CNN Poll Indicates Worm Turning
Clare Swinney
week -sorry that the show merely alluded to evidence to show US govt
complicity in 911, but didn't show you any. There's a plethora of evidence
on the Internet. This is one of the best free docos, of which there are
many:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loose+change
Last week a CNN online poll showed more than 8 out of 10 respondents do not
believe official story of 911.
http://edition.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/23968.content.html
Created: Thursday, March 23, 2006, at 17:04:53 EDT
Do you agree with Charlie Sheen that the U.S. government covered up the real
events of the 9/11 attacks?
Yes 83% 44827 votes
No 17% 9107 votes
Total: 53934 votes
This QuickVote is not scientific and reflects the opinions of only those
Internet users who have chosen to participate. The results cannot be assumed
to represent the opinions of Internet users in general, nor the public as a
whole. The QuickVote sponsor is not responsible for content, functionality
or the opinions expressed therein.
Or read numerous academics' viewpoints of evidence at Scholars For 9/11
Truth at www.st911.org
A Friend
Clare Swinney wrote:
> To those who read my misleading post about Maori TV's Te Heteri last
> week -sorry that the show merely alluded to evidence to show US govt
> complicity in 911, but didn't show you any.
As there is none.
> There's a plethora of evidence
> on the Internet.
Where it is also alleged that the moon landings were hoaxes.
I suppose you believe that too.
You used to be sensible. What happened?
george
A Friend wrote:
> Clare Swinney wrote:
> > To those who read my misleading post about Maori TV's Te Heteri last
> > week -sorry that the show merely alluded to evidence to show US govt
> > complicity in 911, but didn't show you any.
>
> As there is none.
>
> > There's a plethora of evidence
> > on the Internet.
>
> Where it is also alleged that the moon landings were hoaxes.
and there's a face on Mars ROTFL
>
> I suppose you believe that too.
>
> You used to be sensible. What happened?
A desperate desire to post something antiBush
without checking the credibility of the item it all turned to custard
Dave Joll
> Last week a CNN online poll showed more than 8 out of 10 respondents do
> not
> believe official story of 911.
And shitloads of Yanks believe that Saddam Hussein was
behind the 9/11 attacks. Doesn't make *them* right either.
Clare Swinney
>
threatened and cowardly, why don't you use your real name and start by
looking objectively at the evidence at st911.org.
For example, as Doctor David Ray Griffen rightly points out, the 9/11
Commission Report is a 571-page lie, which confirms govt. complicity. These
are just *some* of the omissions of the report -!!!:
(Please validate this for yourself)
1. The omission of evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers -
including Waleed al-Shehri, said by the Commission probably to have stabbed
a flight attendant on Flight 11 before it crashed into the North Tower of
the WTC - are still alive (19-20).
2. The omission of evidence about Mohamed Atta - such as his reported
fondness for alcohol, pork, and lap dances - that is in tension with the
Commission's claim that he had become fanatically religious (20-21).
3. The obfuscation of the evidence that Hani Hanjour was too poor a pilot to
have flown an airliner into the Pentagon (21-22).
4. The omission of the fact that the publicly released flight manifests
contain no Arab names (23).
5. The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11,
caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25).
6. The omission of the fact that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very
big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several
steel-frame buildings that did not collapse (25-26).
7. The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses
were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North
Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26).
8. The omission of the fact that WTC 7 (which was not hit by an airplane and
which had only small, localized fires) also collapsed - an occurrence that
FEMA admitted it could not explain (26).
9. The omission of the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that
of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled
demolition (26-27).
10. The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was "a hollow steel
shaft" - a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive steel columns
that in reality constituted the core of each tower and that, given the
"pancake theory" of the collapses, should have still been sticking up many
hundreds of feet in the air (27-28).
11. The omission of Larry Silverstein's statement that he and the fire
department commander decided to "pull" Building 7 (28).
12. The omission of the fact that the steel from the WTC buildings was
quickly removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas before it could be
analyzed for evidence of explosives (30).
13. The omission of the fact that because Building 7 had been evacuated
before it collapsed, the official reason for the rapid removal of the
steel - that some people might still be alive in the rubble under the
steel - made no sense in this case (30).
14. The omission of Mayor Giuliani's statement that he had received word
that the World Trade Center was going to collapse (30-31).
15. The omission of the fact that President Bush's brother Marvin and his
cousin Wirt Walker III were both principals in the company in charge of
security for the WTC (31-32).
16. The omission of the fact that the west wing of the Pentagon would have
been the least likely spot to be targeted by al-Qaeda terrorists, for
several reasons (33-34).
17. The omission of any discussion of whether the damage done to the
Pentagon was consistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 going several
hundred miles per hour (34).
18. The omission of the fact that there are photos showing that the west
wing's façade did not collapse until 30 minutes after the strike and also
that the entrance hole appears too small for a Boeing 757 to have entered
(34).
19. The omission of all testimony that has been used to cast doubt on
whether remains of a Boeing 757 were visible either inside or outside the
Pentagon (34-36).
20. The omission of any discussion of whether the Pentagon has a
anti-missile defense system that would have brought down a commercial
airliner - even though the Commission suggested that the al-Qaeda terrorists
did not attack a nuclear power plant because they assumed that it would be
thus defended (36).
21. The omission of the fact that pictures from various security cameras -
including the camera at the gas station across from the Pentagon, the film
from which was reportedly confiscated by the FBI immediately after the
strike - could presumably answer the question of what really hit the
Pentagon (37-38).
22. The omission of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's reference to "the
missile [used] to damage [the Pentagon]" (39).
23. The apparent endorsement of a wholly unsatisfactory answer to the
question of why the Secret Service agents allowed President Bush to remain
at the Sarasota school at a time when, given the official story, they should
have assumed that a hijacked airliner might be about to crash into the
school (41-44).
24. The failure to explore why the Secret Service did not summon fighter
jets to provide air cover for Air Force One (43-46).
25. The claims that when the presidential party arrived at the school, no
one in the party knew that several planes had been hijacked (47-48).
26. The omission of the report that Attorney General Ashcroft was warned to
stop using commercial airlines prior to 9/11 (50).
27. The omission of David Schippers' claim that he had, on the basis of
information provided by FBI agents about upcoming attacks in lower
Manhattan, tried unsuccessfully to convey this information to Attorney
General Ashcroft during the six weeks prior to 9/11 (51).
28. The omission of any mention of the FBI agents who reportedly claimed to
have known the targets and dates of the attacks well in advance (51-52).
29. The claim, by means of a circular, question-begging rebuttal, that the
unusual purchases of put options prior to 9/11 did not imply advance
knowledge of the attacks on the part of the buyers (52-57).
30. The omission of reports that both Mayor Willie Brown and some Pentagon
officials received warnings about flying on 9/11 (57).
31. The omission of the report that Osama bin Laden, who already was
America's "most wanted" criminal, was treated in July 2001 by an American
doctor in the American Hospital in Dubai and visited by the local CIA agent
(59).
32. The omission of news stories suggesting that after 9/11 the U.S.
military in Afghanistan deliberately allowed Osama bin Laden to escape (60).
33. The omission of reports, including the report of a visit to Osama bin
Laden at the hospital in Dubai by the head of Saudi intelligence, that were
in tension with the official portrayal of Osama as disowned by his family
and his country (60-61).
34. The omission of Gerald Posner's account of Abu Zubaydah's testimony,
according to which three members of the Saudi royal family - all of whom
later died mysteriously within an eight-day period - were funding al-Qaeda
and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (61-65).
35. The Commission's denial that it found any evidence of Saudi funding of
al-Qaeda (65-68).
36. The Commission's denial in particular that it found any evidence that
money from Prince Bandar's wife, Princess Haifa, went to al-Qaeda operatives
(69-70).
37. The denial, by means of simply ignoring the distinction between private
and commercial flights, that the private flight carrying Saudis from Tampa
to Lexington on September 13 violated the rules for U.S. airspace in effect
at the time (71-76).
38. The denial that any Saudis were allowed to leave the United States
shortly after 9/11 without being adequately investigated (76-82).
39. The omission of evidence that Prince Bandar obtained special permission
from the White House for the Saudi flights (82-86).
40. The omission of Coleen Rowley's claim that some officials at FBI
headquarters did see the memo from Phoenix agent Kenneth Williams (89-90).
41. The omission of Chicago FBI agent Robert Wright's charge that FBI
headquarters closed his case on a terrorist cell, then used intimidation to
prevent him from publishing a book reporting his experiences (91).
42. The omission of evidence that FBI headquarters sabotaged the attempt by
Coleen Rowley and other Minneapolis agents to obtain a warrant to search
Zacarias Moussaoui's computer (91-94).
43. The omission of the 3.5 hours of testimony to the Commission by former
FBI translator Sibel Edmonds - testimony that, according to her later public
letter to Chairman Kean, revealed serious 9/11-related cover-ups by
officials at FBI headquarters (94-101).
44. The omission of the fact that General Mahmoud Ahmad, the head of
Pakistan's intelligence agency (the ISI), was in Washington the week prior
to 9/11, meeting with CIA chief George Tenet and other U.S. officials
(103-04).
45. The omission of evidence that ISI chief Ahmad had ordered $100,000 to be
sent to Mohamed Atta prior to 9/11 (104-07).
46. The Commission's claim that it found no evidence that any foreign
government, including Pakistan, had provided funding for the al-Qaeda
operatives (106).
47. The omission of the report that the Bush administration pressured
Pakistan to dismiss Ahmad as ISI chief after the appearance of the story
that he had ordered ISI money sent to Atta (107-09).
48. The omission of evidence that the ISI (and not merely al-Qaeda) was
behind the assassination of Ahmad Shah Masood (the leader of Afghanistan's
Northern Alliance), which occurred just after the week-long meeting between
the heads of the CIA and the ISI (110-112).
49. The omission of evidence of ISI involvement in the kidnapping and murder
of Wall Street Reporter Daniel Pearl (113).
50. The omission of Gerald Posner's report that Abu Zubaydah claimed that a
Pakistani military officer, Mushaf Ali Mir, was closely connected to both
the ISI and al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (114).
kda...@gmail.com
And here we have conclusive proof that internet conspiracy theories are
making people stupid.
Clare Swinney
> A desperate desire to post something antiBush
> without checking the credibility of the item it all turned to custard
You check the credibility of these items:
Scholars for 9/11 Truth', a group of non-partisan researchers devoted to
applying the principles of scientific reasoning to the available
evidence, repudiates the
official version of 911. They claim that the US government's account
violates laws of
physics and engineering and they are convinced their research proves
the current
administration has been dishonest. The group's website is at:
www.st911.org.
THERE IS NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT OSAMA BIN LADEN
PERPETRATED THE ATTACKS OF 911.
FBI director Robert Mueller informed the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco
that nothing on paper connected Arab terrorists to 911. The FBI produced 19
names within 72 hours of the attacks, but 7-8 of the names on that original
list have been found living comfortably in other countries.
