You are in Guest mode. If you want to post, you'll need to register (we promise it's painless).
Registered users should log in now. (Forgot your password?)

Guest-accessible forum This forum allows unregistered guests access to read. You must register to post in this forum.

Politics.523

Topic HomeTopicsForum HomeForumsHomeSearchSettingsHelpExit

9/11 is a Fraud Created by the Government

--------

{Politics.523.4308}: Steve Lacey {masked} Tue, 16 Sep 2014 21:37:46 EDT (9 lines)

"The eyewitness accounts are consistent with a missile strike and not
with a plane being flown into the ground."

Not so. The eyewitness accounts are consistent with an airplane out
of control plunging wildly to the earth. None of the eyewitness
accounts cited describe anything consistent with a
smashed-by-a-missile or hit-by-fire-from-a-fighter-jet event. (With
the exception, I admit, of the one which mentions a loud bang. But
even that doesn't prove anything one way or the other.)

--------

{Politics.523.4309}: Jay Hoffman {resist} Tue, 16 Sep 2014 21:43:37 EDT (50 lines)

Eyewitness Reports

Several witnesses reported hearing bangs before seeing Flight 93
flying in an erratic manner. Some described the engines making strange
sounds following the bangs.

But press the mayor for details, and he will add something surprising.
"I know of two people -- I will not mention names -- that heard a
missile," Stuhl said. "They both live very close, within a couple of
hundred yards. . .This one fellow's served in Vietnam and he says he's
heard them, and he heard one that day." The mayor adds that based on
what he knows about that morning, military F-16 fighter jets were
"very, very close." 3  

Laura Temyer and an unnamed male witness both describe two loud bangs
before the crash.

Laura Temyer, who lives several miles north of the crash site in
Hooversville, was hanging some clothes outside that morning when she
heard an airplane pass overhead. That struck her as unusual since
she'd just heard on TV that all flights were grounded.

"I heard like a boom and the engine sounded funny," she told the Daily
News. "I heard two more booms -- and then I did not hear anything."

What does Temyer think she heard? "I think the plane was shot down,"
insists Temyer, who said she has twice told her story to the FBI.
What's more, she insists that people she knows in state law
enforcement have told her the same thing, that the plane was shot down
and that decompression sucked objects from the aircraft, explaining
why there was a wide debris field. 4  

A witness said he heard two loud bangs before watching the plane take
a downward turn of nearly 90 degrees. A large crater, from which none
of the plane could be seen, was left in the ground. 5  

Linda Shepley reported hearing a single loud bang before the crash.

One eyewitness to the Pennsylvania crash, Linda Shepley, told
television station KDKA in Pittsburgh that she heard a loud bang and
saw the plane bank to the side before crashing. 6  

A witness described the plane making screeching sound as it turned
downward.

A witness told WTAE-TV's Paul Van Osdol that she saw the plane
overhead. It made a high-pitched, screeching sound. The plane then
made a sharp, 90-degree downward turn and crashed. 7  

"http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/flight93witnesses.html"

--------

{Politics.523.4310}: Richard Clark {cardo} Tue, 16 Sep 2014 22:09:36 EDT (HTML)

<<< eyewitnesses at Indian Lake saw the debris falling out of the sky, like confetti. >>>

How do you explain that, Otis?

<<< One of the engines was 600 feet from the main debris field by some accounts and a mile by others. >>>

How do you explain this, Otis? Do you think the engine bounced way up in the air when the plane hit the ground?

If the engine tore off due to stress from erratic flying, why wasn't it examined by proper authorities/experts, who would have certainly confirmed this fact and would have supplied evidentiary pictures to the press, no? But no pics ever appeared and there was no admission by officialdom that any engine was found. Why not? Probably because the engine revealed evidence of a shoot down, that's why.

--------

{Politics.523.4311}: Otis Dill {Otis99} Tue, 16 Sep 2014 22:30:43 EDT (8 lines)

Richard Clark <<<< eyewitnesses at Indian Lake saw the debris falling out
of the sky, like confetti. >>>

Eyewitnesses saw Richard Clark molesting children.

Like how that works?

Go away until you learn to think critically.

--------

{Politics.523.4312}: Jay Hoffman {resist} Tue, 16 Sep 2014 23:52:07 EDT (3 lines)

Evidence Indicates Flight 93 Was Shot Down

"http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/flight93/index.html"

--------

{Politics.523.4313}: Jay Hoffman {resist} Wed, 17 Sep 2014 02:02:57 EDT (50 lines)

 The Bush Cover-Up Begins to Unravel
9/11: the Saudi Connection
by James Ridgeway

In his New Yorker article, posted on the magazine’s web site last
week, Lawrence Wright tells how the Bush administration deleted 28
pages in the 2002 report of the Joint Congressional Inquiry on 911
probably because they describe in detail the Saudi connection to the
Al Qaeda attack and Saudi financing of its operatives in the United
States—people who knew two of the hijackers, and may well have been
used as conduits for Saudi cash. Some of the money may have come from
the royal family through a charity.

