YAHOO NEWS / PRWEB: Experts Claim Official 9/11 Story is a Hoax
TRUTH
necessarily "mainstream media", still it is a very popular newswire
service and is definitely getting around. I said 2006 would be the year!
--------------------------------------------------------
http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/20060130/bs_prweb/prweb339303_5
Experts Claim Official 9/11 Story is a Hoax
Mon Jan 30, 11:37 AM ET
Duluth, MN (PRWEB) January 30, 2006 -- A group of distinguished experts
and scholars, including Robert M. Bowman, James H. Fetzer, Wayne Madsen,
John McMurtry, Morgan Reynolds, and Andreas von Buelow, have concluded
that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what
really happened on 9/11.
They have joined with others in common cause as members of "Scholars for
9/11 Truth" (S9/11T), because they are convinced, based on their own
research, that the administration has been deceiving the nation about
critical events in New York and Washington, D.C.
These experts suggest these events may have been orchestrated by elements
within the administration to manipulate Americans into supporting
policies at home and abroad they would never have condoned absent
"another Pearl Harbor."
They believe that this White House is incapable of investigating itself
and hope the possibility that Congress might hold an unaccountable
administration accountable is not merely naive or wishful thinking.
They are encouraging news services around the world to secure scientific
advice by taking advantage of university resources to verify or to
falsify their discoveries. Extraordinary situations, they believe,
require extraordinary measures.
If this were done, they contend, one of the great hoaxes of history would
stand naked before the eyes of the world and its perpetrators would be
clearly exposed, which may be the only hope for saving this nation from
ever greater abuse.
They hope this might include The New York Times, which, in their opinion,
has repeatedly failed to exercise the leadership expecedt from our
nation's newspaper of record by a series of inexplicable lapses. It has
failed to vigorously investigate tainted elections, lies leading to the
war in Iraq, or illegal NSA spying on the American people, major
unconstitutional events. In their view, The Times might compensate for
its loss of stature by helping to reveal the truth about one of the great
turning-point events of modern history.
Stunning as it may be to acknowledge, they observe, the government has
brought but one indictment against anyone and, to the best of their
knowledge, has not even reprimanded anyone for incompetence or
dereliction of duty. The official conspiracy theory--that nineteen Arab
hijackers under control of one man in the wilds of Afghanistan brought
this about--is unsupportable by the evidential data, which they have
studied. They even believe there are good reasons for suspecting that
video tapes officially attributed to Osama bin Laden are not genuine.
They have found the government's own investigiation to be severely
flawed. The 9/11 Commission, designated to investigate the attack, was
directed by Philip Zelikow, part of the Bush transition team in the NSA
sector and the co-author of a book with Condoleezza Rice. A Bush
supporter and director of national security affairs, he could hardly be
expected to conduct an objective and impartial investigation.
They have discovered that The 9/11 Commission Report is replete with
omissions, distortions, and factual errors, which David Ray Griffin has
documented in his book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and
Distortions. The official report, for example, entirely ignores the
collapse of WTC7, a 47-story building, which was hit by no airplanes, was
only damaged by a few small fires, and fell seven hours after the attack.
Here are some of the kinds of considerations that these experts and
scholar find profoundly troubling:
* In the history of structural engineering, steel-frame high-rise
buildings have never been brought down due to fires either before or
since 9/11, so how can fires have brought down three in one day? How is
this possible?
* The BBC has reported that at least five of the nineteen alleged
"hijackers" have turned up alive and well living in Saudi Arabia, yet
according to the FBI, they were among those killed in the attacks. How is
this possible?
* Frank DeMartini, a project manager for the WTC, said the buildings were
designed with load redistribution capabilities to withstand the impact of
airliners, whose effects would be like "puncturing mosquito netting with
a pencil." Yet they completely collapsed. How is this possible?
* Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700*F, the temperature of
jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800*F under optimal conditions, and UL
certified the steel used to 2,000*F for six hours, the buildings cannot
have collapsed due to heat from the fires. How is this possible?
* Flight 77, which allegedly hit the building, left the radar screen in
the vicinity of the Ohio/Kentucky border, only to "reappear" in very
close proximity to the Pentagon shortly before impact. How is this
possible?