Furthermore, the videotaped evidence provided by the US government on the
13th December 2001, which was to show bin Laden taking credit for 911, was
an obvious fraud. It showed a right-handed man, with a fat nose, wearing a
large gold ring, who looked healthy. Bin Laden was left-handed, suffering
from renal failure, his nose thin, and it was against his religious beliefs
to wear jewelry.
Clare Swinney
> > not
> > believe official story of 911.
>
> And shitloads of Yanks believe that Saddam Hussein was
> behind the 9/11 attacks. Doesn't make *them* right either.
>
noticed that
bin Laden's apparition is aiding the rapid rise of fascism, enabling the US
Administration to undermine civil rights and balloon defense budgets. Since
911, the US has invaded Iraq, implemented the USA Patriot Act and Model
Emergency Health Powers Act; established concentration-style internment
camps, which are now being constructed throughout the US; and practiced
torture and staged executions, without trials. Please check it out. Do't
rely on our mainstream media to tell you.
they are a conveyor belt for US lies and have a conflict of interest.
Apart from wanting US forces to attack other countries so viewers stay glued
to the TV in between commercials, there is a far more depraved reason
underlying the wanton distortion of reality. NBC is a subsidiary of General
Electric Co. - a company that benefits hugely from the invasion of Iraq via
highly lucrative military contracts. It is thus easy to understand why NBC
maintains the illusion of the bogeyman bin Laden, for his specter provides a
pretext for a never-ending war.
A Friend
kda...@gmail.com wrote:
> And here we have conclusive proof that internet conspiracy theories are
> making people stupid.
Including ones who used to be sensible and for whom I used to have a
lot of time for.
I wish aliens would kidnap me. Why does it always happen to kooks?
Clare Swinney
> making people stupid.
>
propaganda by Bush et al has been effective -as people, like you, who don't
even look at the evidence, think they "know" the truth.
Please refer:
Bush Spent $1.6 Bil. on 'Spin'
February 13, 2006
By Richard Williamson
A U.S. Army spot by Leo Burnett.
DALLAS The Bush Administration spent $1.4 billion in taxpayer dollars on 137
contracts with advertising agencies over the past two-and-a-half years,
according to a Government Accountability Office report released by House
Democrats today.
With spending on public relations and other media included, federal agencies
spent $1.6 billion on what some Democrats called "spin."
The six largest recipients of ad and PR dollars were Leo Burnett USA, $536
million; Campbell-Ewald, $194 million; GSD&M, $179 million; JWT, $148
million; Frankel, $133 million; and Ketchum, $78 million. The agencies
received more than $1.2 billion in media contracts, according to the report.
Ketchum was embroiled in a scandal last year when it was revealed that the
Department of Education had paid commentator Armstrong Williams $250,000 to
promote President Bush's No Child Left Behind initiative. There was no
suggestion of impropriety for most of the contracts, however. GSD&M, for
example, has handled advertising for the U.S. Air Force for several years,
an account it won through a traditional government review.
Trends in spending on PR and ad contracts were not documented, but a prior
study by the minority staff of the Government Reform Committee found that
spending on public relations contracts rose rapidly under the Bush
administration. That report found that spending on contracts with public
relations firms had increased to $88 million in 2004 from $39 million in
2000, an increase of 128 percent.
Rep. Henry A. Waxman, House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi and other
Democratic leaders asked for the study after reports surfaced that the
administration had paid commentators to promote its programs and that
promotional videos designed to resemble newscasts were distributed to TV
stations that ran unedited.
The Department of Defense spent the most on media contracts, with pacts
worth $1.1 billion, according to the study. The Department of Health and
Human Services spent more than $300 million, the Department of Treasury
spent $152 million, and the Department of Homeland Security spent $24
million during the period.
The PR and ad contracts included providing "expert advice and support in the
development of several marriage-related research initiatives," an
educational campaign regarding the "Medicare Modernization Act, and its
coverage and benefits," and a contract regarding "message development that
presents the Army's strategic perspective in the global war on terrorism,"
the study said.
A Food and Drug Administration contract had the objective of warning the
public about the "consequences and potential dangers of buying prescription
drugs from non-U.S. sources."
Within the Department of Defense, which had the largest budget for public
relations and advertising contracts, the Air Force provided the most
detailed list of its contracts, the report said.
A Friend
Clare Swinney wrote:
> Do't
> rely on our mainstream media to tell you.
> they are a conveyor belt for US lies and have a conflict of interest.
> Apart from wanting US forces to attack other countries so viewers stay glued
> to the TV in between commercials, there is a far more depraved reason
> underlying the wanton distortion of reality. NBC is a subsidiary of General
> Electric Co. - a company that benefits hugely from the invasion of Iraq via
> highly lucrative military contracts. It is thus easy to understand why NBC
> maintains the illusion of the bogeyman bin Laden, for his specter provides a
> pretext for a never-ending war.
Clare, you have gone completely barmy.
I weep for you.
Even Janice never got this bad, and she was a total loon from birth.
You used to be able to tell fact from fiction, Clare.
Clare Swinney
"A Friend" <arthur_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> Including ones who used to be sensible and for whom I used to have a
> lot of time for.
>
> I wish aliens would kidnap me. Why does it always happen to kooks?
>
That's not a name.
Look at the facts and use a scientific/objective approach- if you are a
friend, you know that that's what I appreciate.
For simplicities sake, look at the evidence regarding Building 7, which
wasn't even hit by an aircraft. Lease owner, Larry Silverstein -said the
decision was made on 911 "to pull it" - a phrase used by demolition experts.
Bear in mind friend that demolition workers say this kind of job takes weeks
to prepare for. See: st911.org
Confirm this for yourself:
Building 7 fell on 911 but:
Building 7 was not hit by any aircraft, and apparently did not suffer
massive damage from the violent destruction of either of the Twin Towers.
Small fires were observed in a few different parts of the building prior to
its "collapse." Most of the fires were barely visible, and were not hot
enough to cause window breakage, at least on the north side of the tower, of
which there are photos shortly before the collapse.
JAS
"george" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message
news:1143850862....@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> A Friend wrote:
>> Clare Swinney wrote:
>> > To those who read my misleading post about Maori TV's Te Heteri last
>> > week -sorry that the show merely alluded to evidence to show US govt
>> > complicity in 911, but didn't show you any.
>>
>> As there is none.
>>
>> > There's a plethora of evidence
>> > on the Internet.
> against 911 being a government conspiracy
>>
>> Where it is also alleged that the moon landings were hoaxes.
>
> and there's a face on Mars ROTFL
..and the US sank the Maine to start the Spanish American War ..or the Gulf
of Tompkins incident was floated to escalate the Vietnam war, or the illegal
assassination attempts against Castro (and other world leaders) by the CIA
or the aborted (at the last minute) Northwood's operation included hijacking
an airliner and killing innocent civilians.
Wait... all these are considered true (though the sinking of the Maine is
still contested by a few)!
Not that the 9/11 operation was an inside job, but there are many unanswered
questions.
A Friend
Clare Swinney wrote:
> Look at the facts and use a scientific/objective approach- if you are a
> friend, you know that that's what I appreciate.
You used to Clare.
Not any more.
It is so sad.
Clare Swinney
>
If you are interested in what is scientific, (in the academic sense), please
read this peer-reviewed paper at www.st911.org
Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
by Steven E. Jones, Ph.D.
Clare Swinney
news:e0kk6i$ght$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
Please may I suggest that you have a look at the facts and answer the
questions for yourself.
911 was a sloppy job and there is ample evidence of US govt. complicity.
Also there is evidence of the motives. It was used as an excuse to invade
Iraq, plus the USA Patriot Act was introduced only 45 days after the event,
and has made sweeping changes to the Bill of Rights -it has a negative
effect on civil rights in the name of protecting people from terrorists.
Plus, there's the Model Emergency Health Powers Act - please check this
out - it is reputed to aid the public in the event of a bioterror attack,
but violates human rights in the extreme.
Refer: http://www.freecongress.org/commentaries/2003
Clare Swinney
ask.
See: www.st911.org
Clare Swinney
>
> Clare Swinney wrote:
>
>
> > Do't
> > rely on our mainstream media to tell you.
> > they are a conveyor belt for US lies and have a conflict of interest.
> > Apart from wanting US forces to attack other countries so viewers stay
glued
> > to the TV in between commercials, there is a far more depraved reason
> > underlying the wanton distortion of reality. NBC is a subsidiary of
General
> > Electric Co. - a company that benefits hugely from the invasion of Iraq
via
> > highly lucrative military contracts. It is thus easy to understand why
NBC
> > maintains the illusion of the bogeyman bin Laden, for his specter
provides a
> > pretext for a never-ending war.
>
> Clare, you have gone completely barmy.
>
> I weep for you.
I weep for people who haven't got the courage to look at and discuss the
well-documented facts. www.st911.org Scholars For 9/11 Truth
Scuzza
news:1143853956.7...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>> Do't
>> rely on our mainstream media to tell you.
>> they are a conveyor belt for US lies and have a conflict of
>> interest.
>> Apart from wanting US forces to attack other countries so viewers
>> stay glued
>> to the TV in between commercials, there is a far more depraved
>> reason
>> underlying the wanton distortion of reality. NBC is a subsidiary of
>> General
>> Electric Co. - a company that benefits hugely from the invasion of
>> Iraq via
>> highly lucrative military contracts. It is thus easy to understand
>> why NBC
>> maintains the illusion of the bogeyman bin Laden, for his specter
>> provides a
>> pretext for a never-ending war.
>
> Clare, you have gone completely barmy.
Explain why.
That NBC is a subsidiary of GEC is easy to check. If it's not true, say
so.
That such a situation creates a conflict of interest is a basic
principle of most legal systems, including the laws governing the US'
own SEC, Senate, Congress, etc. If you have some evidence that the
executives of NBC are somehow super-humanly immune to such conflicts,
then present it.
That wars such as the "war on terror" are never-ending is easily
demonstrated, both by historic example (the war on poverty, the war on
drugs) and by plain logic. War is inherently terrifying - to any sane
person - and thus the very notion of a war on terror is oxymoronic at
best. If you have a counter-argument, make it.
I have no diea who you are, and I could hardly care less, but I've
observed Clare's posts here for a number of years. So far, she's shown
far more intelligence and ability to observe the rules of logic than
you have. She at least is able to construct an argument without resort
to ad hominem, which you are not.
She is also unafraid to own her own opinions, and to defend them openly
and honestly.
My parents taught me that violence is the first resort of the
incompetent. Ad hominem arguments being the usenet equivalent of
violence, it is no surprise that they've come to be recognised as the
sure sign that you have no evidence, reason, logic, or intelligence to
offer, you simply have an opinion and expect others to bow before it.
In short, you are incompetent.
> I weep for you.
No you don't. You're just an ass-hole who's too cowardly to even
express your scorn honestly.
