Well , I cant say i go with all of the theory, but heres a point of view, by some very highly thought of experts, on the 9/11 attack. But in a typical bush administration policy of no debates or discussions on important issues, these guys are trying to get the story out, on the inconsistancies of the attack.
Dont let your preconcieved notions, and offical government propaganda, get in the way of believing our government can be this way.


Heres a link to the original article, It points out alot of the government lies surrounding 9/11
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/MorphJ20.doc

And This was in todays news.

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635179751,00.html



BYU professor's group accuses U.S. officials of lying about 9/11
By Elaine Jarvik
Deseret Morning News
Last fall, Brigham Young University physics professor Steven E. Jones made headlines when he charged that the World Trade Center collapsed because of "pre-positioned explosives." Now, along with a group that calls itself "Scholars for 9/11 Truth," he's upping the ante.
"We believe that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11," the group says in a statement released Friday announcing its formation. "We believe these events may have been orchestrated by the administration in order to manipulate the American people into supporting policies at home and abroad."
Headed by Jones and Jim Fetzer, University of Minnesota Duluth distinguished McKnight professor of philosophy, the group is made up of 50 academicians and others.
They include Robert M. Bowman, former director of the U.S. "Star Wars" space defense program, and Morgan Reynolds, former chief economist for the Department of Labor in President George W. Bush's first term. Most of the members are less well-known.
The group's Web site (www.ST911.org) includes an updated version of Jones's paper about the collapse of the Twin Towers and a paper by Fetzer that looks at conspiracy theories. The government's version of the events of 9/11 — that the plane's hijackers were tied to Osama bin Laden — is its own conspiracy theory, says Fetzer, who has studied the John F. Kennedy assassination since 1992.
"Did the Bush administration know in advance about the impending attacks that occurred on 9/11, and allow these to happen, to provoke pre-planned wars against Afghanistan and Iraq? These questions demand immediate answers," charges a paper written collectively by Scholars for 9/11 Truth. The group plans to write more papers, and present lectures and conferences.
"We have very limited resources and no subpoena powers," Fetzer said. "What you have is a bunch of serious scholars taking a look at this and discovering it didn't add up. We don't have a political ax to grind."
Fetzer has doctorates in the history and philosophy of science. "One of the roles I can play here," he said, "is to explain why a certain line of argument is correct or not."
In his original message to potential members last month, Fetzer warned that joining the group might make them the subject of government surveillance and might get them on various lists of "potential terrorists."
The group's charges include:

• Members of the Bush administration knew in advance that the 9/11 attacks would happen but did nothing to stop them.

• No Air Force or Air National Guard jets were sent to "scramble" the hijacked planes, which were clearly deviating from their flight plans, although jet fighters had been deployed for scramblings 67 times in the year prior to 9/11. The procedure for issuing orders for scrambling was changed in June 2001, requiring that approval could only come from the Secretary of Defense, but Donald Rumsfeld was not alerted soon enough on 9/11, according to Scholars group.

• The video of Osama bin Laden found by American troops in Afghanistan in December 2001, in which bin Laden says he orchestrated the attacks, is not bin Laden. The Scholars for 9/11 Truth compared the video with a photo of the "real" bin Laden and argue that there are discrepancies in the ratio of nose-length to nose-width, as well as distance from tip-of-nose to ear lobe.
The Scholars group hopes that media outlets around the world will ask experts in their areas to examine the group's findings and assertions. If this were done, they argue, "one of the great hoaxes of history would stand naked before the eyes of the world."
The group also asks for an investigation of the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings, following up on points made in Jones's paper, "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" That paper, recently updated, has been posted on Jones's BYU Web site since last November.
Jones argues that the WTC buildings did not collapse due to impact or fires caused by the jets hitting the towers but collapsed as a result of pre-positioned "cutter charges." Proof, he says, includes:

• Molten metal was found in the subbasements of WTC sites weeks after 9/11; the melting point of structural steel is 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit and the temperature of jet fuel does not exceed 1,800 degrees. Molten metal was also found in the building known as WTC7, although no plane had struck it. Jones's paper also includes a photo of a slag of the metal being extracted from ground zero. The slag, Jones argues, could not be aluminum from the planes because in photographs the metal was salmon-to-yellow-hot temperature (approximately 1,550 to 1,900 degrees F) "well above the melting temperatures of lead and aluminum," which would be a liquid at that temperature.