* Foreign "terrorists" who were clever enough to coordinate hijacking
four commercial airliners seemingly did not know that the least damage to
the Pentagon would be done by hitting its west wing. How is this
possible?
* Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, in an underground bunker at
the White House, watched Vice President Cheney castigate a young officer
for asking, as the plane drew closer and closer to the Pentagon, "Do the
orders still stand?" The order cannot have been to shoot it down, but
must have been the opposite. How is this possible?
* A former Inspector General for the Air Force has observed that Flight
93, which allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania, should have left debris
scattered over an area less than the size of a city block; but it is
scattered over an area of about eight square miles. How is this possible?
* A tape recording of interviews with air traffic controllers on duty on
9/11 was deliberately crushed, cut into very small pieces, and
distributed in assorted places to insure its total destruction. How is
this possible?
* The Pentagon conducted a training exercise called "MASCAL" simulating
the crash of a Boeing 757 into the building on 24 October 2000, and yet
Condoleezza Rice, among others, has repeatedly asserted that "no one ever
imagined" a domestic airplane could be used as a weapon. How is this
possible?
Their own physics research has established that only controlled
demolitions are consistent with the near-gravity speed of fall and
virtually symmetrical collapse of all three of the WTC buildings. While
turning concrete into very fine dust, they fell straight-down into their
own footprints.
These experts and scholars have found themselves obliged to conclude that
the 9/11 atrocity represents an instance of the approach--which has been
identified by Karl Rove, the President's closest adviser--of "creating
our own reality."
# # #
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA James Fetzer 218 724-2706 E-mail Information
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Sky King
>This is the break all 9/11 TRUTHers have been waiting for! While not
>necessarily "mainstream media", still it is a very popular newswire
>service and is definitely getting around. I said 2006 would be the year!
>--------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/20060130/bs_prweb/prweb339303_5
>
>
>Experts Claim Official 9/11 Story is a Hoax
>
LOL. Do you know what they went and did to enhance their credibility,
truthyliar?
They went and included on their list of scholars our most lunatic and
debunked 9/11 Denial Movement member on alt.conspiracy yet, the one, the
only MUHAMMAD COLUMBO.
Yup, the very same Muhammad Columbo who last October was added to the
prestigious list of cranks, crackpots, kooks & loons on the net:
Nothing like sticking your foot in your mouth, is there, truthyliar?
EagleEye
I too was rather floored that he had managed to become a member, but
that does NOT discredit the rest of those involved, and the growing
ranks of academians and scholars.
@midnight.net Passerby
"Sky King" <sky...@scientist.com> wrote in message
news:mp9tt1dokue7k895m...@4ax.com...
Crank you say? Lunatic?
The RepublicCON Hall of Shame...
Purveyors of a fraudulent war, a failed domestic and foreign policy:
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby, Perle, Rice...Powell by standing
down...
Convicted, indicted or resigned...partial list
Feith
Libby
Safavian
Scanlon
DeLay
Cunningham
Abramoff
Ney
ad nauseum....
Throw in Paranoid Pat Robertson, Dr. Dobson the Dotty Dolt and Jerry
Foulwell...and you have the frightening face of the Religious
Right/CONservative/neoCON party...not very pretty...
Let's not forget the likes of "Cat Killer/Diagnosis by Video/Transparent
Blind Trust" Frist; "Fear of Man-on-Dog" Santorum...
This is the party "in power" -- they CONtrol it all, as some are so fond of
boasting.
Poor things...all victims, no doubt, of a vast left-wing conspiracy.
~~9-11 Happened On George W. Bush's Watch. No excuses, no wiggle room, no
pass~~
@midnight.net Passerby
"Passerby" <Passerby @midnight.net> wrote in message
news:poyDf.15953$dF5....@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
the Abramoff scandal....subpoenaed. Claims he was duped...
age...@justicespammail.com
>Experts Claim Official 9/11 Story is a Hoax
"Experts" in what? Certainly not structural engineering.
