911

[Just Anonymous]

I questioned whether I should sign up and post about this or not.  I'm the kind of person who really hates to get involved in arguments, so that makes this even more difficult, as I suspect this topic may cause backlash.  Despite the many hurdles, I felt that I needed to tell someone.  I hope that my registering anonymously and just to post this will not make anyone mad.

The topic is regarding 9/11.  I've seen this same topic mentioned in the Keene Free Press (did a search some time back to check), but I have not seen it discussed on this forum.  I am not a member of the FSP, but I have read around on the forums a little in the past.  (I was actually following the information about Russell Kanning until I came upon this topic.)  Although I probably wouldn't fit in with everything, I still understand the libertarian concepts and I'm encouraged by the attitude among the members (Christians working with athiests, etc...) because of the common goal of no goverment interference.

Anyways, I wanted to specifically address 9/11.  First off, a little information about myself:
I am a born again Christian (I see that there are other Christians here too).  I voted for George W. Bush both times.  The first time I thought he might be a Christian and a conservative; the second time was a little harder due to the war with Iraq.  Over the years, it has become more and more evident that he is likely not a Christian and that he is likely not about less government interference either.  Anyways, over the years, I can recall hearing about 9/11 "conspiracy theories" several times.  I believe that the first was regarding the book from France that talked about the Pentegon.  Of course that could just be passed off as some kind of American or Bush or Christian hater.  I think I even looked into it a little and found the stuff not worth noting.  My next encounter was perhaps while using Google Earth.  I came upon the pentegon bookmark and noticed a comment about 9/11 conspiracy theories.  Of course, everyone was totally upset that someone had posted about it on the Pentegon bookmark in Google Earth.  People were asking google to remove that post, and when they said no due to freedom of speech, I can remember being upset at them.  First of all, I didn't like their misuse of freedom of speech.  It was a private website after all (google's site), and they could censure or edit whatever they wanted to on their own site.  Considering that, I was upset that they would allow such an insulting comment to remain about such an important and emotional event.  Sometime later I heard about how the extra frame of the Pentegon video had been released; that should silence a lot of crazy conspiracy ideas (like that guy had posted) right?

Well, it wasn't until encountering a post on another forum that I finally decided to check things out once and for all.  I saw a post on the Christian Exodus forums about 911; everyone there agreed.  At first, my reaction was to just label them all crazy and try to avoid the forum.  However, perhaps a day or weeks later, I was on the web and was wondering what to do.  I figured that I might as well check out one of the links they gave and judge for myself; after all, they had been right on other things, so maybe I should give this a chance.  So..., I checked it out, and here's what I found:

First of all, the 9/11 movement is not a bunch of hard core liberals.  It involves, born again Christians, liberals, conservatives, libertarians, freedom lovers, and even 9/11 widows; many New Yorkers even believe there is more to 9/11.  It includes people who voted for Bush (both times) and those who voted against Bush (both times).  Some 9/11 issues have even been aired on C-SPAN.
Second, the new 9/11 information/movement is not based on the usual stupid conspiracy ideas that make no sense, but, instead, takes a more scientific approach (more like an arsen or criminal investigation).  In fact, there is a group of scholars who are researching 9/11.  Granted, you will still find a lot of stupid ideas on 9/11 out there, as well as some half-truths; so you must judge each piece of evidence carefully.  However, there's still a lot of scientific evidence to look at.

To that end, if you want to investigate this for yourself (supposing you haven't already), might I recommend the sources listed below.  Keep in mind that there are hours and hours of video that you can view, so it will take a long time to go through all of the data.


I believe that the following videos (viewed in order) present a good introduct to 9/11.  It is close to the order that I looked at stuff.  If you do nothing else, at least commit to viewing the first 2 videos before deciding to drop the issue.

1. 911revisited
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1951610169657809939&q=911revisited
This video is the most emotive one.  The first 15 minutes are mostly just clips from the news.  After the clips, a scientific ananlysis is presented for the 3 WTC towers that collapsed.  This video can mostly be consider an "introduction" to the 911 scientific analysis.  To gather more info, you will need to look at the other sources.

