Paul Russell: Who dares to question the 'Big Lie of 9/11'?
VTR
Posted: October 04, 2008, 5:26 PM by Paul Russell
Paul Russell, 9/11
What exactly happened on Sept. 11, 2001? Did the Twin Towers fall because of terrorism or have
we been duped by the “Big Lie of 9/11”? An avid debate on that question broke out on our
letters page last week, in reaction to the dismissal of Lesley Hughes, a Liberal candidate and
9/11 skeptic. Some readers sided with her.
“Numerous military, intelligence and government insiders have gone on record rejecting the
official account,” wrote Inge Hanle. “So have firefighters, veterans and scientists. With
several U.S. senators now daring to take on the issue, it’s high time for the Post and other
media cogs to open your eyes to the lies.”
Adding weight to the skeptics’ side was Anthony J. Hall, a University of Lethbridge professor.
In a letter published last week, he noted, “We are living in the toxic fallout generated by the
big lie of 9/11.” That statement was flatly rejected by other readers.
“So, Anthony J. Hall thinks that 9/11 was a big lie,” wrote Roy Weston. “He’ll have to take a
number and wait behind those who believe the moon walk took place in a movie studio. Piecing
together a series of coincidences doesn’t result in a fact ... so far Anthony Hall and his ilk
have produced only innuendos, possibilities and probabilities.”
In a follow-up note to the Post, Prof. Hall defended his position through his engaging essay,
“A Clash of Conspiracy Theories” (available on the Web). While it may not convince readers to
join the 9/11 conspiracy crowd, it does present a cogent argument for why the public should be
more receptive to alternative views about that pivotal day.
Prof. Hall opens by assuring readers that he does not side with Ms. Hughes’ “factually wrong
and ill advised comment” that Israel knew in advance about what would happen on 9/11; “ ... we
must strive to prevent ethnic or religious prejudices from colouring our interpretations of,
and responses to, the assaults on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon seven years ago.”
He then notes that “this Canadian election, taking place during the seventh autumn following
the events of 9/11, offers a crucial opening to begin ... a rational debate on our most
fundamental issue of public policy to arise in this decade Š. [C]itizens are waking up to the
terrible implications of constructing public policy based on conspiracy theories rather than on
clear assessments of the evidentiary base, however partial and imperfect, that is beginning to
suggest the real nature rather than the fictional mythology of the events of 9/11.”
This “mythology” includes what happened to Tower 7, “a 47-storey building that miraculously
fell neatly and symmetrically into its own footprint at 5:30 in the afternoon without being hit
by any airplane.”
But Prof. Hall always brings it back to what’s currently happening in Canada. “I think it
appropriate to pose a simple question of those who made the decision to disqualify Lesley
Hughes from running as a Liberal candidate,” he states. “Now that a line has been drawn in the
sand on conspiracy theories and 9/11, I think it fair to ask if there is any public space
remaining for serious political debate on this matter. In this season, when we are called upon
to entrust some politicians with the high responsibilities of public office, how are we to
discuss in a civil fashion the contested events of 9/11?”
As he wraps up, Prof. Hall notes: “In the long run, one of the most devastating effects of the
lies and crimes of 9/11 may reside in the prospect of alienating independent-minded young
people, who have decided to invest themselves wholeheartedly in the push for 9/11 truth. What
lessons should these young people derive from the removal of Lesley Hughes from her effort to
represent a Winnipeg constituency under the Liberal banner? ... Is she really a reprobate not
fit to serve in the House of Commons? Or does the push to relegate her back to the political
margins speak to issues that are not being fully and honestly addressed by the politicians and
professional pundits of all stripes?”
Paul Russell is letters editor at the Post.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/10/04/196400.aspx
Al Dykes
VTR <vexj...@gmx.us> wrote:
>Paul Russell: Who dares to question the 'Big Lie of 9/11'?
>Posted: October 04, 2008, 5:26 PM by Paul Russell
>Paul Russell, 9/11
>
>What exactly happened on Sept. 11, 2001? Did the Twin Towers fall because of terrorism or have
>we been duped by the “Big Lie of 9/11”? An avid debate on that question broke out on our
>letters page last week, in reaction to the dismissal of Lesley Hughes, a Liberal candidate and
>9/11 skeptic. Some readers sided with her.
>
>“Numerous military, intelligence and government insiders have gone on record rejecting the
>official account,” wrote Inge Hanle. “So have firefighters, veterans and scientists. With
>several U.S. senators now daring to take on the issue, it’s high time for the Post and other
>media cogs to open your eyes to the lies.”
>
After 7 years of making shit up, the "Half Truth Movement" has nothing
but fuzzy, manipulated YouTube videos to support the claims.
Knowledgeable people that have seen the original footage don't seem to
have joined the "Truth Movement".
There are no eyewitnesses.
No evidence.
No theory as an explanation that stands up to the physics, evidence
and eyewitnesses for the real thing.
No engineering analysis that engineers I can talk to don't laugh at.
The literal handful of "Truth" people that make this sh*t up refuse to
speak in public with any of the the vast majority of relevant experts
to explain why everyone else is wrong.