> Even Janice never got this bad, and she was a total loon from birth.
And how is this relevant to the conversation?
> You used to be able to tell fact from fiction, Clare.
So far, you've shown absolutely no ability to do so.
A Friend
Clare Swinney wrote:
> It is thus easy to understand why NBC
> maintains the illusion of the bogeyman bin Laden, for his specter provides a
> pretext for a never-ending war.
You're just cut-and-pasting this stuff, off conspiracy theory websites,
right down to their American spelling.
Just like Janice used to. But she didn't even pretend it was her own
work.
If I didn't know you, and hadn't read so many of your articles over the
years that were properly spelled and rational, even entertaining, I'd
have assumed you were Janice using another name.
So sad.
Get help, quick. Please.
Clare Swinney
"Scuzza" <som...@somewhere.co.nz> wrote in message
news:442dda52$1...@clear.net.nz...
At the end of the day, do you think we should blame the critics of posts
such as mine, or blame our government - and others- for not revealing the
truth behind the propaganda? While it's been done in Australia, see
http://www.thepowerhour.com/press_release/press14.htm
here, lines such as: "Either you're with us or you're with the terrorists,"
are persistently able to fool even very well-educated people into the
belief that views other than the Bush Admins are to be condemned.
See: www.st911.org
JAS
"Clare Swinney" <clares...@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143854919.325319@ftpsrv1...
I'd suggest that it certainly a possibility, and like mentioned precedents
do exist for "conspiracies" of this sort in US history. Even Bin Ladin's
supposed speech praising the attack by his people was filled with sloppy
inaccuracies (such as the "moon-lit night" described when there was a new
moon.)
Who knows? It certainly was a great opportunity for the far right if not.
>
>
Clare Swinney
wealth of evidence provided to you by well-informed people, who want to
fight the corruption?
I suggest you read the next issue of Uncensored Magazine, which provides you
with the news TNVZ and TV3 don't supply, and letters of complaint to TVNZ
regarding their propaganda (lies) about bin Laden in the news on Jan 20th.
JAS
"A Friend" <arthur_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143855926.0...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>> It is thus easy to understand why NBC
>> maintains the illusion of the bogeyman bin Laden, for his specter
>> provides a
>> pretext for a never-ending war.
>
> You're just cut-and-pasting this stuff, off conspiracy theory websites,
> right down to their American spelling.
To most, cutting and pasting from web sites is not a sin, but in fact is far
better than opinions by unknown posters-especially if the URL is provided
from a reputable sources. Though I'm personally agnostic on the 9/11
conspiracy.
But simple insults form hotmail accounts have no credibilty.
JAS
"Clare Swinney" <clares...@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
Its not worth wasting your time. These hotmail trolls are clearly not
interested in debates.
>
>
A Friend
Clare Swinney wrote:
> At the end of the day, do you think we should blame the critics of posts
> such as mine, or blame our government - and others- for not revealing the
> truth behind the propaganda?
Wellington, Saturday April 1 2006
New Zealand Press Association
Prime Minister Helen Clark today alleged that United States President
George W Bush was the mastermind behind the September 11 attacks in New
York and Washington DC.
Miss Clark said secret information she had found on Internet sites
proved conclusively that the attacks were a massive hoax perpetrated by
Mr Bush as a pretext to invade Afghanistan and Iraq and to introduce
fascist laws and concentration camps in the US.
She revealed that no aircraft were flown into the World Trade Center
towers or the Pentagon, but that CIA demolition teams blew up these
buildings in a controlled demolition.
Television images of jet aircraft flying into the buildings were a
hoax, similar to the one perpetrated by Mr Bush's Republican
predecessor Richard Nixon that purported to be of astronauts walking on
the moon.
Nobody died in the fake attacks, she said, as the buildings were all
secretly evacuated before the demolitions took place.
The alleged Saudi Arabian and other Arab nationals claimed by Mr Bush
to have been the hijackers were in fact living normal lives in their
home countries, and were oblivious to the allegations against them
because of the US-inspired censorship of the press and media in Saudi
Arabia and neighbouring countries.
"I have decided to make this information public because the American
Government has been deceiving the entire world about what really
happened on September 11 2001," the prime minister said.
more
nzpa
2.34pm April 1 2006
Clare Swinney
Thank-you Jasmine. I hope it isn't cut and pasted, because it may well
comprise part of my next to be published article in Uncensored Magazine.
BrentC
Can you two please get a padded room before your paranoia gets
contagious?
PS who cares about a bill of rights from a country built on a
terrorist, traitorous act to economically benefit a few.
I will only get excited when the USA stops the kidnapping and killing
of it's own children.
JAS
"Clare Swinney" <clares...@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> "A Friend" <arthur_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1143853956.7...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> provides a
>> > pretext for a never-ending war.
>>
>> Clare, you have gone completely barmy.
>>
>> I weep for you.
>
> I weep for people who haven't got the courage to look at and discuss the
> well-documented facts. www.st911.org Scholars For 9/11 Truth
Who are these "Scholars"? I do wonder why they use the far right rag,
NewsMax as a source.
>
>
Clare Swinney
opportunity to further advise others of sources of facts for the truth.
Folks best look at st911.org -there are videos there that show the evidence.
You were told what to think by the US govt when it happened - I suggest you
keep an open mind and you will see the truth in the evidence.
Clare Swinney
The NZ government, and others subservient to the US, are serving as a
conveyor belt for the lies. I suggest people read the papers at
www.st911.org
Clare Swinney
Why do you theorise they used the far right rag NewsMax?
This was their first press release which mentions some of the folks
involved:
SCHOLARS REPUDIATE OFFICIAL VERSION OF 9/11
Claim government's account violates laws of physics and engineering
Duluth, MN (PRWEB) 27 January 2006 -- An influential group of prominent
experts and scholars have joined together alleging that senior government
officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11.
The members of this new non-partisan association, "Scholars for 9/11 Truth"
(S9/11T), are convinced their research proves the current administration has
been dishonest with the nation about events in New York and Washington, D.C.
These experts contend that books and articles by members and associates have
established that the World Trade Center was almost certainly brought down by
controlled demolitions and that the available relevant evidence casts grave
doubt on the official story about the attack on the Pentagon. They believe
that the government not only permitted 9/11 to occur but may even have
orchestrated these events to facilitate its political agenda.
The society includes U.S. and international faculty and students of history,
science, military affairs, psychology, and even philosophy. According to its
spokesmen, S9/11T represents a concerted effort to uphold the standards of
truth and justice and to strengthen democracy in this nation, which has
taken a terrible hit in the aftermath of 9/11, when "everything changed."
Its function is to bring scientific rigor to the study of 9/11 phenomena.
The members of this group are dedicated to exposing falsehoods and to
revealing truths behind 9/11, "letting the chips fall where they may." The
evidence has become sufficiently strong that they are speaking out. They are
actively devoting themselves to reporting the results of their research to
the public by means of lectures, articles, and other venues.
The society includes numerous notable professors and scholars, including:
Morgan Reynolds, Texas A & M Professor Emeritus of Economics, former Chief
Economist for the Department of Labor for President George W. Bush, and
former Director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for
Policy Analysis
Steven E. Jones, Professor of Physics, Brigham Young University, co-chair of
S9/11T and the creator of its home page and its forum
Robert M. Bowman, former Director of the U.S. "Star Wars" Space Defense
Program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, and a former Air
Force Lieutenant Colonel with 101 combat missions
Lloyd DeMause, Director of The Institute for Psychohistory, President of the
International Psychohistorical Association and Editor of The Journal of
Psychohistory
James H. Fetzer, Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Philosophy
at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, author or editor of more than 20
books and co-chair of S9/11T
Andreas Von Buelow, former assistant German defense minister, director of
the German Secret Service, minister for research and technology, and member
of Parliament for 25 years
The society, founded by Professors Fetzer and Jones, who serve as its
co-chairs, is approaching 50 members to date. Fetzer, a philosopher of
science, observed that the government's "official account" is not even
physically possible, because it violates laws of nature. "What we have been
told is fine," he said, "if you are willing to believe impossible things.
Serious scholars don't believe in tooth fairies."
Beyond encouraging its members to vigorously express their concerns on this
score through lectures, conferences, symposia, articles, and books as well
as other access routes that publicize their findings,the society's initial
activities, which are expected to increase in frequency and intensity,
include the following projects and endeavors:
Professor Jones is refining his influential analysis of the physics of the
collapse of buildings at the World Trade Center.
Professor Fetzer is editing a collection of new studies about 9/11 that will
include contributions from the members of S9/11T.
A major conference is being planned for this fall to further inform the
American public about the group's most recent findings
Studies by the society's founders and by prominent theologian David Ray
Griffin, who has taken a leading role in exposing false claims about 9/11,
are accessible from the association's home page, scholarsfor911truth.org.
Information for those who may want to join S9/11T can also be found there.
John Cawston
> Clare Swinney wrote:
>
>> To those who read my misleading post about Maori TV's Te Heteri last
>> week -sorry that the show merely alluded to evidence to show US govt
>> complicity in 911, but didn't show you any.
>>
>
> As there is none.
>
>
>> There's a plethora of evidence
>> on the Internet.
>>
>
>
>
> You used to be sensible. What happened?
>
More money in kookery.
JC
Clare Swinney
"John Cawston" <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:e0ksa2$uul$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>>
> More money in kookery.
>
> JC
And have the courage to look at the evidence. Please note that our govt.
engages in propaganda too - it's not out of the ordinary for govts -but
usual.
www.st911.org
Mark Robinson
> To those who read my misleading post about Maori TV's Te Heteri last
> week -sorry that the show merely alluded to evidence to show US govt
> on the Internet. This is one of the best free docos, of which there are
> many:
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loose+change
>
> Last week a CNN online poll showed more than 8 out of 10 respondents do not
> believe official story of 911.
> http://edition.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/23968.content.html
> Created: Thursday, March 23, 2006, at 17:04:53 EDT
> Do you agree with Charlie Sheen that the U.S. government covered up the real
> events of the 9/11 attacks?
>
> Yes 83% 44827 votes
>
> No 17% 9107 votes
> Total: 53934 votes
>
> This QuickVote is not scientific and reflects the opinions of only those
> Internet users who have chosen to participate. The results cannot be assumed
> to represent the opinions of Internet users in general, nor the public as a
> whole. The QuickVote sponsor is not responsible for content, functionality
> or the opinions expressed therein.
>
> Or read numerous academics' viewpoints of evidence at Scholars For 9/11
> Truth at www.st911.org
The smoking gun here is the collapse of WTC7.
People owe it to themselves to watch the videos before making complete idiots
of themselves, although for most of those that are most vocal here it could be
a little late.
Clare Swinney
"Mark Robinson" <use...@antispam.zl2tod.net> wrote in message
news:442DF963...@antispam.zl2tod.net...