In removing the 28 pages Bush said the publication of the information
would damage American intelligence operations. The Saudis deny all of
this.

Wright goes on to report:

“There’s nothing in it about national security,” Walter Jones, a
Republican congressman from North Carolina who has read the missing
pages, contends. “It’s about the Bush Administration and its
relationship with the Saudis.” Stephen Lynch, a Massachusetts
Democrat, told me that the document is “stunning in its clarity,” and
that it offers direct evidence of complicity on the part of certain
Saudi individuals and entities in Al Qaeda’s attack on America.
  “Those twenty-eight pages tell a story that has been completely
removed from the 9/11 Report,” Lynch maintains. Another congressman
who has read the document said that the evidence of Saudi government
support for the 9/11 hijacking is “very disturbing,” and that “the
real question is whether it was sanctioned at the royal-family level
or beneath that, and whether these leads were followed through.” Now,
in a rare example of bipartisanship, Jones and Lynch have co-sponsored
a resolution requesting that the Obama Administration declassify
the pages.

But there are other questions here, and they involve the story of how
the Bush administration sought to suppress evidence that would reveal
how much it knew of the attack plot —and didn’t do anything to stop
it.

This story and the new piece by Wright strongly suggest the President,
Vice President and head of the FBI were engaged in obstruction of
justice. If so, that would call for the convening of a federal grand
jury. Would the Justice Department, which runs the FBI, do that?
Probably not.

So it is left to the families suing the Saudis to find and publish the
truth.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/09/16/911-the-saudi-connection/

--------

{Politics.523.4314}: Jay Hoffman {resist} Tue, 23 Sep 2014 22:58:39 EDT (12 lines)

Why do Good People Become Silent About the Documentable Facts That
Disprove the Official White House Conspiracy Theory About 9/11? – Part
ONE

"http://www.globalnewscentre.com/why-do-good-people-become-silent-
about-911-part-one-of-two"

Why do Good People Become Silent About the Documentable Facts That
Disprove the Official White House Conspiracy Theory About 9/11? – Part
TWO
"http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1409/S00210/why-do-americans-and-
media-outlets-remain-silent-about-911.htm"

--------

{Politics.523.4315}: Otis Dill {Otis99} Sat, 22 Nov 2014 09:55:34 EST (43 lines)

2014/10/06    Permalink       0 commenti         Avvertenze per i
commentatori
An interview with explosives expert Brent Blanchard

Undicisettembre: Since you already mentioned thermite, let's proceed with
this topic. What do you think of thermite? Is it even vaguely possible to
demolish the Twin Towers and 7 World Trade Center with thermite?

Brent Blanchard: No. In explosive demolitions thermite is never used.

The thermite assertion first came out three or four years after the event;
there was no talk of thermite until 2004 or 2005. All of a sudden this new
theory came out because all other theories were very easily proved
impractical or impossible.

There was a professor over here in States that decided back then that
thermite was his new theory, but the more you look into thermite the more
you understand that the way it causes the metal to fail is not consistent
with what happened. Then he changed his theory into nano-thermite and now
he might even come out with double-nano-thermite. There are always
variations that pop up about how thermite might have been used.

In order for thermite to work you have to have a release of the chemical
and the chemical has to actually cause the steel to deteriorate. I don't
how they think it can be done to an H-beam, or to any very thick steel
beam. Thermite doesn't work horizontally, it works vertically. You can't
cause thermite to cut horizontally through steel. You can't attach
thermite to a bunch of columns, dozens and dozens of columns, and expect
it to start cutting clean through all those columns at a predetermined
time or especially finish at the same time. I don't understand how it can
even theoretically occur. And it's never been articulately explained by
the theorists.

Thermite folks just tend to assert that a bunch of guys went in there, put
thermite on columns that happened to already be exposed, them somehow
triggered it all, and the thermite somehow cut horizontally through a
bunch of columns at the same time and caused the building to fail. That
makes no sense whatsoever.

"http://undicisettembre.blogspot.it/2014/10/an-interview-with-explosive-
expert.html"

I agree, thermite theory makes no sense whatsoever.

--------

{Politics.523.4316}: Otis Dill {Otis99} Sun, 04 Jan 2015 13:50:47 EST (25 lines)

Argentina Agrees to Extradite American Who Sought Asylum
By JONATHAN GILBERT

INTENDENTE ALVEAR, Argentina — An American who sought refuge in
Argentina after he was accused of killing his wife in 2002 should be
sent back to the United States, Argentina’s Supreme Court announced
this week.

The decision to extradite the American, Kurt Sonnenfeld, who moved
to Argentina in 2003 after prosecutors in Denver charged him with
first-degree murder, ends a long dispute between the United States
Justice Department and local courts in Argentina.