>Mon Jan 30, 11:37 AM ET
>
>Duluth, MN (PRWEB) January 30, 2006 -- A group of distinguished experts
>and scholars, including Robert M. Bowman, James H. Fetzer, Wayne Madsen,
>John McMurtry, Morgan Reynolds, and Andreas von Buelow, have concluded
>that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what
>really happened on 9/11.
And not a member of this group of "distinguished experts" is an
architect or structural engineer. The one who claims to be an
architect is breaking the law.
"Eric Douglas (AM)
New York City architect Eric Douglas (AM)
New York City architect Chair of the Independent Peer Review
Committe for the NIST WTC Reports at nistreview.org
at nistreview.org"
While that might sound impressive, Mr. Douglas is not a registered
architect with the State of New York and is therefore breaking the law
by claiming that he is an architect. As the being the "Chair of the
Independent Peer Review Committe for the NIST WTC Reports", this is a
made up group, apparently started by Mr. Douglas and run from an
anonymous website.
>Here are some of the kinds of considerations that these experts and
>scholar find profoundly troubling:
>
>* In the history of structural engineering, steel-frame high-rise
>buildings have never been brought down due to fires either before or
>since 9/11, so how can fires have brought down three in one day? How is
>this possible?
Because the claim isn't true. Several steel framed structures have
suffered collapse from just a fire, let alone a fire that followed
severe structural damage.
>* The BBC has reported that at least five of the nineteen alleged
>"hijackers" have turned up alive and well living in Saudi Arabia, yet
>according to the FBI, they were among those killed in the attacks. How is
>this possible?
Because it isn't true. As I've cited before:
" The authors explain in great detail the anatomy of one of the
more popular internet memes associated with 9/11 -- that many of the
hijackers are still alive:
Take the BBC, for example, which did in fact report, on
September 23, 2001, that some of the alleged terrorists were alive and
healthy and had protested their being named as assassins.
But there is one wrinkle. The BBC journalist responsible for
the story only recalls this supposed sensation after having been told
the date on which the story aired. "No, we did not have any videotape
or photographs of the individuals in question at that time," he says,
and tells us that the report was based on articles in Arab newspapers,
such as the Arab News, an English-language Saudi newspaper.
The operator at the call center has the number for the Arab
News on speed dial. We make a call to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. A few
seconds later, Managing Editor John Bradley is on the line. When we
tell Bradley our story, he snorts and says: "That's ridiculous! People
here stopped talking about that a long time ago."
Bradley tells us that at the time his reporters did not speak
directly with the so-called "survivors," but instead combined reports
from other Arab papers. These reports, says Bradley, appeared at a
time when the only public information about the attackers was a list
of names that had been published by the FBI on September 14th. The FBI
did not release photographs until four days after the cited reports,
on September 27th.
The photographs quickly resolved the nonsense about surviving
terrorists. According to Bradley, "all of this is attributable to the
chaos that prevailed during the first few days following the attack.
What we're dealing with are coincidentally identical names." In Saudi
Arabia, says Bradley, the names of two of the allegedly surviving
attackers, Said al-Ghamdi and Walid al-Shari, are "as common as John
Smith in the United States or Great Britain."
The final explanation is provided by the newspaper Asharq
Al-Awsat, one of the sources of Arab News, which in turn serves as a
source to the BBC. Mohammed Samman is the name of the reporter who
interviewed a man named Said al-Ghamdi in Tunis, only to find that
al-Ghamdi was quite horrified to discover his name on the FBI list of
assassins.
Samman remembers his big story well. "That was a wonderful
story," he says. And that's all it was. It had nothing to do with the
version made up of Br?ckers' and Bülow's combined fantasies.
"The problem," says Samman, "was that after the first FBI list
had been published, CNN released a photo of the pilot Said al-Ghamdi
that had been obtained from the files of those Saudi pilots who had at
some point received official flight training in the United States."
After Samman's story was reported by the news agencies, he was
contacted by CNN. "I gave them Ghamdi's telephone number. The CNN
people talked to the pilot and apologized profusely. The whole thing
was quite obviously a mix-up. The Ghamdi family is one of the largest
families in Saudi Arabia, and there are thousands of men named Said
al-Ghamdi."
When we ask Samman to take another look at the FBI's list of
photographs, he is more than happy to oblige, and tells us: "The
Ghamdi on the photo is not the pilot with whom I spoke."