It only takes about 30 mins of research to confirm conclusively that we are
being misled by the mainsteam media. Friends, please have a look at
st911.org. Play the videos. The Loose Change one is the best one for
conveying the evidence.
WD
Clare Swinney wrote:
"The University is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and
interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade
Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and
practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor
Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that
his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific
venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review. The structural
engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology
do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."
http://www.et.byu.edu/news_jones_statement.htm
If you really want to know what happened...
W.D.
kda...@gmail.com
Clare Swinney wrote:
> You used to be sensible. What happened?
> >
> threatened and cowardly, why don't you use your real name and start by
> looking objectively at the evidence at st911.org.
>
> For example, as Doctor David Ray Griffen rightly points out, the 9/11
> Commission Report is a 571-page lie, which confirms govt. complicity. These
> are just *some* of the omissions of the report -!!!:
> (Please validate this for yourself)
> 1. The omission of evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers -
> including Waleed al-Shehri, said by the Commission probably to have stabbed
> a flight attendant on Flight 11 before it crashed into the North Tower of
> the WTC - are still alive (19-20).
>
> 2. The omission of evidence about Mohamed Atta - such as his reported
> fondness for alcohol, pork, and lap dances - that is in tension with the
> Commission's claim that he had become fanatically religious (20-21).
>
> 3. The obfuscation of the evidence that Hani Hanjour was too poor a pilot to
> have flown an airliner into the Pentagon (21-22).
>
> 4. The omission of the fact that the publicly released flight manifests
> contain no Arab names (23).
>
> 5. The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11,
> caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25).
>
> 6. The omission of the fact that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very
> big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several
> steel-frame buildings that did not collapse (25-26).
>
> 7. The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses
> were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North
> Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26).
>
> 8. The omission of the fact that WTC 7 (which was not hit by an airplane and
> which had only small, localized fires) also collapsed - an occurrence that
> FEMA admitted it could not explain (26).
>
> 9. The omission of the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that
> of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled
> demolition (26-27).
>
> 10. The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was "a hollow steel
> shaft" - a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive steel columns
> that in reality constituted the core of each tower and that, given the
> "pancake theory" of the collapses, should have still been sticking up many
> hundreds of feet in the air (27-28).
>
> 11. The omission of Larry Silverstein's statement that he and the fire
> department commander decided to "pull" Building 7 (28).
>
> 12. The omission of the fact that the steel from the WTC buildings was
> quickly removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas before it could be
> analyzed for evidence of explosives (30).
>
> 13. The omission of the fact that because Building 7 had been evacuated
> before it collapsed, the official reason for the rapid removal of the
> steel - that some people might still be alive in the rubble under the
> steel - made no sense in this case (30).
>
> 14. The omission of Mayor Giuliani's statement that he had received word
> that the World Trade Center was going to collapse (30-31).
>
> 15. The omission of the fact that President Bush's brother Marvin and his
> cousin Wirt Walker III were both principals in the company in charge of
> security for the WTC (31-32).
>
> 16. The omission of the fact that the west wing of the Pentagon would have
> been the least likely spot to be targeted by al-Qaeda terrorists, for
> several reasons (33-34).
>
> 17. The omission of any discussion of whether the damage done to the
> Pentagon was consistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 going several
> hundred miles per hour (34).
>
> 18. The omission of the fact that there are photos showing that the west
> wing's façade did not collapse until 30 minutes after the strike and also
> that the entrance hole appears too small for a Boeing 757 to have entered
> (34).
>
> 19. The omission of all testimony that has been used to cast doubt on
> whether remains of a Boeing 757 were visible either inside or outside the
> Pentagon (34-36).
>
> 20. The omission of any discussion of whether the Pentagon has a
> anti-missile defense system that would have brought down a commercial
> airliner - even though the Commission suggested that the al-Qaeda terrorists
> did not attack a nuclear power plant because they assumed that it would be
> thus defended (36).
>
> 21. The omission of the fact that pictures from various security cameras -
> including the camera at the gas station across from the Pentagon, the film
> from which was reportedly confiscated by the FBI immediately after the
> strike - could presumably answer the question of what really hit the
> Pentagon (37-38).
>
> 22. The omission of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's reference to "the
> missile [used] to damage [the Pentagon]" (39).
>
> 23. The apparent endorsement of a wholly unsatisfactory answer to the
> question of why the Secret Service agents allowed President Bush to remain
> at the Sarasota school at a time when, given the official story, they should
> have assumed that a hijacked airliner might be about to crash into the
> school (41-44).
>
> 24. The failure to explore why the Secret Service did not summon fighter
> jets to provide air cover for Air Force One (43-46).
>
> 25. The claims that when the presidential party arrived at the school, no
> one in the party knew that several planes had been hijacked (47-48).
>
> 26. The omission of the report that Attorney General Ashcroft was warned to
> stop using commercial airlines prior to 9/11 (50).
>
> 27. The omission of David Schippers' claim that he had, on the basis of
> information provided by FBI agents about upcoming attacks in lower
> Manhattan, tried unsuccessfully to convey this information to Attorney
> General Ashcroft during the six weeks prior to 9/11 (51).
>
> 28. The omission of any mention of the FBI agents who reportedly claimed to
> have known the targets and dates of the attacks well in advance (51-52).
>
> 29. The claim, by means of a circular, question-begging rebuttal, that the
> unusual purchases of put options prior to 9/11 did not imply advance
> knowledge of the attacks on the part of the buyers (52-57).
>
> 30. The omission of reports that both Mayor Willie Brown and some Pentagon
> officials received warnings about flying on 9/11 (57).
>
> 31. The omission of the report that Osama bin Laden, who already was
> America's "most wanted" criminal, was treated in July 2001 by an American
> doctor in the American Hospital in Dubai and visited by the local CIA agent
> (59).
>
> 32. The omission of news stories suggesting that after 9/11 the U.S.
> military in Afghanistan deliberately allowed Osama bin Laden to escape (60).
>
> 33. The omission of reports, including the report of a visit to Osama bin
> Laden at the hospital in Dubai by the head of Saudi intelligence, that were
> in tension with the official portrayal of Osama as disowned by his family
> and his country (60-61).
>
> 34. The omission of Gerald Posner's account of Abu Zubaydah's testimony,
> according to which three members of the Saudi royal family - all of whom
> later died mysteriously within an eight-day period - were funding al-Qaeda
> and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (61-65).
>
> 35. The Commission's denial that it found any evidence of Saudi funding of
> al-Qaeda (65-68).
>
> 36. The Commission's denial in particular that it found any evidence that
> money from Prince Bandar's wife, Princess Haifa, went to al-Qaeda operatives
> (69-70).
>
> 37. The denial, by means of simply ignoring the distinction between private
> and commercial flights, that the private flight carrying Saudis from Tampa
> to Lexington on September 13 violated the rules for U.S. airspace in effect
> at the time (71-76).
>
> 38. The denial that any Saudis were allowed to leave the United States
> shortly after 9/11 without being adequately investigated (76-82).
>
> 39. The omission of evidence that Prince Bandar obtained special permission
> from the White House for the Saudi flights (82-86).
>
> 40. The omission of Coleen Rowley's claim that some officials at FBI
> headquarters did see the memo from Phoenix agent Kenneth Williams (89-90).
>
> 41. The omission of Chicago FBI agent Robert Wright's charge that FBI
> headquarters closed his case on a terrorist cell, then used intimidation to
> prevent him from publishing a book reporting his experiences (91).
>
> 42. The omission of evidence that FBI headquarters sabotaged the attempt by
> Coleen Rowley and other Minneapolis agents to obtain a warrant to search
> Zacarias Moussaoui's computer (91-94).
>
> 43. The omission of the 3.5 hours of testimony to the Commission by former
> FBI translator Sibel Edmonds - testimony that, according to her later public
> letter to Chairman Kean, revealed serious 9/11-related cover-ups by
> officials at FBI headquarters (94-101).
>
> 44. The omission of the fact that General Mahmoud Ahmad, the head of
> Pakistan's intelligence agency (the ISI), was in Washington the week prior
> to 9/11, meeting with CIA chief George Tenet and other U.S. officials
> (103-04).
>
> 45. The omission of evidence that ISI chief Ahmad had ordered $100,000 to be
> sent to Mohamed Atta prior to 9/11 (104-07).
>
> 46. The Commission's claim that it found no evidence that any foreign
> government, including Pakistan, had provided funding for the al-Qaeda
> operatives (106).
>
> 47. The omission of the report that the Bush administration pressured
> Pakistan to dismiss Ahmad as ISI chief after the appearance of the story
> that he had ordered ISI money sent to Atta (107-09).
>
> 48. The omission of evidence that the ISI (and not merely al-Qaeda) was
> behind the assassination of Ahmad Shah Masood (the leader of Afghanistan's
> Northern Alliance), which occurred just after the week-long meeting between
> the heads of the CIA and the ISI (110-112).
>
> 49. The omission of evidence of ISI involvement in the kidnapping and murder
> of Wall Street Reporter Daniel Pearl (113).
>
> 50. The omission of Gerald Posner's report that Abu Zubaydah claimed that a
> Pakistani military officer, Mushaf Ali Mir, was closely connected to both
> the ISI and al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (114).
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=13&articleID=000DA0E2-1E15-128A-9E1583414B7F0000
:-)
Peter Metcalfe
use...@antispam.zl2tod.net says...
> Clare Swinney wrote:
> The smoking gun here is the collapse of WTC7.
> People owe it to themselves to watch the videos before making
> complete idiots of themselves, although for most of those that
> are most vocal here it could be a little late.
> http://www.google.com/search?q=WTC7+video
Or people could actually look at:
http://911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html
before engaging in conspiracy theories.
--Peter Metcalfe
kda...@gmail.com
Gib Bogle
> "Clare Swinney" <clares...@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote
>
>
>>Last week a CNN online poll showed more than 8 out of 10 respondents do
>>not
>>believe official story of 911.
>
>
> And shitloads of Yanks believe that Saddam Hussein was
> behind the 9/11 attacks. Doesn't make *them* right either.
>
>
Also more than 50% believe that Satan is a real entity. (I think more
believe in Satan than believe in God, which has a certain logic.)
Gib Bogle
> The smoking gun here is the collapse of WTC7.
Bollocks.
JAS
"Clare Swinney" <clares...@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> "JAS" <jas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:e0kpaf$q25$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>>
>> "Clare Swinney" <clares...@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1143855193.237010@ftpsrv1...
>> >
>> > "A Friend" <arthur_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:1143853956.7...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>> bogeyman bin Laden, for his specter
>> > provides a
>> >> > pretext for a never-ending war.
>> >>
>> >> Clare, you have gone completely barmy.
>> >>
>> >> I weep for you.
>> >
>> > I weep for people who haven't got the courage to look at and discuss
>> > the
>> > well-documented facts. www.st911.org Scholars For 9/11 Truth
>>
>> Who are these "Scholars"? I do wonder why they use the far right rag,
>> NewsMax as a source.