• Building WTC7 collapsed in 6.6 seconds, which means, Jones says, that the steel and concrete support had to be simply knocked out of the way. "Explosive demolitions are like that," he said. "It doesn't fit the model of the fire-induced pancake collapse."

• No steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires. Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse, he says.

• Jones points to a recent article in the journal New Civil Engineering that says WTC disaster investigators at NIST (the National Institutes of Standards and Technology) "are refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers."

Neither Jones nor other members of the Scholars group suggests who would have planted the explosives, but they argue that the devices could have been operated by remote control.
Jones says he has received thousands of e-mails from people around the world who either support his ideas or think he's "nutty," and he still gets about 30 e-mails a day on the topic.
He continues to do research on cold fusion, which he prefers to call metal-catalyzed fusion "to distinguish it from the claims" of former University of Utah chemistry professors B. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleishmann, "which we do not accept as verified." He reports that his metal-catalyzed fusion work is going well, with three scientific papers published last year.
Jones will present a talk entitled "9/11 Revisited: Scientific and Ethical Questions" at Utah Valley State College at 7 p.m. on Wednesday, Feb. 1.

 

Buster I am going to have to wait till I have time to read thru all that (maybe even proof some of the people who were named etc) but its not the first that I have seen that shows more than suspiscion about the many levels of goverment that were knowing about the attacks well before they happened.

Thing that I have a problem with about this and much of the obvious "bush bashing" is that all the heat is directed towards the presidents office, and little if any ( I have not seen any myself) ever hits the various other political leaders, and govt agency people etc that would also have had to know about it in order for it to ever get to the president.

I am not a registered Republican, but I have to be honest that the idea of having the democrats take over the presidents office when the current term is up seriously scares me as someone who pays taxes and works for a living.

I mean there at it locally here in NJ again and with the extensive spending of our previous flamboyant fudgpacking gov and the partys refusal to reneg on any promisses to political supporters there going to be looking to steal billions of $$$ from the taxpayers again.

Then I look at all these things that are happening with the current administration and ponder just what would have happened if Al Gore had won the election, and damn it scares me even more.

Still I go back to why none of the people who directly knew of the impending danger that became 9/11 didnt step up to the plate and do something about it. Was there such a large reward in the end that everyone involved thought it to be worth thousands of americans lives, or were all our various inteligence agencies totally taken by suprize.

None of this I am takling about here adds up

 

This sort of puzzles me since there are various fighters from both of those divisions in the air constantly, and sometimes there are plenty in the air at once either patroling along the coast or practicing at one of the various ranges around. I have seen as many as 6 up within a 1/2 hour period.

Then I immediately think about the terrorists who had problems with trying to take out a grassy field in PA. I know many dont believe this one crashed at all, and have seen some seriously believable sounding reports on its being shot down. Only problem I have is that as a layman you cant get info to proof much of it since the more believable reports that actually name pilots etc are all names and info that is supressed from where I look for it.

One thing I do agree with is the theories that are about the wreckage being of too small of pieces to have been a crash landing, and though I am not a proffessional aviation investigator I am able to compare the scene of this one to the others we have seen in the past, and know that something was different to create enough power to cause so much additional destruction to this one. Also did anyone notice that the press wasnt showing as much coverage of the wreckage area as they normally do?

I was not there so I can not say for sure what happened that, but from what I have seen I believe there is more than enough questionable information and inaccuracies to warrent additional investigation.

We all have seen what has been done with UFO type stuff in the past, and how many people were made to believe something totally different (sorry to bring up little green men lol ) only to find all kinds of solid information leading in the direction that some of it may have been true, but does everything have to take 50 years to start to get out in a true form.

No I dont believe were sharing our planet with little green men, but I also dont believe that GWB had pushed the button on that supposed transmitter either.

 

I can't agree with your post at all. BTW - I am a mechanical engineer, so from a structural failure analysis standpoint, I think I am qualified to dispute some of the total BS that you quoted.

From a prior post - 1) "This is from the right leaning MSNBC" - you'd be hard pressed to qualify that statement. I feel that from a far left perspective, that you might see it that way. From a moderate right perspective, MSNBC leans left, as does CNN, ABC, CBS. Fox is more centered, but still leans a touch to the right. Rush Limbaugh is obviously on the right, and he doesn't hide that. I do not see any of the mainstream media admitting their leaning. This is from my perspective.

2) You're quoting a group of academics. Now, I think I can say with quite some agreement, that you might as well have said that the story was compiled by a group that is comprised of liberals by something like 90%. I'm talking about the far left liberals too. It doesn't get much more liberal than college professors. Consider the source.