The investigative journalists should have been able to figure
out just how obvious the solution to this puzzle was. They all write
that a man named Abd al-Asis al-Umari had been named as a perpetrator
by the FBI, and that there are apparently many individuals with this
name. Br?ckers and Hau? even noticed that the FBI had initially
released an incorrect first name to the press. All of this certainly
suggests that there was a mix-up, but it's also something that the
conspiracy theorists apparently did not consider plausible.
In the case of the supposedly surviving terrorist Walid
al-Shari, the truth is even more obvious. At least Bülow had the
opportunity to avoid making this mistake. In his book, he writes that
the alleged assassin Shari "lives in Casablanca and works as a pilot,
according to information provided by the airline Royal Air Maroc."
If Bülow had inquired with the airline, he would have
discovered that the name of the pilot who lives in Casablanca is Walid
al-Shri and not, like that of the assassin, Walid al-Shari. This minor
detail makes a big difference, namely the difference between a dead
terrorist and a living innocent man. But to conspiracy theorists,
discovering the truth is like solving a crossword puzzle for children:
What's a four-letter word for a domesticated animal? Hrse.
While doing research for my conspiracy page last year, I had
e-mailed several different desks at the BBC to inform them that their
story was being used all over the internet as grist for these
conspiracy theories, and asked if they had ever followed up on their
apparent bombshell story. How, I asked, could they just do one story
on such an accusation, and never make an attempt at closure one way or
the other.
I never got an answer. I'm afraid that's all too common in
journalism today. Headlines like "Initial Reports Proven Untrue" just
don't sell newspapers, and I guess there just isn't a commensurate
sense of accountability among reporters and their editors to clear up
speculative nonsense for which they were responsible in the first
place.
Later, the Philly Daily News ran an "unanswered questions" piece
that included the same "hijackers still living" canard. I e-mailed the
columnist, Will Bunch, primarily to inform him that one of those
still-living hijackers was recently featured on an al-qaeda recruiting
video -- reading his will, no less. I also asked him why he didn't try
to solve any of these mysteries himself, rather than whining, "So why
did this story line vanish into thin air?" A rather odd question for a
reporter to be asking his readers, I thought.
Bunch's response: "I'm a good reporter, but if I tried to solve
all 20 questions myself I'd be 96 years old by the time I was done!"
With this level of laziness among professional journalists, it's no
wonder the conspiracy loons are able to point to so many
"inconsistencies" and "unanswered questions." "
>* Frank DeMartini, a project manager for the WTC, said the buildings were
>designed with load redistribution capabilities to withstand the impact of
>airliners, whose effects would be like "puncturing mosquito netting with
>a pencil." Yet they completely collapsed. How is this possible?
DeMartini didn't know what he was talking about.
>* Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700*F, the temperature of
>jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800*F under optimal conditions, and UL
>certified the steel used to 2,000*F for six hours, the buildings cannot
>have collapsed due to heat from the fires. How is this possible?
Because the steel didn't melt, but lost enough strength that it
failed.
>* Flight 77, which allegedly hit the building, left the radar screen in
>the vicinity of the Ohio/Kentucky border, only to "reappear" in very
>close proximity to the Pentagon shortly before impact. How is this
>possible?
It turned off it's transponder, and
"At 8:54, American 77 began deviating from its flight plan, first with
a slight turn toward the south. Two minutes later it disappeared
completely from Indianapolis radar.
The controller tracking American 77 told us he first noticed the
aircraft turning to the southwest, and then saw the data disappear.
The controller looked for primary radar returns. He searched along its
projected flight path and the airspace to the southwest where it had
started to turn. No primary targets appeared. He tried the radios,
first calling the aircraft directly, then the airline. Again there was
nothing. At this point, the Indianapolis controller had no knowledge
of the situation in New York. He did not know that other aircraft had
been hijacked. He believed American 77 had experienced serious
electrical and/or mechanical failure, and was gone.