>
> Why do you theorise they used the far right rag NewsMax?
Because it came up on link when placing www.st911.org on Explorer. However I
tried again and couldn't find such link. I'm not sure what happened!
but the list below is impressive. and the links are compelling.
JAS
"Clare Swinney" <clares...@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
Where can I find this magazine?
>
>
JAS
"WD" <tuar...@woosh.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1143865562.0...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Hmmm convincing as well.
>
>
> W.D.
>
Mark Robinson
Most bookshops.
Some of it is OTT, but by no means all.
John Cawston
Or the more significant aspect of the poll.. that 8 out of ten internet
types believe in Charlie Sheen, who has a certain belief about 9/11.
JC
Gib Bogle
Yeah, but you probably believe Martin Sheen _is_ Satan.
Clare Swinney
"Peter Metcalfe" <metc...@quicksilver.net.nz> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e98cb4dd...@news.individual.net...
Instead of looking at propaganda as you suggest, they could Google
"Operation Northwoods" and read the document, signed by Head of US Joint
Chiefs of Staff, Lyman Lemitzer, which details a 911 type plan that was
being hatched in 1962. This included the attack of US civilians, hijacking
planes -- and then blame it on Cubans, as a pretext for invading Cuba.
Clare Swinney
"Gib Bogle" <bo...@ihug.too.much.spam.co.nz> wrote in message
news:e0l12v$87t$2...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> Mark Robinson wrote:
>
> > The smoking gun here is the collapse of WTC7.
>
> Bollocks.
Look at the facts instead of engaging in abuse. It's that simple!
What good fortune for governments that the people do not think. (Adolph
Hitler)
Kerry
"Clare Swinney" <clares...@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote:
It's important to actually engage neurons while thinking.
You, not to put too fine a point on it, are a loon
Another Wishart loon.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job,
wait until you hire an amateur.
Clare Swinney
<kda...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143865972.3...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=13&articleID=000DA0E2-1E
15-128A-9E1583414B7F0000
I note this article states that:
"The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a
well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (as
well as creationism, Holocaust denial and the various crank theories of
physics)."
The person that wrote this article must be either extremely naive or has a
mortgage to pay and doesn't mind sacrificing their integrity.
How does an intelligent person like you explain away the size of the hole in
the Pentagon (14-16 feet). This was supposed to have been hit by a Boeing,
yet there was no wreckage of a Boeing found. Please check it out.
Right-wing apologists say "the plane must have vaporized in the heat," but
forget that an official document states that DNA was claimed to have been
found for all but one of the passengers listed for that plane.
I could go on for several days with examples of such clear signs of govt.
complicity such as this, or you could think for yourself and do some
research.
http://www.dcmilitary.com/army/stripe/6_48/national_news/12279-1.html
November 30, 2001
Forensic feat IDs nearly all Pentagon victims
by Christopher C. Kelly
Armed Forces Institute of Pathology
What some experts have called "the most comprehensive forensic investigation
in U.S. history" ended Nov. 16 with the identification of 184 of the 189 who
died in the terrorist attack on the Pentagon.
A multidisciplinary team of more than 50 forensic specialists, scientists,
and support personnel from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, with
headquarters at Walter Reed, played a major role in Operation Noble Eagle
investigations, officials said.
Many of the casualties were badly burned and difficult to identify, an
official said. Of the 189 killed, 125 worked at the Pentagon and 64 were
passengers on American Airlines Flight 77. Only one of those who died made
it to the hospital. The rest were killed on site, and for some, only pieces
of tissue could be found.
AFIP's team of forensic pathologists, odontologists, a forensic
anthropologist, DNA experts, investigators, and support personnel worked for
over two weeks in the mortuary at Dover Air Force Base, Del., and for weeks
at the DNA lab in Rockville, to identify the victims of the attack.
"Our staff represented every branch of the service," said AFIP Director Navy
Capt. Glenn N. Wagner. "We also received tremendous support from the
doctors, nurses, and technicians stationed at Dover who participated in the
investigation."
The investigation mobilized AFIP assets in many ways. In the hours following
the crash Sept. 11, the acting armed forces medical examiner, Air Force Col.
AbuBakr Marzouk, worked with FBI and local Virginia law enforcement
officials to create a plan for recovering and identifying the victims.
At the same time, personnel from the Office of the Armed Forces Medical
Examiner positioned and staged equipment to begin operations at Dover. Air
Force Maj. Bruce Ensign served as AFIP's team leader at the site.
"We immediately called in regional medical examiners from as far away as San
Diego to participate," Ensign said. A total of 12 forensic pathologists,
assisted by two AFIP staff pathologists, headed the investigation team. Also
arriving at Dover during those early critical hours were two other key AFIP
groups: forensic scientists from OAFME's Armed Forces DNA Identification
Laboratory and oral pathologists from the Department of Oral and
Maxillofacial Pathology.
AFDIL scientists ensured data systems and records were available to make DNA
identifications, while the oral pathology group created a triage area to
conduct positive dental identifications. Contacts were also made with family
services in each branch of the military to obtain ante-mortem information
and reference material. Mortuary operations were fully underway by the
evening of Sept. 13. AFIP used a well-defined and tested system for
conducting the identifications of the Pentagon victims. When remains arrived
at the morgue, a scanning device searched for the presence of unexploded
ordnance or metallic foreign bodies. A computerized tracking system assigned
numbers to each victim for efficient tracking.
FBI experts collected trace evidence to search for chemicals from explosive
devices and conducted fingerprint identifications. Forensic dentistry
experts from the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology performed
dental charting and comparison with ante-mortem dental records. Full-body
radiographs followed to document skeletal fractures and assist in the
identification process, followed by autopsy inspection.
At autopsy, forensic pathologists determined the cause and manner of death,
aided by forensic anthropologist Dr. William C. Rodriguez in determining the
race, sex, and stature of victims. A board-certified epidemiologist managed
the tracking system for data collected during the autopsy process, and
tissue samples were collected for DNA identification and further toxicology
studies. Forensic photographers, essential to any forensic investigation,
documented injuries and personal effects. Mortuary specialists then
embalmed, dressed, and casketed remains prior to release to next-of-kin.
For eight days a full complement of AFIP forensic specialists worked 12-hour
shifts to complete the operation.
"This is the largest mass fatality we've dealt with in recent years," Ensign
said. "We have modalities today that we didn't have before. Our
investigation was much more technology-intensive." Ensign noted the entire
team worked well together. "Because of the combined effort of all three
services and the FBI, we were very pleased with the speed of the
identification process. Essential records and references were submitted to
us in a timely way."
Logistical help from AFIP also played an important role. "We had tremendous
logistical issues obtaining equipment, especially with additional demands in
New York City and Somerset County, Pa.," he said. "Fortunately our
logistical support was terrific in helping us get material in." The Dover
mortuary sent specimens back to the Armed Forces DNA Identification
Laboratory in Rockville.
Teams of forensic scientists, under the direction of Demris Lee, technical
leader of the Nuclear DNA Section, took over the difficult chore of
generating a DNA profile of the victims. Their work included not only the
Pentagon crash victims, but the victims of the Somerset County crash as
well. Every one of the organization's 102 DNA analysts, sample processors,
logistics staff, and administrative personnel were involved -- from
collecting, tracking, analyzing DNA samples, and gathering and logging DNA
reference material to preparing DNA reports. For 18 days following the
terrorist attacks, AFDIL employees worked on 12-hour shifts, seven days a
week to meet the mission requirements.
Clare Swinney
<kda...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143866907.5...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
This is the type of "journalism" one would expect to find in a
dictatorship. Benjamin Chertoff, the "senior researcher" at Popular
Mechanics is according to American Free Press - none other than a cousin of
Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.
I don't know if your aware of the extent of propaganda in the US. The
mainstream media is highly corrupt. The US$1.6 billion the Bush Admin has
spent on spin tells us something.
Please note the article fails to provide evidence to support its claims
and doesn't answer the key question: What caused the collapses of the twin
towers and the 47-story World Trade Center 7?
Peter Metcalfe
says...
>
> "Peter Metcalfe" <metc...@quicksilver.net.nz> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1e98cb4dd...@news.individual.net...
> > In article <442DF963...@antispam.zl2tod.net>,
> > use...@antispam.zl2tod.net says...
> > > Clare Swinney wrote:
> >
> > > The smoking gun here is the collapse of WTC7.
> >
> > > People owe it to themselves to watch the videos before making
> > > complete idiots of themselves, although for most of those that
> > > are most vocal here it could be a little late.
> >
> > > http://www.google.com/search?q=WTC7+video
> >
> > Or people could actually look at:
> >
> > http://911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html
> >
> > before engaging in conspiracy theories.
> Instead of looking at propaganda as you suggest,
How is the reference propaganda? It has an actual
video of the full extent and damage of WTC7 with
fires over twenty floors.
> they could Google
> "Operation Northwoods" and read the document, signed by Head of US Joint
> Chiefs of Staff, Lyman Lemitzer, which details a 911 type plan that was
> being hatched in 1962. This included the attack of US civilians, hijacking
> planes -- and then blame it on Cubans, as a pretext for invading Cuba.
Was crashing the planes into buildings ever suggested in Operation
Northwoods? No. Ergo it's not relevant.
--Peter Metcalfe
Clare Swinney
news:6c0s22hi6c1qnke4c...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 1 Apr 2006 15:16:27 +1200, "Clare Swinney"
> <clares...@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote:
> [msge snipped]
>
> >
> >SCHOLARS REPUDIATE OFFICIAL VERSION OF 9/11
> >Claim government's account violates laws of physics and engineering
> >Professor Fetzer is editing a collection of new studies about 9/11 that
will
> >include contributions from the members of S9/11T.
> >
> >A major conference is being planned for this fall to further inform the
> >American public about the group's most recent findings
> >Studies by the society's founders and by prominent theologian David Ray
> >Griffin, who has taken a leading role in exposing false claims about
9/11,
> >are accessible from the association's home page, scholarsfor911truth.org.
> >Information for those who may want to join S9/11T can also be found
there.
> >
> Url Please.
>
> Cath
URL is www.st911.org.
Sadly, one of the student members was shot twice in the head on the 25th
March.
http://www.rinf.com/columnists/news/student-member-of-scholars-for-911-truth
-shot-dead
JAS
"BrentC"
<brentc@...............................gmx.net........and.remove.excess.dots>
wrote in message news:eppr22d010vjentou...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 1 Apr 2006 14:24:38 +1200, "JAS" <jas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Clare Swinney" <clares...@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:1143854919.325319@ftpsrv1...>>> news:e0kk6i$ght$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>>>>
>>>> "george" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:1143850862....@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>>>> >
>>>> > A Friend wrote:
>>>> >> Clare Swinney wrote:
>>>> >> > To those who read my misleading post about Maori TV's Te Heteri
>>>> >> > last
>>>> >> > week -sorry that the show merely alluded to evidence to show US
>>>> >> > govt
>>>> >> > complicity in 911, but didn't show you any.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> As there is none.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> > There's a plethora of evidence
>>>> >> > on the Internet.
