Aha!
http://www.counterpunch.org/krassner09112009.html
By PAUL KRASSNER
September 11-13, 2009
I have no doubt that the Bush administration was capable of being
behind the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. A book
about the National Security Agency, Body of Secrets by James Bamford,
reveals that, in 1962, U.S. military leaders proposed a plan to
commit violent terrorist acts and kill innocent Americans, blaming
Cuba in order to create a pretext for invading the island and
deposing Fidel Castro.
One document, prepared and signed by all five Joint Chiefs of Staff,
stated that they could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in
Miami, other Florida cities and even in Washington. They would have
people shot on American streets, bombs blown up, refugee boats sunk
on the high seas--and all this would be blamed on the Cuban
government. They proposed blowing up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay
and blaming Cuba. Casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause "a
helpful wave of indignation."
I also believe that the Cheney gang knew that something was being
planned against the United States in 2001, which could retroactively
serve as a Pearl Harbor equivalent in order to justify their own
imperialist plans for the oil-laden Middle East. However, the
truth-seekers in the 9/11 movement act as if their truth is the
Absolute Truth, and they often distrust the motivation of those,
especially those in the media, who disagree with them. They assume
that reporters either don't know the truth, or that they do know the
truth but remain silent so they won't lose their jobs, or that
they're actually part of the conspiracy.
I asked Amy Goodman--host of Democracy Now and one of the best
journalists in the country--how she feels about being attacked by the
9/11 people. Although, like me, she doesn't agree with their
conclusions, we both agree that their claims should be investigated,
as did the petition signed by Van Jones. At the other end of the
spectrum, talk-show host Michael Reagan has called for the
assassination of 9/11 "traitors."
The problem is, I've found, that if I mention to a 9/11 truth-seeker
the research project by Popular Mechanics which deconstructed their
theory of "controlled demolition," the response is, "Well, whattaya
expect--Popular Mechanics is published by Hearst."
I once asked a true believer, "If the Pentagon was really hit by a
missile and not a plane, then what happened to all the people who
were on the plane that didn't hit the Pentagon?" And the answer was
a triumphant "Aha!"
--
Paul Krassner is the editor of The Realist. His books include: Pot
Stories for the Soul, One Hand Jerking and Murder at the Conspiracy
Convention. He can be reached through his website: http://paulkrassner.com/
.
4 comments:
Paul,
Please check out the book:
"Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory" by Dr. David Ray Griffin.
Also, look into 'nanothermite.org'. A military-grade explosive was found in the WTC dust.
Paul,
PM forgot to debunk this one:
Steel framed WTC7, according to NIST, experienced freefall collapse for 2.25s over 8 stories; obviously a feat only possible by controlled demolitions (CD) as even hot, melty, damaged steel columns offer some resistance to collapse speeds, unless of course they are instantly removed by CDs before the floors above strike them.
When I say this to debunkers, they say `whattaya expect from analyzing this with physics'.
Impressive lot you throw in with Paul.
Want to wake up American's to the truth of 9/11? Here's how......
http://blandyland.com/?p=388
Make it go viral! Thanks!
Daniel Bland
Let’s just face a few simple facts.
Skyscrapers MUST hold themselves up. They must also sway in the wind. The people who design skyscrapers MUST figure out how much steel and how much concrete they are going to put on every level before they even dig the hole for the foundation.
After EIGHT YEARS why don’t we have a table specifying the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of WTCs 1&2? The NIST report does not even specify the TOTAL for the concrete. The total for the steel is in three places. So even if the planes did it that 10,000 page report is CRAP!
Conspiracies are irrelevant. The Truth Movement should be marching on all of the engineering schools in the country.
Watch that Purdue simulation. If a 150 ton airliner crashes near the top of a skyscraper at 440 mph isn’t the building going to sway? Didn’t the survivors report the building “moving like a wave”? So why do the core columns in the Purdue video remain perfectly still as the plane comes in?
That is the trouble with computer simulations. If they are good, they are very good. But if they have a defect either accidental or deliberate they can be REALLY STUPID once you figure out the flaws.
The distributions of steel and concrete are going to affect the sway of a skyscraper whether it is from the wind or an airliner.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
How much does one complete floor assembly weigh?
You know those square donut floor slabs? They were 205 ft square with a rectangular hole for the core. There was a steel rebar mesh embedded in the concrete which was poured onto corrugated steel pans which were supported by 35 and 60 foot trusses. There has been talk about those things pancaking on each other for years.
But has anyone ever said what the whole thing weighed? Why haven't we seen that A LOT in EIGHT YEARS? The concrete alone is easy to compute, about 601 tons. But the concrete could not be separated from the entire assembly, the upper knuckles of the trusses were embedded into the concrete. So what did the whole thing weigh and why haven't the EXPERTS been mentioning that A LOT in EIGHT YEARS?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
So why hasn't Richard Gage and his buddies produced a table with the TONS of STEEL and TONS fo CONCRETE that were on every level of the WTC? How much computing power do they have now, compared to the early 1960s when the buildings were designed? I asked Gage about that in May of 2008 at Chicago Circle Campus and he got a surprised look on his face and gave me this LAME excuse about the NIST not releasing accurate blueprints. Gravity hasn't changed since the 1960s. They should be able to come up with some reasonable numbers.
Post a Comment