2. Scientific lecture
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=964034652002408586&q=Dr.+Steven+Jones+Utah+Seminar
This lecture analyzes a lot more aspects regarding 911 than just the 3 WTC towers.  It has a more scholarly presentation than the first video.  Feel free to skip the short introduction by the first person in the video.

3. Scientific lecture
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3538037502590699697&q=David+Ray+Griffin
Another scientific lecture from another individual.  Go to 7:20 to skip the introductions and get to the meat of the lecture.

4. Nearly absolute proof that thermate (a demolition compound) was used on all 3 WTC towers
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2205940254635302539&q=911+symposium
Starting at exactly 1hr into the video, Steven Jones talks about how the molten steel from the towers has been scientifically analyzed, and that it shows the presence of thermate (a demolition compound).  Skip to 50:20, if you want the background information on thermate.  Steven Jones is currently awaiting peer review regarding the thermate.

5. How 911 fits with history
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4757274759497686216&q=terror+storm
It covers topics not included in the 911 lectures.  It has parts that are not really very enjoyable, so feel free to skip some sections.  The most interesting parts include pieces of history before 911 and the London bombings.

6. Risks to our freedom
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6495462761605341661&q=alex+jones+law
This video covers various ways that our freedom has been compromised.  It also shows, how large groups of 911 protestestors are ignored.

7. Radio show
http://prisonplanet.tv/listen.html
A radio show that goes even deeper into issues, of which 911 is a part.

8. More:
There are so many more videos to see (not sure if they are any good), but here's some links:
A collection of scholars studying 911:
http://st911.org/
Lectures from Steve Jones
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Steve+Jones
Lectures from David Ray Griffin
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=David+Ray+Griffin
911 Symposium (meetings) - not as good as the lectures
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=911+symposium




Well there you go; make of it what you will; but, I believe it was important enough to risk the ridicule to post about it.

[Kat Kanning]

Nice post, thanks.  We've discussed it some here.  http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=1747.0  Good summary of the info out there.

[Just Anonymous]

Nice post, thanks.  We've discussed it some here.  http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=1747.0  Good summary of the info out there.

well all be; it has been discussed.  I thought I did a search on it some time back.  But what should we do about it?  There are some ideas.  The implications of all that is revealed (in just these videos) is pretty serious, and demands that we must do something.  (Does anyone want to help? *sad**frustrated**pleaing**wondering why people don't do more*)

Since the last thread was started, it has almost been a year.  I suspect many of the videos I've linked to weren't around then; actually, probably none of them were.  It might actually be a good idea to take a look at them for information that was not available as clearly back then.



The following wouldn't have been appropriate for the first post (since the first post was meant to introduce people to 9/11), but for those of you already intimiately familiar with 9/11 and have seen the videos, you might like this song.  "Like" isn't really the best word, since it is really sad to consider what has happened to our country.  [P.S. The song won't have much meaning if you haven't seen the information presented in the videos.]
http://www.acebaker.com/KingdomCome/BlownToKingdomCome.html
There is also another 9/11 song in the same video where Steven Jones talks about the proof for the use of thermate in the 3 WTC towers; it's likely near the end.

[felix.benner]

I guess that's what's to be done ... 

[lildog]

Ok here?s what I don?t get what I hope some of you conspiracy theorists can explain.  If the government did use explosives in the buildings, why even bother with airplanes at all?  Or why bother with explosives since the impact was already made with the airplanes?

The trade center had already been bombed back in 1993 so it?s not like it would have been unbelievable to think it couldn?t have been just bombed outright again.

Some of the conspiracy theories just don?t make any sense because they just don?t fit logic.

[hook]

Ok here?s what I don?t get what I hope some of you conspiracy theorists can explain.  If the government did use explosives in the buildings, why even bother with airplanes at all?  Or why bother with explosives since the impact was already made with the airplanes?