>>>> > against 911 being a government conspiracy
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Where it is also alleged that the moon landings were hoaxes.
>>>> >
>>>> > and there's a face on Mars ROTFL
>>>>
>>>> ..and the US sank the Maine to start the Spanish American War ..or the
>>> Gulf
>>>> of Tompkins incident was floated to escalate the Vietnam war, or the
>>> illegal
>>>> assassination attempts against Castro (and other world leaders) by the
>>>> CIA
>>>> or the aborted (at the last minute) Northwood's operation included
>>> hijacking
>>>> an airliner and killing innocent civilians.
>>>>
>>>> Wait... all these are considered true (though the sinking of the Maine
>>>> is
>>>> still contested by a few)!
>>>>
>>>> Not that the 9/11 operation was an inside job, but there are many
>>> unanswered
>>> questions.
>>>
>>>
>>> Please may I suggest that you have a look at the facts and answer the
>>> questions for yourself.
>>> 911 was a sloppy job and there is ample evidence of US govt. complicity.
>>> Also there is evidence of the motives. It was used as an excuse to
>>> invade
>>> Iraq, plus the USA Patriot Act was introduced only 45 days after the
>>> event,
>>> and has made sweeping changes to the Bill of Rights -it has a negative
>>> effect on civil rights in the name of protecting people from terrorists.
>>> Plus, there's the Model Emergency Health Powers Act - please check this
>>> out - it is reputed to aid the public in the event of a bioterror
>>> attack,
>>> but violates human rights in the extreme.
>>> Refer: http://www.freecongress.org/commentaries/2003
>>
>>I'd suggest that it certainly a possibility, and like mentioned precedents
>>do exist for "conspiracies" of this sort in US history. Even Bin Ladin's
>>supposed speech praising the attack by his people was filled with sloppy
>>inaccuracies (such as the "moon-lit night" described when there was a new
>>moon.)
>>
>>Who knows? It certainly was a great opportunity for the far right if not.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> Can you two please get a padded room before your paranoia gets
> contagious?
What is "paranoid" about these accusations?
JAS
Scuzza
snip...
> Dear Scuzza, thank-you for your support.
No problem.
But it's not (to me) a question of did the yanks do it themselves or
not. I honestly don't know, and imho it hardly matters much. The
general trend in global politics is far more important than any single
incident, and the trend today is not your friend. I'm an agnostic on
this particular conspiracy; it wouldn't surprise me at all to learn
that they did do it, and it wouldn't surprise me to learn that they
just took advantage of it but had nothing to do with setting it up.
In respect of this thread, I just get pissed off with people who
pontificate without resort to any evidence or any arguments that
connect the evidence to their conclusions. They simply declare their
conclusions as if the origin of these opinions ought to be sufficient
for us to recognise how eminently right they are. When challeneged they
instantly go ballistic ad hom.
Well, that ain't how it works, is it?
In these parts the only way we know anyone is by the quality of their
arguments. Certain people here understand that, and have built for
themselves a reputation based on making a sound rigorous logical
argument. Certain others are just trolls, fuckwits, crybabies, and
ego-jerks.
It's fairly plain which category "A Friend" fits into, and it seemed to
me it merited being pointed out.
> At the end of the day, do you think we should blame the critics of
> posts
> such as mine, or blame our government - and others- for not revealing
> the
> truth behind the propaganda? While it's been done in Australia, see
> http://www.thepowerhour.com/press_release/press14.htm
In my view, whether the whole 9/11 fiasco was deliberate or not is
largely a side-show. All the western democracies have been complicit in
the aftermath, which has been the systematic destruction of 2 nations
(and counting) for the sake of profit and power.
And all of our governments, HC and the rest of "ours" included, in
spite of their often and loudly proclaimed liberal ideals, have been
obscenely eagre to use the situation to impose ever more draconian
regulations on ever increasing proportions of our lives. If their
supporters have not yet realised how often this history has been
repeated in the past, and where it unavoidably ends, then it is only a
matter of time.
> here, lines such as: "Either you're with us or you're with the
> terrorists,"
> are persistently able to fool even very well-educated people into
> the
> belief that views other than the Bush Admins are to be condemned.
> See: www.st911.org
It's not about education (except that the treatment for the condition
is history lessons), it's about narrow-minded self-interest. While we
remain comfortable, we remain reluctant to risk our personal comfort in
defence of someone elses freedom, not realising (not wanting to
realise, for we are experts at self deception) that we're thereby
laying the foundations for our own enslavement.
I say "we" because none of us are immune to the impulse. It's a human
thing.
Scuzza
news:MPG.1e98a90f1...@news.xtra.co.nz...
> In article <1143852332.524440@ftpsrv1>,
> clares...@REMOVEhotmail.com
> says...
>>
>> > A desperate desire to post something antiBush
>> > without checking the credibility of the item it all turned to
>> > custard
>>
>> You check the credibility of these items:
>
> Thew credibility that matters here is youes
> Any nutcase can spout of any nonsense they choose
The irony! The irony!! Oh, the irony ... ...
Clare Swinney
>
> >> > Clare Swinney wrote:
> >> > comprise part of my next to be published article in Uncensored
Magazine.
>
> Where can I find this magazine?
Thanks for your interest. Uncensored is sold at supermarkets and book
stores. It's edited by former NY resident, Jon Eisen, who established the
magazine as he got fed up with NZ's media, failing to address important
issues -the primary one being the propaganda. We kid ourselves that we have
a free press in NZ -the fastest means to get a hold on how we are being lied
to, is to see the footage taken on Sept 11 01. You can see people shouting
that bombs are going off at the WTC and watch the puffs of smoke in the side
of the Towers, before they (free) fall -a sign that it was a demolition job,
amongst numerous other indisputable eyeopening events. Several free ones are
at: www.st911.org.
Also, have a look at the trailer for Outfoxed, the documentary that reveals
that employees of the Fox network are compelled to push a right wing/Bush
agenda or face losing their jobs. http://www.outfoxed.org/
JAS
The only relevant part is that documentation exists that proves that the US
considered killing it own civilians and hijacking planes. You are right no
buildings crashed into. Is this relevant or not? Probably .
>
> --Peter Metcalfe
JAS
The only relevant part is that documentation exists that proves that the US
JAS
"Clare Swinney" <clares...@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
>> Bollocks.
>
> Look at the facts instead of engaging in abuse. It's that simple!
> What good fortune for governments that the people do not think. (Adolph
> Hitler)
>
>
what about:
_ If you are interested in what is scientific, (in the academic sense),
please
> read this peer-reviewed paper at www.st911.org
> Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
> by Steven E. Jones, Ph.D.
"The University is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and
interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade
Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and
practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor
Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that
his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific
venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review. The structural
engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology
do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."
http://www.et.byu.edu/news_jones_statement.htm
But this is convincing!
"http://wtc.nist.gov/ The Loose Change one is the best one for
conveying the evidence.
..as Doctor David Ray Griffen rightly points out, the 9/11
Scuzza
> In article <1143857481.903054@ftpsrv1>,
> clares...@REMOVEhotmail.com
> says...
...
> Of course he/she is anonymous
> this is apparently ia perfectly acceptable hypocrisy
No hypocrisy at all, RJ, since I made no personal attacks, but simply
defended someone who was presenting their argument calmly and
rationally.
"A Friend" thinks that being a friend consists of making no effort to
rebut (even tho there is a mountain of material available with which to
do so, as has since been demonstrated) but simply and repeatedly
calling Clare a kook.
Claiming to weep for her while doing so *is* cowardly and the act of an
asshole. It shows only contempt, and not concern, as I stated. If you
have problems with the logic of that conclusion, then let's hear them.
But where are your calls for "A Friend" to cease their ad hominems?
What of your own standards of integrity? How is it you feel compelled
to point out what you consider my hypocrisy, but are happy to stand by
while "A Friend" urinates all over this thread with their incessant ad
hominem?
Hmmm?
It couldn't be that it's because you agree with them but disagree with
Clare, could it?
Put your own house in order, "friend".
Clare Swinney
<texan....usenet@texas...removethisbit...usacom..> wrote in message
news:2a0s22tujc806h6ff...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 1 Apr 2006 14:54:02 +1200, "Clare Swinney"
> <clares...@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"JAS" <jas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>
> >> "Clare Swinney" <clares...@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >>
> >> >> Clare Swinney wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > Look at the facts and use a scientific/objective approach- if you
are
> >a
> >> >> > friend, you know that that's what I appreciate.
> >> >>
> >> >> You used to Clare.
> >> >>
> >> >> Not any more.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> It is so sad.
> >> >>
> >> > Why don't you challenge me on the details of the evidence? That's
all I
> >> > ask.
> >> > See: www.st911.org
> >>
> >>
> >> Its not worth wasting your time. These hotmail trolls are clearly not
> >> interested in debates.
> >Thank-you Jasmine - at least posting in reply to this "Friend" provides
the
> >opportunity to further advise others of sources of facts for the truth.
> >Folks best look at st911.org -there are videos there that show the
evidence.
> >You were told what to think by the US govt when it happened - I suggest
you
> >keep an open mind and you will see the truth in the evidence.
> >
> Why don't you answer the question I previously asked of you Clare?
> Got something to hide?
>
> CAth
Thanks Cath for helping to get the message out. The question about the
article/URL you mean? I did answer it, as you can see in other post.
www.st911.org Have a look at the press releases at the top link and you will
find it there.
Clare Swinney
"RJ" <r...@no.spam> wrote in message
> In article <1143853875.542672@ftpsrv1>,
> It's a professional journo most unlike yourself
I don't engage in personal attacks. I study the evidence and do my best to
disseminate it.
See this trailer - a film about employees at the Fox network. See if you
deem Rupert Mudoch professional in the realms of journalism:
http://www.outfoxed.org/
Peter Metcalfe
> > Was crashing the planes into buildings ever suggested in Operation
> > Northwoods? No. Ergo it's not relevant.
> The only relevant part is that documentation exists that proves that the US
> considered killing it own civilians and hijacking planes.
Who said anything about killing its own civilians? Operation
Northward doesn't. The nearest it comes to are faked atrocities
with phantom casualty lists. As for considering it, there are
dumb ideas on writing all over the world. The existence of
such writings doesn't mean that they were ever put into action
(and the government would leak like a sieve if it did attempt
to put those ideas into action).
--Peter Metcalfe
Clare Swinney
"WD" <tuar...@woosh.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1143865562.0...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> Clare Swinney wrote:
>
> > > > This QuickVote is not scientific
> > >
> > > No it isn't. LOL
> >
> > If you are interested in what is scientific, (in the academic sense),
please
> > read this peer-reviewed paper at www.st911.org
> > Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
> > by Steven E. Jones, Ph.D.
