM PROOF HOUSING DOCUMENTED BY THE PTO .FOR VERY EXTREM WEATHERS DURABLE FOR THINGS FALLING AND FLEXABLE FOR FLOOD WATERS THE SYSTEM I HAVE IS BETTER THAN THE HOUSES OF TODAY. CONTACT ME FOR EXTREM HOUSING FOR STORM THEY THINK THEY GOT IT ! YOU DONT ! I DO ! I TOUR DOWN BUILDING AND HOMES THE REAL STORM HOUSE CAN SAVE LIVES AND STILL BE STANDING FROM EXTREM HIGH WINDS AND FLOODS.