3) I watched the event on TV - LIVE. Even our brilliant media was saying things like "there must be a problem with air traffic control for that plane to have hit the building". It wasn't until the second plane hit that I think we all knew what was happening. The statement that the planes were "way off course" cannot be substantiated unless you can show me FAA records. Face it - they fooled us. Our policy was to comply with hijackers at that time, not scramble F-16's and shoot them down...

4) a video of bin laden wasn't him, and the WTC buildings did not collapse due to impact or fires??? C'mon. I'm laughing as I write this. First, one video of bin scumbag is all that they question? He certainly hasn't gone on tape denying his involvement since 9/11, so why would I believe only this one was a hoax? That's asinine. Second, let's get the failure analysis straight. The burning fuel weakened the structure by annealing the steel - please go look that up - then the building collapses and the pressures applied to the steel during the collapse dramatically increase the temperatures the steel reaches - ever bend a hanger until it gets hot? - molten steel would be expected with that much energy being expended. The article you quote was obviously written by people that believe the average person would simply believe what they say because it SOUNDS like they know what they are talking about - but they don't. The notion of bombs going off is equally asinine. The buildings didn't collapse right away and the heat from the burning fuel nor the impact didn't set off these supposed explosives. How can that be? Explosives cause damage by physically shocking materials to the point that they structurally fail. You've seen building demolitions I assume - they don't burn. Where was the sound of the explosives going off? It couldn't have been when the planes hit, or the building would have fallen at that time. Explosives DO NOT create molten steel. They cause it to fracture.

I am so disgusted with the blatant errors in this farsical account of the building failures that I wish I could smack the authors in the head. What a bunch of $hit, written by idiots.

5) I will quote from your sig "if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." This would be the case for all of the people promoting some conspiracy theory. From my perspective, the people using scare tactics, flat out lies, misrepresented data, etc., are the ones on the left. The article you site is a perfect example of somebody trying to pull the wool over peoples' eyes.

The problem is, there are a lot of uneducated people out there that simply believe what they read on the net. I encourage you to speak with professional civil and mechanical engineers yourself - not left wing academics with an underlying agenda to destroy the growing conservative movement and GWB. You can see how these nuts think by going to the forums on moveon.org. It's absolutely mind boggling to see what these people actually believe. It sounds like you've fallen prey to their tactics.

 

I admitted I didnt go along with all of the theory. My point was, the administration knew lots more about the 9/11 attacks beforehand than they let on. Even the commission on 9/11 provided some embarassing comments for them, and was heavily sensored before public release, and that was from a hand picked bunch of republicans.
.
So according to point #2, just because someone is a liberal (whatever that means...because i think jesus was a liberal), you think that everything they say is a lie? Instead of focusing on who the speaker is, why not focus on content of the message? This is a typical misdirection ploy, used by the administration to direct attention away from the issue...otherwise know as kill the messenger.

So you choose to believe known liers...and draft dodgers, and a deserter, in time of war?

 

You're missing the point, and you are discounting what this administration is saying every bit as much as I am discounting the obvious fabrications from the liberals that you quoted. Can't you see how hypocritical your last statement is? Known liar? Clinton, "I did not have sex with that woman", Gore, "I invented the internet", Bush, "Iraq has WMD's". Hmmm. Only ONE of those was based on other people's information and was also believed to be true by the entire congress. The other two were out and out lies. Draft Dodger? Can you say Clinton and Coast Guard in the same sentence? Deserter? See, that's the fabrication. The left even had to falsify a document made famous by Dan Rather, in order to attempt to show some shred of evidence that Bush was a Deserter. It simply didn't happen. Worst of all is that YOU are using those accusations in order to disqualify anything that Bush has to say.

Any reasonable person would absolutely HAVE to consider the source of information (especially unsubstantiated information) before coming to a conclusion to its validity. It's not that I tow the party line or only believe Bush - it's that the other side has this habit of fabricating information in order to sway public opinion. There are enough intelligent, analytical people out there that the old tactics of saying things over and over in order to make them true does not work anymore. You even state that in your sig, so you must follow that logic. It used to be that the Democrats and their allies in the media could say whatever they wanted and it "became" true, but not anymore. Now, they are running around in a panic because they don't know how to deal in facts, corroborated evidence and logic.