>
> "The University is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and
> interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade
> Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and
> practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor
> Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that
> his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific
> venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review. The structural
> engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology
> do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."
>
> http://www.et.byu.edu/news_jones_statement.htm
>
>
>
> http://wtc.nist.gov/
>
>
> W.D.
>
Karen Hayward-King
<clares...@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote:
>To those who read my misleading post about Maori TV's Te Heteri last
>week -sorry that the show merely alluded to evidence to show US govt
>complicity in 911, but didn't show you any. There's a plethora of evidence
>on the Internet. This is one of the best free docos, of which there are
>many:
>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loose+change
>
>Last week a CNN online poll showed more than 8 out of 10 respondents do not
>believe official story of 911.
>http://edition.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/23968.content.html
>Created: Thursday, March 23, 2006, at 17:04:53 EDT
>Do you agree with Charlie Sheen that the U.S. government covered up the real
>events of the 9/11 attacks?
>
>Yes 83% 44827 votes
>
>No 17% 9107 votes
>Total: 53934 votes
Hmmmmm.....
Approximate US population as of 4/1/06 - 298,424,252
Approximate World population as of 4/1/06 - 6,507,131,568
>
>This QuickVote is not scientific and reflects the opinions of only those
>Internet users who have chosen to participate. The results cannot be assumed
>to represent the opinions of Internet users in general, nor the public as a
>whole. The QuickVote sponsor is not responsible for content, functionality
>or the opinions expressed therein.
I would say that it definitely does not represent 'Internet users in
general' or 'the public as a whole'...not with 53934 votes. :-)
>Or read numerous academics' viewpoints of evidence at Scholars For 9/11
>Truth at www.st911.org
>
And there are numerous other academics out there that do not agree
with the 'Scholars For 9/11 Truth'....
--
Karen Hayward-King
'Blood brothers in the stormy night
With a vow to defend
No retreat, baby, no surrender...'
Bruce Springsteen
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Karen Hayward-King
<clares...@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote:
> You used to be sensible. What happened?
>>
>Instead of engaging in personal attacks, which are the refuge of the
>threatened and cowardly, why don't you use your real name and start by
>looking objectively at the evidence at st911.org.
>
>For example, as Doctor David Ray Griffen rightly points out, the 9/11
>Commission Report is a 571-page lie, which confirms govt. complicity. These
>are just *some* of the omissions of the report -!!!:
>(Please validate this for yourself)
>1. The omission of evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers -
>including Waleed al-Shehri, said by the Commission probably to have stabbed
>a flight attendant on Flight 11 before it crashed into the North Tower of
>the WTC - are still alive (19-20).
Actually, there are 8 alleged hijackers allegedly still alive. The
reasons why this is probably an unlikely state for them to be in is
outlined in the links below...
http://911myths.com/html/abdulaziz_al_omari_still_alive.html
http://911myths.com/html/ahmed_al-nami_still_alive.html
http://911myths.com/html/khalid_al_mihdhar_still_alive.html
http://911myths.com/html/mohammed_atta_alive.html
http://911myths.com/html/said_al-ghamdi_alive.html
http://911myths.com/html/salem_al-hamzi_still_alive.html
http://911myths.com/html/wail_al-shehri_still_alive.html
http://911myths.com/html/waleed_al-shehri_still_alive.html
>2. The omission of evidence about Mohamed Atta - such as his reported
>fondness for alcohol, pork, and lap dances - that is in tension with the
>Commission's claim that he had become fanatically religious (20-21).
Mohammed Atta was a member of Al Takfir wal Hijra. They are an
extremely fundamentalist Moslem sect, but allow members to break the
rules pertaining to alcohol, pork, woman, etc...if it means that they
have a better chance of blending in when on a mission. The good
'Doctor; would have known that, if he'd done the research...
http://www.rotten.com/library/history/terrorist-organizations/al-takfir-wal-hijra
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takfir_wal-Hijra
http://911myths.com/html/strip_clubs.html
>
>3. The obfuscation of the evidence that Hani Hanjour was too poor a pilot to
>have flown an airliner into the Pentagon (21-22).
He was a poor pilot. However he did hold a pilot's licence, including
a commercial pilot's license. Also, it's not as though he was required
to take off and land the plane...all he had to do was point it at the
Pentagon and fly in at high speed.
http://911myths.com/html/flight_school_dropouts.html
>
>4. The omission of the fact that the publicly released flight manifests
>contain no Arab names (23).
Those, I believe, were the CNN lists. The CNN memorial page says that
the hijackers names were not included. Other lists do have the
hijackers on them. Some lists did not include all the passengers
names. See links below. Some of these links also include other links,
including one that shows the Flight 11's seating plan...with the
hijackers clearly present...
http://911myths.com/html/cnn_passenger_lists.html
http://911myths.com/html/autopsy_list.html
http://911myths.com/html/missing_arabs.html
>
>5. The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11,
>caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25).
I've already posted other links pertaining to this, as have others.
Here is one more.
http://911myths.com/html/wtc__demolition_.html
BTW...have you actually read the 9/11 Commision's report? Or are you
just basing everything on the website you keep publishing?
Clare Swinney
"WD" <tuar...@woosh.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1143865562.0...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> Clare Swinney wrote:
>
> > >
> >
> > If you are interested in what is scientific, (in the academic sense),
please
> > read this peer-reviewed paper at www.st911.org
> > Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
> > by Steven E. Jones, Ph.D.
>
> "The University is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and
> interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade
> Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and
> practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor
> Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that
> his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific
> venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review. The structural
> engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology
> do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."
>
> http://www.et.byu.edu/news_jones_statement.htm
>
>
> If you really want to know what happened...
>
> http://wtc.nist.gov/
>
>
> W.D.
>
American Century] say we need helpful Pearl Harbor events to justify the
invasion of Iraq? Is it thus fair to assume that the authors of this have a
conflict of interest?
No steel-framed skyscraper, even engulfed in flames hour after hour, had
ever collapsed before.
Three stunning collapses occur within a few city blocks on the same day, two
allegedly hit by aircraft, the third not.
These extraordinary collapses after short-duration minor fires made it all
the more important to preserve the evidence, mostly steel girders, to study
what had happened. On fire intensity, consider this benchmark: A 1991 FEMA
report on Philadelphia's Meridian Plaza fire said that the fire was so
energetic that "[b]eams and girders sagged and twisted," but despite this
extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without
obvious damage" Such an intense fire with consequent sagging and twisting
steel beams bears no resemblance to what we observed at the WTC.
Clare Swinney
What Operation Northwoods did mention was that people would be framed for
bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony
evidence, all of it would be blamed on Fidel Castro, thus giving head of
Joint Chiefs of Staff, Lyman Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as
the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war.
Clare Swinney
"Karen Hayward-King" <kiwi...@yellowsub.net> wrote in message
news:2i4u22ddu7rj709jl...@4ax.com...
McIntyre says he inspected the Pentagon site and it is obvious no plane
crashed there. Please see:
http://www.total911.info/2005/02/video-cnn-reported-no-plane-hit.html
Also, although the Pentagon probably had more suveillance cameras than other
building in the US, no video tape evidence of a Boeing flying into the
building has been shown. This is because it didn't happen. Please check out
the facts.
Peter Metcalfe
> news:MPG.1e99d3879...@news.individual.net...
> > > Instead of looking at propaganda as you suggest,
> > How is the reference propaganda? It has an actual
> > video of the full extent and damage of WTC7 with
> > fires over twenty floors.
Well?
> > > they could Google
> > > "Operation Northwoods" and read the document, signed by Head of US Joint
> > > Chiefs of Staff, Lyman Lemitzer, which details a 911 type plan that was
> > > being hatched in 1962. This included the attack of US civilians,
> > > hijacking planes -- and then blame it on Cubans, as a pretext for
> > > invading Cuba.
> > Was crashing the planes into buildings ever suggested in Operation
> > Northwoods? No. Ergo it's not relevant.
> If you think such detail is relevant in the weight of evidence, so be it.
> What Operation Northwoods did mention was that people would be framed for
> bombings they did not commit;
Strangely enough the only people intended to be killed by these bombings
were going to be made up.
> planes would be hijacked.
Which doesn't require people being killed. That's a fundamental
difference between what the Operation Northwoods plan suggests and what
actually took place on 9/11.
> Using phony
> evidence, all of it would be blamed on Fidel Castro, thus giving head of
> Joint Chiefs of Staff, Lyman Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as
> the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war.
Lyman Lemnitzer was part of a cabal? Who were the other members?
--Peter Metcalfe
JAS
>
> "Clare Swinney" <clares...@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1143929157.660830@ftpsrv1...
>
>>> Bollocks.
>>
>> Look at the facts instead of engaging in abuse. It's that simple!
>> What good fortune for governments that the people do not think. (Adolph
>> Hitler)
>>
>>
>
> what about:
> _ If you are interested in what is scientific, (in the academic sense),
> please
>> read this peer-reviewed paper at www.st911.org
>> Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
>> by Steven E. Jones, Ph.D.
>
> "The University is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and
> interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade
> Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and
> practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor
> Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that
> his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific
> venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review. The structural
> engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology
> do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."
>
> http://www.et.byu.edu/news_jones_statement.htm
>
>
> If you really want to know what happened...
>
> http://wtc.nist.gov/
>
>
> W.D.
>
Claire wrote: "Is that a US government report? Didn't the PNAC [Project for
Clare Swinney
"Scuzza" <som...@somewhere.co.nz> wrote in message
> It's not about education (except that the treatment for the condition
> is history lessons),
used the illusion of the bin Laden bogeyman to invade Iraq, our government
is maintaining a business as usual approach.
If you consider that prior to natural gas/oil's widespread use, the world
population was about 1.5 billion and has since climbed to about 6.45
billion, thanks to the benefits of oil and nat gas in food production etc,
the world's population as a whole is going to be in very serious trouble
when supplies of cheap oil run low. This was in the minds of the
politicians I think, when 911 was hatched and fomented.
We are now being conditioned to expect a pandemic. If you join the dots,
it's not difficult to understand what's going on behind the scenes. (Use
search terms CDC vaccines and fromthewilderness).
Clare Swinney
<texan....usenet@texas...removethisbit...usacom..>
>
> You still can't even answer my question about your professional
> qualifications.
>
> You *do* have something to hide them?
>
> CathThanks Cath. My qualifications - I'm a human being, who cares about what
happens on this planet. I have an M.Sc. (Hons). Why don't you Google my
name?
Clare Swinney
<texan....usenet@texas...removethisbit...usacom..> wrote in message
news:g98u221h4hl8tpju0...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 2 Apr 2006 12:32:50 +1200, "Clare Swinney"
> <clares...@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote:
> [deleted]
>
> Clare,
> I asked in another thread what your qualifications were i.e. do you
> have a degree in engineering, physics, chemistry, etc?