The trade center had already been bombed back in 1993 so it?s not like it would have been unbelievable to think it couldn?t have been just bombed outright again.

Some of the conspiracy theories just don?t make any sense because they just don?t fit logic.

For a lie to work, it must be shrouded in truth.

Two planes did hit the trade center but the planes and the resulting fire did not bring the buildings down.

It would have been strange if three buildings fall within their own footprints without any apparent cause.

[tracysaboe]

"A lie that is half true, is ever the darkest or lies" 
Beast from X-men on Saterday Morning Cartoons. I think he was quoting Tenison.

I don't know that I by the whole Government caused the explosion, conspiracy theory stuff.

On the other hand I wouldn't doubt that the government knew about it and purposefully chose to do nothing.

THe Neo-Con Organ "For a New American Century" or whatever it's called said before 911 happened that they needed another Pearl Harbor like event so they could justify more empire building. Obviously that's not an admissino of guilt.

There are so many questions about 9/11 that don't make sense.

Read this.
http://www.freedom-force.org/pdf/futurecalling4.pdf

Parts of it get into the goofy fabian conspiracy theories etc. But their are a lot of questions he asks. In it too that are worth asking.

Tracy

[lildog]

Tracy and hook, you fail to answer the key part of my questioning? what reasoning would they have to blow up the buildings in addition to hitting them with airplanes?

Wouldn?t having airplanes fly into the side of two major buildings in NY city, not to mention into the pentagon and into a field in PA be enough to spark whatever spark in the American population you think the government was trying for?

Also, popular mechanics has done an excellent job debunking most of the theories that have come up so far including that the buildings were blown up.

[tracysaboe]

Tracy and hook, you fail to answer the key part of my questioning? what reasoning would they have to blow up the buildings in addition to hitting them with airplanes?

Maybe I wasn't clear. Those fancy sexy conspiracy theories, don't make sense to me.

See, I wrote

don't know that I by the whole Government caused the explosion, conspiracy theory stuff.

I do think they new about it and chose to do nothing to advance their agenda.

Simular to Pearl Harbor.

Tracy

[felix.benner]

what reasoning would they have to blow up the buildings in addition to hitting them with airplanes?

Maybe they wanted to take it down anyways, maybe for financial reasons.

A friend of mine had the theory that there was an emergency system that would take the building down in order to prevent it hitting nearby buildings that got set off from the fire. There are quite many possibilities.

I wouldn't focus on the conspiracy, but more on the fact that the government did at best a lousy job at finding the people behind the attacs, or deliberately didn't want them to be found in order to have an excuse to invade iraq and have a constant threat looming over the americans. Also there is quite some evidence that the pentagon has not been hit by a plane and that the bush administration new at least that something was going to happen.

But of course Bush seems to be more of a puppet, he doesn't look like he could survive on his own.

Well, as G?bbels has put it: If you throw enough dirt, some of it will stick.

[lildog]

I can understand the argument that maybe Bush knew.  There is evidence that the government knew something was going to happen, but prior to 9-11 I don?t think our government had it?s act together (as if it does now right?) to connect the dots and actually know what and when.

In fact due to Clinton?s actions which specifically prevented government departments from sharing information it?s even more plausible that even if all the information was know (the who, what, where and when) that our bureaucracy prevented anyone from being able to put enough of the pieces together to see the picture.

Heck, our government can?t even buy a hammer without screwing up? doesn?t anyone seriously think they could some how orchestrate something this complex without leaks of what they were doing and actually pull it off?  Give me a break.

Felix, you make a good point though about the government finding those behind it.  Look at the history here? the SAME buildings were bombed in 1993 (as I already pointed out), Clinton found those who planted the bomb and called it a day.  Never looked to see if anyone else who involved or connected to them.  By his standards since all the terrorists who actually hi-jacked the planes were killed on impact we?ve solved this case and can move on.