Democrats are not running around trying to influence people with their policies, ideas, and what they stand for. All they have left is to attack, attack, attack. It's getting old, and it isn't swaying opinion. It's like watching a trainwreck in process. The far left is yelling at the politicians to show their core beliefs (at least the far left beliefs that border on socialism) and the core Democrats are saying "wait a minute, that's not what I'm supporting".

Democrats are not being honest about their platform. They want government MORE involved in peoples' lives, not less. But they don't say it out loud. They believe that taxes should be higher (even though our economy as well as government tax revenues are INCREASING with tax REDUCTIONS), but they don't say that either. Instead, they claim that the economy is still terrible - based on WHAT? Their "gut feel"? They believe EVERYONE DESERVES healthcare. Frankly, I don't believe that illegal aliens, crack addicts, and the like deserve MY money! Education is important as we all know, but throwing money at the system isn't the answer - making teachers accountable IS. I think teachers should get paid more. I think abortion is murder. I think GOD should be a focus of our lives, but I will not stand for REMOVING GOD from peoples' lives - as the ACLU would have it.

I think our government spends too much and have written my congresspeople (nice politically correct word, huh?) about that.

Lastly, if there were ANY logical or reasonable way to come to the conclusion that our government is determined to spy on us all, then I would believe that, BUT there's none of that. The only thing I have seen are accusations, attacks, scare tactics and fabrications. You can't use those kinds of things in court.

 

If all those big news orginizations are left leaning...why dont they ever have stories about things like this?
This is what the liberal side thinks...but where does it make it into the mainstream? Its a myth that the media has a liberal bias, its all controlled by the same group of conservative thinkers.

The War on Americanism
by David Michael Green


Forget the war on terrorism. The president is now engaged in a full-blown war on Americanism.

Ridiculous? Unthinkable? The idea that an American president could epitomize anti-Americanism is certainly counterintuitive. But it’s a lot less shocking if we consider just what defines this country’s core values.

And if that list includes such essentials as freedom, responsibility, justice, humanity, respect and fairness – and doesn’t it? – if that’s what it means to be American, then George Bush is indeed at war with Americanism.

Each new revelation forces patriotic Americans to reconsider how much of ourselves – our liberties, our reputation, our dignity – have now been sacrificed on the alter of the Bush presidency. Torture, wiretaps, planted news stories, secret prisons, one unmasked war justification after another – each week brings fresh outrages. This country faces some very real threats, but must we give up everything that makes America America in order to live safely within our borders?

As it turns out, that’s a false choice anyhow, since even our security has been diminished by George Bush. The 9/11 Commission has given him flunking grades for his preparations against another attack. Meanwhile, he admits a breathtaking disinterest in Osama bin Laden (the guy who did 9/11, after all), literally saying “I am truly not that concerned about him” and “I don't really think about him very much”.

He has been similarly unconcerned about North Korean nuclear proliferation on his watch, Hurricane Katrina, and the still unsolved anthrax case. Add these to his Iraq obsession, which has severely diminished our military, and American security has actually lessened.

For this, we’ve given up two centuries worth of proud honor and traditions?

For this, George Bush has traded away so much of what makes this country great that his presidency can only be described as a war on Americanism.

Consider.

Once, America stood as a proud beacon for human rights. Now we are known for the horrors of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo, extraordinary rendition and torture.

Once, we stood foursquare for the rule of law. Now we demolish inconvenient agreements we once promoted – the Geneva, Nonproliferation and ABM Treaties, the International Criminal Court – and thereby encourage others to follow suit.

Once, America’s word was good. Today – after deceits ranging from WMD, to promised but withdrawn UN votes, to shameful lies about Pat Tillman’s death – we are distrusted.

Once, America stood tall against colonialism. Today, with invasion excuses falling like dominoes, most of the world sees us as just another old-fashioned imperialist predator.

Once, we stood for due process of law. Now our president creates his own prisons and courts and denies the accused long sacred rights – to habeas corpus, an attorney, a speedy trial judged by peers, knowledge of the crime charged, and more.

Once, we were a model for civil liberties. Now, Mr. Bush authorizes himself to conduct illegal wiretaps on Americans while his government monitors everyone from vegans to Quakers, then snoops in libraries to see what we’re reading.

Once, we stood for press freedom. Now our tax dollars pay to plant stories and buy off journalists, here and abroad, while our president plots to blow-up al Jazeera, all in the name of bringing freedom to the Mid-East.

Once, we were a good neighbor. Today, our one-twentieth of world population produces one-fourth of global warming emissions, while the president scuttles the Kyoto Protocol.