>
> Would you please answer.
> Thank you,
>
> Cath
Instead of engaging in personal attacks, why don't you look at the evidence?
Please do. It is written by people who have PhDs in a variety of subjects
at www.st911.org. Keep and open mind and thanks for your assistance in
helping to get the truth out.
Clare Swinney
<texan....usenet@texas...removethisbit...usacom..> wrote in message
news:ku7u229fm07rjsa1m...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 1 Apr 2006 13:02:30 +1200, "Clare Swinney"
> <clares...@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> And here we have conclusive proof that internet conspiracy theories are
> >> making people stupid.
> >>
> >No, here we have conclusive proof, that the US$1.6 billion spent on
> >propaganda by Bush et al has been effective -as people, like you, who
don't
> >even look at the evidence, think they "know" the truth.
> >Please refer:
> >Bush Spent $1.6 Bil. on 'Spin'
> >February 13, 2006
> >By Richard Williamson
> >
> >A U.S. Army spot by Leo Burnett.
> >
> >
> >DALLAS The Bush Administration spent $1.4 billion in taxpayer dollars on
137
> >contracts with advertising agencies over the past two-and-a-half years,
> >according to a Government Accountability Office report released by House
> >Democrats today.
> >
> >With spending on public relations and other media included, federal
agencies
> >spent $1.6 billion on what some Democrats called "spin."
> >
> >
> >
> >The six largest recipients of ad and PR dollars were Leo Burnett USA,
$536
> >million; Campbell-Ewald, $194 million; GSD&M, $179 million; JWT, $148
> >million; Frankel, $133 million; and Ketchum, $78 million. The agencies
> >received more than $1.2 billion in media contracts, according to the
report.
> >
> >Ketchum was embroiled in a scandal last year when it was revealed that
the
> >Department of Education had paid commentator Armstrong Williams $250,000
to
> >promote President Bush's No Child Left Behind initiative. There was no
> >suggestion of impropriety for most of the contracts, however. GSD&M, for
> >example, has handled advertising for the U.S. Air Force for several
years,
> >an account it won through a traditional government review.
> >
> >Trends in spending on PR and ad contracts were not documented, but a
prior
> >study by the minority staff of the Government Reform Committee found that
> >spending on public relations contracts rose rapidly under the Bush
> >administration. That report found that spending on contracts with public
> >relations firms had increased to $88 million in 2004 from $39 million in
> >2000, an increase of 128 percent.
> >
> >Rep. Henry A. Waxman, House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi and other
> >Democratic leaders asked for the study after reports surfaced that the
> >administration had paid commentators to promote its programs and that
> >promotional videos designed to resemble newscasts were distributed to TV
> >stations that ran unedited.
> >
> >The Department of Defense spent the most on media contracts, with pacts
> >worth $1.1 billion, according to the study. The Department of Health and
> >Human Services spent more than $300 million, the Department of Treasury
> >spent $152 million, and the Department of Homeland Security spent $24
> >million during the period.
> >
> >The PR and ad contracts included providing "expert advice and support in
the
> >development of several marriage-related research initiatives," an
> >educational campaign regarding the "Medicare Modernization Act, and its
> >coverage and benefits," and a contract regarding "message development
that
> >presents the Army's strategic perspective in the global war on
terrorism,"
> >the study said.
> >
> >A Food and Drug Administration contract had the objective of warning the
> >public about the "consequences and potential dangers of buying
prescription
> >drugs from non-U.S. sources."
> >
> >Within the Department of Defense, which had the largest budget for public
> >relations and advertising contracts, the Air Force provided the most
> >detailed list of its contracts, the report said.
> >
> >
> When you post something, please provide the url to the article.
>
> Again, url please.
>
> Cath
Cath, you are asking for URLs when there are sufficient search terms in
these articles for you to be able to locate the articles on Google yourself.
For instance - just put in "$1.6 billion" in Google and you will get a range
of information to help to do your own research. I would prefer you do that,
as you may encounter further enlightening information in the process.
Thank-you
Clare Swinney
<texan....usenet@texas...removethisbit...usacom..> wrote in message
news:b16s22td6pnvmpq1a...@4ax.com...
> On 31 Mar 2006 20:26:02 -0800, "WD" <tuar...@woosh.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >
> >Clare Swinney wrote:
> >
> >> > > This QuickVote is not scientific
> >> >
> >> > No it isn't. LOL
> >>
> As for Charlie Sheen - jeeze, the guy couldn't even keep his trou
> zipped up/committed adultery when his wife was pregnant....
>
> Cath
Now you've shown your true colours, haven't you. More personal attacks, -you
are unwittingly confirming that the official version of events are a
fabrication. Your technique is the last refuge of the coward.
Clare Swinney
"Peter Metcalfe" <metc...@quicksilver.net.nz> wrote in Strangely enough
the only people intended to be killed by these bombings
> were going to be made up.
>
> > planes would be hijacked.
>
> Which doesn't require people being killed. That's a fundamental
> difference between what the Operation Northwoods plan suggests and what
> actually took place on 9/11.
It always strikes me as odd when people balk at the notion of the US govt
killing people on their own soil. Bear in mind the crimes against humanity
that are being committed in Iraq. (Please refer:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info) US soldiers are being exposed to
DU too, not just Iraqis - not that should make a difference to any decent
person. It is evident the US govt doesn't give a monkey's about human
life - it is looking after corporations, like GE and Halliburton.
> > Using phony
> > evidence, all of it would be blamed on Fidel Castro, thus giving head of
> > Joint Chiefs of Staff, Lyman Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well
as
> > the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war.
>
> Lyman Lemnitzer was part of a cabal? Who were the other members?
>
> --Peter Metcalfe
Thanks Peter. You will find the info on the Internet. Relevant to today, is
info about the Project for the New American Century and the unauthorized
biography of George Bush Snr, which I urge people to download and read,
before it's banned.
http://www.tarpley.net/bushb.htm
WD
Clare Swinney wrote:
> "WD" <tuar...@woosh.co.nz> wrote in message
snip
> > If you really want to know what happened...
> >
> > http://wtc.nist.gov/
> >
> >
> > W.D.
> >
> Is that a US government report? Didn't the PNAC [Project for the New
> American Century] say we need helpful Pearl Harbor events to justify the
> invasion of Iraq? Is it thus fair to assume that the authors of this have a
> conflict of interest?
1. Yes it is a "government report".
2. The PNAC (a think tank) said the rebuilding of American forces
would be long and slow without some catastrophic pearl harbour type
event. This does not prove a conspiracy with regards to 9/11. They
simply stated an obvious fact.
3. No it is not "fair to assume that the authors of [the NIST report]
have a conflict of interest". Simply being a part of a government
investigation does not provide the authors of the report with a
conflict of interest. If you have some evidence that the highly
qualified experts who investigated the tragedy have some conflict of
interest then please present some evidence.
This is the investigative team: http://wtc.nist.gov/pi/
> No steel-framed skyscraper, even engulfed in flames hour after hour, had
> ever collapsed before.
> Three stunning collapses occur within a few city blocks on the same day, two
> allegedly hit by aircraft, the third not.
> These extraordinary collapses after short-duration minor fires made it all
> the more important to preserve the evidence, mostly steel girders, to study
> what had happened. On fire intensity, consider this benchmark: A 1991 FEMA
> report on Philadelphia's Meridian Plaza fire said that the fire was so
> energetic that "[b]eams and girders sagged and twisted," but despite this
> extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without
> obvious damage" Such an intense fire with consequent sagging and twisting
> steel beams bears no resemblance to what we observed at the WTC.
The fires in the towers reached about 1800 degrees fahrenheit. At that
temperature the steel in the towers would lose about 90 percent of its
strength.
I cannot comment on every other fire in a steel frame building in
history. However, what I can say is that none of them had a plane fly
into it. I've been in the WTC towers on a good day and I can tell you
they weren't particularly stable. At the top of the towers you could
feel the building sway in a calm breeze.
At the end of the day I am not an engineer or an expert on structural
design. I must rely on the investigation of highly qualified experts
who conclude that the towers collapsed from a fire after two planes
crashed into them. These leading experts are also supported by many
other experts in the field, even the collegues of Steven Jones (who
isn't even an expert in the field).
How big is this conspiracy? Does it involve the engineering department
at BYU? Does it involve all the experts on the NIST investigative team
who come from a wide range of backgrounds and different institutions?
Have you ever seen the kind of work that goes into planning a
controlled demolition? Do you suppose that workers at the WTC were
wondering what all these demolitions guys were doing planting
explosives in their building?
Lets have just a little common sense.
W.D.
A Friend
Clare Swinney wrote:
> Thanks Peter. You will find the info on the Internet.
Just answer my question, Clare.
Did Neil Armstrong walk on the moon, or was it a hoax?
Clare Swinney
"John Cawston" <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:e0li07$7vo$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> Gib Bogle wrote:
> > Dave Joll wrote:
> >
> >> "Clare Swinney" <clares...@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote
> >>
> >>
> >>> Last week a CNN online poll showed more than 8 out of 10 respondents
> >>> do not
> >>> believe official story of 911.
> >>
> >>
> >> behind the 9/11 attacks. Doesn't make *them* right either.
> >>
> >
> > Also more than 50% believe that Satan is a real entity. (I think more
> > believe in Satan than believe in God, which has a certain logic.)
>
> Or the more significant aspect of the poll.. that 8 out of ten internet
> types believe in Charlie Sheen, who has a certain belief about 9/11.
>
> JC
Dear John, bear in mind that propaganda is alive and well in Western
civilization. You, as one of the users of this particular newsgroup, will
be no doubt aware of this. (use search terms "propaganda NBC, GE and Fox"
and see what people have to tell you.
I know it is difficult, because we've been so innundated with propaganda and
have too few media sources interested in providing us with the truth, to
look at the evidence, but please do. If you have Broadband, select one of
the docos at www.st911.org. It takes less than 2 hours and it is well worth
it. Thank-you.
Peter Metcalfe
says...
>
> "Peter Metcalfe" <metc...@quicksilver.net.nz> wrote:
> > Which doesn't require people being killed. That's a fundamental
> > difference between what the Operation Northwoods plan suggests and what
> > actually took place on 9/11.
>
> It always strikes me as odd when people balk at the notion of the US govt
> killing people on their own soil. Bear in mind the crimes against humanity
> that are being committed in Iraq.
What crimes against humanity are these? Iraq is not US soil the last
time I looked so you haven't actually addressed the point that I made.
> (Please refer:
> http://www.informationclearinghouse.info) US soldiers are being exposed to
> DU too, not just Iraqis - not that should make a difference to any decent
> person.
DU is safe as houses. It is far less radioactive than C14.
> > Lyman Lemnitzer was part of a cabal? Who were the other members?
> Thanks Peter. You will find the info on the Internet.
So you don't know and were just making stuff up?
--Peter Metcalfe