And as for the argument of the pentagon being hit by something other then a plane, again that?s just silly.  Why bother crashing 3 planes elsewhere then faking a plane crash at the pentagon?  And where are those passengers who were actually on that 4th plane?

I can tell you for FACT that the plane did take off as I know someone who had a ticket for that flight (he still has the ticket).  He had to reschedule as his mother was sick and he wanted to be at her side.  So there was really a flight that took off with people on it? where did it go?  And why hide a plane just to fake it?s crash?  That makes no sense what so ever.

[tracysaboe]

Never attribute to conspiracy, that which can be attributed to incompetence.

Tracy

[Caleb]

At this point, I think its beyond incompetence, Tracey.  Even allowing for a generous portion of incompetance, you still have the unexplained fall of the twin towers and building seven that can only be explained due to preplanned explosives.  Preplanned explosives are not incompetence.

Anonymous, I had wanted to do a tour around the State showing good 9/11 videos.  (I don't like most of what is out there, but there are a few good ones.)  I wanted to do this under the banner of my group, Republic of NH, but got outvoted on the board ... so i will be doing it under the banner of the Sons of Liberty, and promoting independence along the way.  If you live in NH and want to help ... that might be one way.

I see this as an issue that has the potential to topple the federal government.  Its scary, but at the same time it is necessary that we shout from the mountaintops.

Caleb

[KBCraig]

This is worth reading, through all 9 pages.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

Kevin

[Just Anonymous]

I guess that's what's to be done ... 

Oh, yes, definitely; and I hope my state and many others go too!   People all over the US are beginning to itch for something to happen.
Lord willing, when the time comes, I may try to support you in that: contact my state representatives to let them know that they should should support it.  I know, it doesn't legally mean anything, but still....  Hopefully, South Carolina and Vermont will succeed in their endeavours as well (as well as the other lesser organized ones like North Carolina, Alaska, Hawaii, and California).
As a start getting our states to at least release statements that they no longer recognize some of the federal governments illegal mandates would also be very helpful (as long as all 3 branches are united to enforce it); of course, NH and SC are probably the best chances for that right now.

Ok here?s what I don?t get what I hope some of you conspiracy theorists can explain.  If the government did use explosives in the buildings, why even bother with airplanes at all?  Or why bother with explosives since the impact was already made with the airplanes?

The trade center had already been bombed back in 1993 so it?s not like it would have been unbelievable to think it couldn?t have been just bombed outright again.

Some of the conspiracy theories just don?t make any sense because they just don?t fit logic.

Hmm..., I'm not sure whether I would regard this issue as being in the realm of a conspiracy theory anymore.  More and more evidence continues to build up on the issue, that is has moved from possibility to even a probability.  I could try to reply to your personal question on this issue, but instead may I suggest that you at least commit to watching the first 2 videos if you have not already.  Video #4 actually talks about how there is scientific proof that the 3 WTC building did contain a demolition compound to cut steel, but you need to see video #2 to get a little background first; so, video #4 may provide a partial answer to your question in some way.  This issue regarding 911 has such serious implications that many of us (myself included in the past) adamately do not even want to think about it at times.  Even after seeing more and more of the evidence, for many days afterwards, I would wake up and think, na, it's not really true, it can't be true, but then I would go back to the facts, and well there ya go.  I only ask to look at the evidence and judge if for yourself, then consider the implications and reasons why.
However, I will give a partial answer to your question, which hook alluded to.  It is a quote from a book:
"In the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes"
From Hitler's 1925 autobiography "Mein Kampf"
copied from: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49662

I don't know about you, but I absolutely refused to even consider 911 for many years because it seemed so outrageous.  Even the little bit like the Pentegon stuff seemed to show that they were just crazy people; I don't personally see much evidence in regards to the Pentegon conspiracy ideas that could hold up to scientific analysis.

Ok here?s what I don?t get what I hope some of you conspiracy theorists can explain.  If the government did use explosives in the buildings, why even bother with airplanes at all?  Or why bother with explosives since the impact was already made with the airplanes?