For all these reasons and others, world opinion of the United States has sunk precipitously under this radical president – as well it should, for this is not the America our Founders had in mind.

And so we must ask, just what will be left of Americanism after George Bush is through with America? And, if the goal is not only preserving our lives, but also our way of life, just who is the true enemy of America and Americanism?

Surely al Qaeda is. Too bad, therefore, that the president doesn’t think very much anymore about the folks who brutally attacked us on 9/11.

Surely Saddam – who never attacked the United States nor even threatened it – was never such an enemy, however brutal a dictator he certainly was.

But what of Mr. Bush himself? However counterintuitive, it is hard to reach but one conclusion about a president who has bankrupted America morally, fiscally, and militarily, who has alienated the world and deeply divided his own country, and who has trampled roughshod over our most sacred traditions and liberties, as if he were some sort of self-anointed king.

Clearly, George Bush is at war with Americanism.

 

I can't remember who wrote "Jesus was a liberal", but he certainly would not subscribe to the liberal mentality shared by the Democrats today. Here is a list of liberal policies to which Jesus would not have subscribed.

Big government. High taxes. Forced equality. Lack of moral values and laws - i.e., you can't show the Ten Commandments on government property, g@y marriage.

Instead, he preached forgiveness, tolerance, prayer and morality. Above all he taught us about GOD, which seems to be the very last thing that a liberal would want to discuss or promote.

Oh, and abortion. Hmmm, I wonder what he'd say about that???

 

"Torture, wiretaps, planted news stories, secret prisons... "

Those poor little terrorists. They had to go from Saddam's torture chambers to a prison where we made them stand naked together. Oh, poor, poor, terrorists. Oh those poor, grannies, wait, thery weren't wiretapped. Who was? Potential threats to US security, that's who. Secret prisons? Gee, these have NEVER been used at ANY other time by the US, huh? Wake up. You couldn't find a time when we DIDN'T, have secret "prisons". You think the Cold War was fought in the OPEN??? Where was GWB during those times? Can't blame him for that bud.

"even our security has been diminished by George Bush"

Seems like we've thwarted quite a few attempts and have been hit by how many since 9/11. Clinton had a LOT of time to prep after WTC in '93, so who's your blame really targeting? Get on a plane and tell me you're not safer now than pre-9/11... Go through an airport, into or out of the US. Less secure - that's just plain bs.

"disinterest in Osama bin Laden (the guy who did 9/11"

Wait, didn't your prior post say that bin scumbag DIDN'T admit to 9/11? Which way is it? If he was involved and is now hiding in caves and has to have all of his cronies hide in caves, or go to dinner in a hut and get blasted, then how effective could he possibly be? He is not the main focus because the cells themselves can operate without him and THEY are the main targets.

"North Korean nuclear proliferation on his watch, Hurricane Katrina, and the still unsolved anthrax case. Add these to his Iraq obsession, which has severely diminished our military, and American security has actually lessened"

North Korea is going to do whatever they want to do. They've made that clear. Hurricane Katrina? Last time I looked, hurricanes couldn't be stopped or forcasted to do a certain amount of damage. It's not until it passes can anyone find out what happened. Where was the Gov (DEMOCRAT) of LA? States are responsible for responding to things like this, not the feds. It's in the Constitution. You might want to check that out. Diminished our military? By what measures? Lessened our security? See topic above.

This is ridiculous. This whole article is asinine.

You asked why it hasn't made the mainstream press. It is because even they have their limits of absurdity. This article is an example of how liberals view the US. You all think the US is a pit, a disgusting hole that the world despises. You gleam at the news that bad things happen to the US as it supports your ideas that "we are bad". A good day for the US is a bad day for liberals. Economy gets better - bad liberal day. Voting a new Iraqi government - another bad liberal day. Numbers of welfare recipients drops - bad day for liberals. Jobs increase - bad day for liberals. Stock market regains pre-9/11 strength - another bad liberal day.

But, pile some naked terrorists on top of one another and liberals have a field day. LOOK, LOOK, the US is BAD! See!!! Look! Naked terrorists!!! GWB ordered it all and it's HIS FAULT!!!!!

Want some cheese with that whine?

 

As a lifelong registered Republican who despises current administration's ongoing fiscal irresponsibility and foreign policy ruining US interests, I have to ask what does an antiquated, mythical belief system have to do with any of this thread? Evangelistic crusades are a personal matter.