The vast majority of "Truth Movement" people are ignorant of the
evidence and science and simply parrot what they hear from the few
that invent bizarre claims and make money by selling books and DVDs to
the ignorant.
To believe that something other than 4 hijacked airplanes caused all
the destruction on 9/11 is to look stupid and IMO, this is the real
purpose of the "Truth Movement", to make critics of the administration
look like idiots
The "truth Movement" has confused "asking questions" with making
unsubstantiated assertionsbased on false information phrased as
questions, and not listening to the polite responses and shouting
"Inside Job!" over a bullhorn, and selling books and DVDs to children.
Screw Bush and the Bush administration.
Screw the "Truth Movement".
Liars, all of them.
--
Al Dykes
News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
- Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
i_hate...@yahoo.com
> In article <mo-dnUz8X-M0pHPVnZ2dnUVZ_gydn...@comcast.com>,
It IS getting to you, though, isn't it Al Dykes? You sure are mighty
hoity toity, ya brit bloke frog.......
Phil
wrote:
>It IS getting to you, though, isn't it Al Dykes? You sure are mighty
>hoity toity, ya brit bloke frog.......
Years of bullshit does get annoying.
Phil
What Me Worry?
challenged. The "true believers" in the official lies and myths collapse
under close scrutiny. Ask them to provide proof. Ask them to refute the
hard evidence that has been discovered outside of the official channels, by
scientists, engineers, pilots and military veterans, eminently qualified to
conduct such investigations.
Building 7 is merely an entree into a world of evidence that converges on
one inescapable conclusion: The official narrative of 9/11 is mostly
fictional, omitting and avoiding some of the most important evidence (which
is publicly available) and - most importantly - reaching entirely the wrong
conclusions about the most likely perpetrators.
That the Bush administration engaged in a coordinated coverup of the
evidence surrounding the events of 9/11/01 is a clear and obvious fact. The
important question is: Why did Bush and his cronies coverup the evidence?
Who were they protecting? What terrible secret required instantaneous
coverup, classification and sequestering of key evidence? If the evidence
was so important (as BushCo clearly believed it to be - since they were busy
classifying and locking it away forever), then why did BushCo block all
serious investigations until they were finally forced to do so?
If this had been a murder case, Bush and his cronies would have all been
arrested as prime suspects. Their actions speak volumes about their guilt -
whether it is merely a giant CYA, or direct complicity, should be
investigated in detail. That will involve locating and de-classifying 9/11
evidence, and conducting the first serious, comprehensive 9/11 investigation
ever undertaken.
"VTR" <vexj...@gmx.us> wrote in message
news:mo-dnUz8X-M0pHPV...@comcast.com...
Al Dykes
What Me Worry? <____@__.___> wrote:
>Canadians are so civilized. Prof. Hall should have hit back, hard, when
>challenged. The "true believers" in the official lies and myths collapse
>under close scrutiny. Ask them to provide proof. Ask them to refute the
>hard evidence that has been discovered outside of the official channels, by
>scientists, engineers, pilots and military veterans, eminently qualified to
>conduct such investigations.
There is no alleged engineer that claims man-made demolition that will
speak in public to knowledgeable people and address relevant questions
from the 99.999% of those that think the claims are silly.
Slim
>
> Years of bullshit does get annoying.
Yet you cheered during every one of Ghouliani's racist and illegal acts
and supported BU$H and his lies.
How typical.
--
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis
Phil
>On 2008-10-09 22:19:58 -0400, Phil <dogg...@yahoooo.com> said:
>>
>> Years of bullshit does get annoying.
>
>Yet you cheered during every one of Ghouliani's racist and illegal acts
>and supported BU$H and his lies.
>
>How typical.
Don't interrupt the adults when they're talking.
Phil
======
visit the New York City Homebrewers Guild website:
http://www.hbd.org/nychg
What Me Worry?
news:gcnt4f$25d$1...@panix5.panix.com...
> In article <b8GdnVDMTbe3f3PV...@comcast.com>,
> What Me Worry? <____@__.___> wrote:
>>Canadians are so civilized. Prof. Hall should have hit back, hard, when
>>challenged. The "true believers" in the official lies and myths collapse
>>under close scrutiny. Ask them to provide proof. Ask them to refute the
>>hard evidence that has been discovered outside of the official channels,
>>by
>>scientists, engineers, pilots and military veterans, eminently qualified
>>to
>>conduct such investigations.
>
>
> There is no alleged engineer that claims man-made demolition
First, Al and his band of wackos says "no engineers claim WTC demolition."
Then, a *professional demolition engineer* openly (and unequivocally) stated
that WTC 7 was absolutely a controlled explosive demolition. And it's on
video:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/3231
Now, Al and his little whispering clique are adding more qualifiers to their
challenge, just like a child who's gotten caught and can't admit that
they're wrong:
"But, but, he WASN'T ACTUALLY THERE ON 9/11, so how could he know what
happened!? And he never demolished a WTC building so how would he know what
it looks like? Plus, he's a FOREIGN GUY, so he must be LYING!!" It's pretty
hilarious. These whispering nutjobs actually think they're being taken
seriously. <snicker>