Mr. Sonnenfeld, who has claimed that he has proof that the American
government had prior knowledge of the Sept. 11 attacks, and who has
gained a following among like-minded conspiracy theorists, has said
the government and prosecutors colluded to frame him for his wife’s
death in order to silence him. The Denver district attorney’s office
has denied these allegations.

"http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/03/world/americas/argentina-to-
extradite-kurt-sonnenfeld-9-11-truther-on-murder-charge.html"

It will be good to hear Mr. Sonnenfeld present his 9/11 evidence in
court.

--------

{Politics.523.4317}: Elizabeth Costello {lizcostello} Sun, 04 Jan 2015 14:37:35 EST (1 line)

Is that why he murdered his wife?

--------

{Politics.523.4318}: Otis Dill {Otis99} Sun, 04 Jan 2015 17:17:57 EST (3 lines)

This fellow was a hero among the truthers. There does seem to be a lot of
murderers in the 9/11 truth community. Truthers are stupid enough to
believe anything.

--------

{Politics.523.4319}: Richard Clark {cardo} Sun, 04 Jan 2015 21:07:37 EST (HTML)

The murder allegation may be cooked up to shut him up. Have you any proof to the contrary? No? Then STFU.

--------

{Politics.523.4320}: Otis Dill {Otis99} Sun, 04 Jan 2015 21:15:37 EST (3 lines)

Mr Sonnefeld will have the opportunity to present his defense against
"cooked up" murder charges to a jury and judge. I look forward to hearing
his claims.

--------

{Politics.523.4321}: Richard Clark {cardo} Sun, 04 Jan 2015 21:24:35 EST (1 line)

Please keep us posted.

--------

{Politics.523.4322}: Elizabeth Costello {lizcostello} Mon, 05 Jan 2015 08:22:02 EST (1 line)

LOL - Have you any proof he didn't do it Richard?  No?  Then STFU.

--------

{Politics.523.4323}: Richard Clark {cardo} Mon, 05 Jan 2015 12:30:07 EST (3 lines)

Obviously I have no proof one way or the other.

Please don't make stupid remarks.

--------

{Politics.523.4324}: Elizabeth Costello {lizcostello} Mon, 05 Jan 2015 13:45:15 EST (1 line)

Yours was the stupid remark, and I am your nanny, so watch out.

--------

{Politics.523.4325}: Richard Clark {cardo} Mon, 05 Jan 2015 17:06:24 EST (HTML)

It seems to me that you are much more of a self-appointed proto-fascist than you are a nanny, a role you dodge and avoid with the word 'nanny.'

You have appointed to yourself the right to ban me for an infraction that would not get any of your wingnut buddies banned. This is unfair and arbitrary discrimination that smacks of fascism.

--------

{Politics.523.4326}: Senator Lampoon {yesdeer} Mon, 05 Jan 2015 18:41:40 EST (HTML)

Poor Richard always cracked me up.

“Love your Enemies, for they tell you your Faults.”

“The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.”

“Speak little, do much.”

“Many a long dispute among divines may be thus abridged: It is so; It is not so. It is so; it is not so.”

--------

{Politics.523.4327}: Elizabeth Costello {lizcostello} Mon, 05 Jan 2015 18:55:02 EST (4 lines)

I am exactly what you demanded Richard.  I am big government that you
love so much.  I am what you spend every day praising.

Starting to see the error of your ways?

--------

{Politics.523.4328}: Richard Clark {cardo} Mon, 05 Jan 2015 18:57:48 EST (HTML)

I see with ever more certainty that you have no respect for the truth, continually lie to yourself and us, and are more or less completely deluded.

--------

{Politics.523.4329}: Jay Hoffman {resist} Mon, 05 Jan 2015 22:50:43 EST (1 line)

true that

--------

{Politics.523.4330}: Elizabeth Costello {lizcostello} Tue, 06 Jan 2015 08:10:08 EST (1 line)

Gee, sounds a lot like the government you love so much Richard.

--------

{Politics.523.4331}: Otis Dill {Otis99} Tue, 06 Jan 2015 10:33:06 EST (1 line)

True that

--------

{Politics.523.4332}: Correction {cardo} Sat, 17 Jan 2015 10:21:40 EST (HTML)

I'm for government that stays out of my business, yet keeps a tight rein on corporations and banks, and taxes at the 90% rate all income that is in excess of $3 million/yr.

I'd also prefer a gov't that stays the hell out of places like the Mideast and Afghanistan.

--------

Forum
Topic HomeTopicsForum HomeForumsHomeSearchSettingsHelpExit
Forum Guidelines
Guest-accessible forum This forum allows unregistered guests access to read. You must register to post in this forum.

You are in Guest mode. If you want to post, you'll need to register (we promise it's painless).
Registered users should log in now. (Forgot your password?)

The New Café  Home | Your Hotlist and Directory | Independent Partner Forums |
FAQ | User Guidelines | Privacy Policy