Shortly after 9:00, Indianapolis Center started notifying other
agencies that American 77 was missing and had possibly crashed. At
9:08, Indianapolis Center contacted Air Force Search and Rescue at
Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, and told them to look out for a
downed aircraft. They also contacted the West Virginia State Police,
and asked whether they had any reports of a downed aircraft. At 9:09,
they reported the loss of contact to the FAA regional center, which
passed this information to FAA headquarters at 9:24.
By 9:20, Indianapolis Center learned that there were other hijacked
aircraft in the system, and began to doubt their initial assumption
that American 77 had crashed. A discussion of this concern between the
manager at Indianapolis and the Command Center in Herndon prompted the
Command Center to notify some FAA field facilities that American 77
was lost. By 9:21, the Command Center, some FAA field facilities, and
American Airlines had started to search for American 77. They feared
it had been hijacked. At 9:25, the Command Center advised FAA
headquarters that American 77 was lost in Indianapolis Center’s
airspace, that Indianapolis Center had no primary radar track, and was
looking for the aircraft. "
>* Foreign "terrorists" who were clever enough to coordinate hijacking
>four commercial airliners seemingly did not know that the least damage to
>the Pentagon would be done by hitting its west wing. How is this
>possible?
They didn't read up on the Pentagon renovation.
>* Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, in an underground bunker at
>the White House, watched Vice President Cheney castigate a young officer
>for asking, as the plane drew closer and closer to the Pentagon, "Do the
>orders still stand?" The order cannot have been to shoot it down, but
>must have been the opposite. How is this possible?
Timing is everything. And the events of the day say that Mineta is
mistaken:
"News of an incoming aircraft (later discovered to be American 77)
prompted the Secret Service to order the evacuation of the Vice
President just before 9:36. The Vice President entered the underground
tunnel that led to the shelter at 9:37."
So Cheney couldn' t have even been in the bunker before Flight 77
crashed. In addition:
"At 9:59, a White House request for such a CAP was communicated to the
military through the Air Threat Conference. The Vice President states
that the purpose of his call to the President was to discuss the rules
of engagement for the CAP. He recalled he felt it did not do any good
to put the CAP up there unless the pilots had instructions to tell
them whether they were authorized to shoot if the plane would not
divert. He said the President signed off on that concept. The
President said he remembered such a conversation, and that it reminded
him of when he had been a fighter pilot. The President emphasized to
us that he had authorized the shoot down of hijacked aircraft.
The Vice President’s military aide told us he believed the Vice
President spoke to the President just after entering the conference
room, but he did not hear what they said. Rice, who entered the
conference room shortly after the Vice President and sat next to him,
recalled hearing the Vice President inform the President that, “Sir,
the CAPs are up. Sir, they’re going to want to know what to do.” Then
she recalled hearing him say, “Yes sir.” She believed this
conversation occurred a few minutes, perhaps five, after they entered
the conference room.
We believe this call would have taken place some time before 10:10 to
10:15. Among the sources that reflect other important events that
morning there is no documentary evidence for this call, although the
relevant sources are incomplete. Others nearby who were taking notes,
such as the Vice President’s Chief of Staff, Scooter Libby, who sat
next to him, and Mrs. Cheney, did not note a call between the
President and Vice President immediately after the Vice President
entered the conference room.
At 10:02, the communicators in the shelter began receiving reports
from the Secret Service of an inbound aircraft—presumably
hijacked—heading toward Washington. That aircraft was United 93.
The Secret Service was getting this information directly from the FAA,
through its links to that agency. The Service’s operations center and
their FAA contact were tracking the progress of the aircraft on a
display that showed its projected path, not its actual radar return.
Thus, for a time, they were not aware the aircraft was going down in
Pennsylvania.
At some time between 10:10 and 10:15, a military aide told the Vice
President and others that the aircraft was 80 miles out. Vice
President Cheney was asked for authority to engage the aircraft.
The Vice President’s reaction was described as quick and decisive: “in
about the time it takes a batter to decide to swing.” He authorized
fighter aircraft to engage the inbound plane. He told us this was
based on his prior conversation with the President. The military aide
returned a few minutes later, probably between 10:12 and 10:18, and
said the aircraft was 60 miles out. He again asked for authorization
to engage. The Vice President again said yes. The Secret Service was
postulating the flight path of United 93, not knowing it had already
crashed. "
So there was no authority from the President for a shoot down order
until sometime after 10 AM on 9/11.