The trade center had already been bombed back in 1993 so it?s not like it would have been unbelievable to think it couldn?t have been just bombed outright again.

Some of the conspiracy theories just don?t make any sense because they just don?t fit logic.

You've hit on another topic related to 911 studies.  Most of the best evidence so far is more in the scientific realm, like showing how the towers could not have collapsed at free fall speed unless explosives were used.  However, the more "criminal" aspect of the investigation is not as far along; unlike the group studying the scientific lapses, there is no group studying who did it and why.  There have been inviduals who have presented various bits and pieces of information on people involved, but it is not very organized at this point.  The videos I gave mostly look at it from the scientific side and don't go very far into the personal who done it side.  In reply to your question, I don't know.  I can say that the person who owned the WTC buildings made money off of their destruction, but that doesn't tell much.  Although your point should be queued up for investigation, it's not really gonna change the scientific evidence at this point.  We really need a group of criminal investigators to begin looking into who was involved and why.  There are many eyewitnesses who have presented information or were willing to present information, but have backed out due to interference from others.  If a group of investigaters were to gather together like the group of scholars have, then maybe we could get answers and testimony from such people.

...
Also, popular mechanics has done an excellent job debunking most of the theories that have come up so far including that the buildings were blown up.

The Popular Mechanics article actually contains many errors in it.  For a partial list of the errors, see here:
http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/debunking_popular_mechanics_myths.htm




If I might also add an additional note.  For those of you who have looked into 911 in the past, but not recently, here's the evidence the video covers:
Video #1:

• Shows squibs in the WTC towers as they fall down (which are present during controlled demolition of buldings).
• The buildings fell at "free fall" speed.  The official 9/11 theory is the pancake collapse theory.  The bulidings cannot fall at free fall speed under the pancake theory.
• Concrete was pulverized to dust.  If the official pancake collapse theory were true, then this is not possible.  Due to various laws of physics, there is not enough energy to both collapse a level and pulverize the concrete at the same time.

Video #2

• Free fall speed
• Demolition like collapse of WTC 7 buliding, which was not hit by a plane, had little damage, and had only small fires on two levels.
• The 911 "Bin Laden" confession tape is NOT Bin Laden.  You can clearly see they are different people.  Scientific facial analysis also shows this.  Also, the real Bin Laden released a tape after 911 claiming he did not do it.  Bin Laden is still wanted by the FBI for a past terrorist act, however, but not 9/11
• Presence of molten metal at the bottom of all 3 WTC buldings.  Analysis, as shown in video #4 proves that the stuff contained thermate - a demolition compound that cuts through steel either by melting it or explosively (depending on how it's made).  Additional studies show that thermate was not used by the cleanup crew.
• Gives an introduction to the PNAC, in which several members of the current government, including the Vice President expressed how beneficial a new "Perl Harbour" like event would be to their goals presented in PNAC.

Video #3
I've forgotten most of the stuff in this one, but he does cover the 4 different views of 9/11: Those who believe the official story, another group, those who believe the government let 9/11 happen, and those who believe the government made it happen.  He tries to present some evidence in support of the 3rd, and ultimately the 4th view.
Video #4

• Steven Jones presents a lecture on recent studies that has been made on the metal from the WTC.  The metal shows signs of thermate (described earlier).
• Shows how news footage from 9/11 show pictures thate are very likely thermate coming out of the towers.
• He also covers some other random topics, including what peer review is and how it works and how he was introduced to 9/11

Video #5

• This video delves a little deeper into some of the issues relating to 9/11: covers the topic of "false flag" terrorism, where governments allow or even stage an event to achieve some goal.
• Interesting notes on the London bombings

Video #6
Just some extra stuff to see, after you've seen the other data.

Interestingly, the guy who made videos 5 and 6 actually predicted 9/11, in detail, around 2 months before it happened.  He encouraged his radio listeners to call the government and tell them not to carry it out.  You can see the video here: http://www.911podcasts.com/display.php?vid=81  It is only 1 of 2 predictions that he has made.