>* A former Inspector General for the Air Force has observed that Flight
>93, which allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania, should have left debris
>scattered over an area less than the size of a city block; but it is
>scattered over an area of about eight square miles. How is this possible?
Again, the man doesn't have a clue as to what he is talking about.
>* A tape recording of interviews with air traffic controllers on duty on
>9/11 was deliberately crushed, cut into very small pieces, and
>distributed in assorted places to insure its total destruction. How is
>this possible?
The recording was of the AT controllers recollections and was
supplanted by their signed statements.
>* The Pentagon conducted a training exercise called "MASCAL" simulating
>the crash of a Boeing 757 into the building on 24 October 2000, and yet
>Condoleezza Rice, among others, has repeatedly asserted that "no one ever
>imagined" a domestic airplane could be used as a weapon. How is this
>possible?
The exercise wasn't for a terrorist event or any sort of intentional
crash into the Pentagon. Go check out a map and see how close the
Pentagon is to Reagan National.
>Their own physics research has established that only controlled
>demolitions are consistent with the near-gravity speed of fall and
>virtually symmetrical collapse of all three of the WTC buildings. While
>turning concrete into very fine dust, they fell straight-down into their
>own footprints.
And these "physics experts" apparently don't even understand the law
of gravity.
age...@justicespammail.com
wrote:
And not a member of this group of "distinguished experts" is an
architect or structural engineer. The one who claims to be an
architect is breaking the law.
"Eric Douglas (AM)
New York City architect Eric Douglas (AM)
New York City architect Chair of the Independent Peer Review
Committe for the NIST WTC Reports at nistreview.org
at nistreview.org"
While that might sound impressive, Mr. Douglas is not a registered
architect with the State of New York and is therefore breaking the law
by claiming that he is an architect. As for being the "Chair of the
Sky King
wrote:
>Do you know the definition of ad hominem attack Sky King?
Do you understand the term "due diligence", Eagle Eye?
>
>I too was rather floored that he had managed to become a member, but
>that does NOT discredit the rest of those involved, and the growing
>ranks of academians and scholars.
It does nothing for their credibility and claim that they are "searching"
for the truth, now does it?
It should not have escaped your attention that none of these so-called
scholars includes structural engineers or forensic scientists.
Sky King
wrote:
By including Muhammad Columbo, they hired their own Pat Robertson.
Vandar
Well put. While Columbo doesn't lessen the individual credibility of the
others, he does lessen the credibility of the group as a whole.
Not that the others are credible on the topic of structural engineering.
The axiom "only as strong as the weakest link" applies here.
@midnight.net Passerby
An apples/oranges moment?
Weak...and of no relevance to the overall findings.
@midnight.net Passerby
"Vandar" <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:EcADf.1207$qg....@news01.roc.ny...
Because....?
There are so many weak links in the Bush&Co. "chain gang", your comment is
indeed a puzzlement.
Joe Smith
"Sky King" <sky...@scientist.com> wrote in message
news:mp9tt1dokue7k895m...@4ax.com...
@midnight.net Passerby
<age...@justicespammail.com> wrote in message
news:5mett19tktk1a7sc8...@4ax.com...
> hijacked-heading toward Washington. That aircraft was United 93.
Any attributions for the above refutes/elucidations? Or does this represent
your compilation and conclusions?
Very familiar material.
Note on one particular point you...or someone...makes as to Flight 77
turning off its responder: That in itself is a sophisticated alert
mechanism and sets off a stream of notifications.
@midnight.net Passerby
Read: "transponder"
Vandar
We aren't discussing a "Bush & Co. chain gang", so your comment is
indeed indicative of an agenda you wish to pursue.
edrh...@hotmail.com
There is no relevance to the overall findings unless you can show me
that at least ONE of these people has some sort of knowledge of
structrual engineering, arcetecture (sp) or aeronautics.
Sky King
They also have Peter Meyer, another honored fellow of CrankDotNet.
Quaoar
PRWeb is vanity news: anyone can construct "news" for PRWeb. PRWeb has
zero credibility; there is no independent journalism involved.
Q
gerry
Rewriting wire copy is the source of most news these days, plus the
local police blotter. Journalists are near the bottom of the
professional pay scale, most below the salary levels of teachers. You
get what you pay for. So what if PRWEB is a questionable source of
unbiased information, the same can be said of FOX News and most other
news reporting operations. As long as PRWEB is interesting.
>PRWeb is vanity news: anyone can construct "news" for PRWeb. PRWeb has
>zero credibility; there is no independent journalism involved.
age...@justicespammail.com
@midnight.net> wrote:
>
><age...@justicespammail.com> wrote in message
>news:5mett19tktk1a7sc8...@4ax.com...
>> And these "physics experts" apparently don't even understand the law
>> of gravity.
>
>
>Any attributions for the above refutes/elucidations?
Yes.
> Or does this represent your compilation and conclusions?
No.
>Very familiar material.
Then why did you ask the previous questions?
>Note on one particular point you...or someone...makes as to Flight 77
>turning off its responder: That in itself is a sophisticated alert
>mechanism and sets off a stream of notifications.
Not really. Go buy a clue.
EagleEye
> scholars includes structural engineers or forensic scientists.
And what are you going to do as those disciplins begin to get on the
bandwagon eh Skyshill, my good friend?
ash...@hotmail.com
george
Wait for you to admit you are wrong perhaps ?
TRUTH
news:1138766520....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Do you people really believe our government is capable of such a
> thing?
Whether people think they're "capable" or not isn't the point. What's
important is the tremendous amount of evidence that exists.
In addition...
The US government has the habit of giving other countries money, weapons,
and information, just so they could become a threat. The government then
allows them to attack us. (In some circumstances, the US performs the
attacks themselves, and blames them.) This builds up public support to
invade them. This has been happening a long long time...
The following are verifiable FACTS:
2000s:
-The CIA gives blueprints for a nuclear weapon to Iran. The US now
considers them a threat and will invade them
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0%2c12271%2c1678219%2c00.html?
gusrc=rss
-George W Bush blames Saddam/Iraq for 9/11 and invades them
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WMDlies.html
-George W Bush blames Osama/al-Qaeda and invades them in Afghanistan
1990s:
-George H W Bush helps bring Saddam/Iraq to power
1970s:
-The CIA helps bring Osama/al-Qaeda to power
-The government creates terror in the Gulf of Tonkin and invades Vietnam
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2005/011105agencyfaked.htm
1960s:
-US Chiefs of Staff devise Operation Northwoods, a plan to create terror
on US streets (shooting people, crashing airplanes, blowing up ships) and
blaming Cuba, for the purpose of building public support to invade Cuba.
[JFK was going to blow the whistle on this, but got assassinated
instead.]
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/
1940s:
-The US government has foreknowledge of Japan's plan to bomb Pearl
Harbor, and let's it happen for the purpose of building public support to
enter WWII.
1930s:
-GWB's grandfather, Senator Prescott Bush, helps bring Hitler to power
http://illuminati-news.com/Videos/keeping-it-in-the-family.wmv
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html
Chimpolean Chimpinista
<ash...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138766520....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Do you people really believe our government is capable
of such a thing?
With the NEOCONS in charge and a dumb scarecrow like GW
bu$h thinking he is in charge, I would bet YOUR fucking
life on it.
chimpolean
Vandar
So you admit that you could be outsmarted by a "dumb scarecrow"?
Dogchain
"Quaoar" <qua...@marcabfleet.com> wrote in message
news:cOudnQe2zv7...@comcast.com...
Q
You could just as easily say the same for the AP, moron .
Mary
"Dogchain" <dogc...@r.us.net> wrote in message
news:5a6Ef.41$vH...@fe10.lga...
Dogchain
"Mary" <xxxxyyosu...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:TV6Ef.318570$qk4.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> PRWeb is vanity news: anyone can construct "news" for PRWeb. PRWeb has
>> zero credibility; there is no independent journalism involved.
>>
>> Q
>>
>> You could just as easily say the same for the AP, moron .
>>
> What a brain washed fool. PRWEB, home of $$cientology disinformation.
Whoosh...