24-09-2013, 12:30 PM
Peter Lemkin Wrote:....
How many books on 9-11 have you read?! I've read well over 50. I've looked at most of the videos and thousands of photos, read testimonies and looked at the scientific reports and watched the full videos of 5 conferences on 9-11. The official version is a tissue of lies and related EXACTLY and DIRECTLY to OKC, the first WTC bombing, Iran-Contra, and Dallas, among MANY others.....that is what Deep Political Analysis allows me to see. I'm not impressed with your '9-11-Commission-Innocence-Project', to borrow a phrase and alter it slightly.
Kindly, address the above points and stop just entering in doubt for doubt's sake. For now, I'll not go over the ways in which the WTC-1,2,7 broke the laws of physics [which as a scientist I am 100% sure]....let's hear your overall view of 9-11 and why you push the official version of that snake oil here. What is your agenda? How did so many coincidences and first time in history events happen in one day and Que Bono? Who had the means, motive and access? And why, if you believe the official version is correct did you attempt to get close to R. Gage head of A&E for 911 Truth - a 9-11 Truth organization?!
I'm waiting for your responses to EACH point..then I'll have more new ones.
I am not going to respond to what you consider a point (dot) you have in your picture.
I don't know how many 9/11 books I have read... less than a handful. I have seen most of the online vids and have several CDs and attended several 9/11 events. I think..I am well aware of the positions of the various 9/11 advocates... Gage, Jones, Harrit, Wood, Chandler, Hoffman, Barrett, Griffin, CIT, Khalezov, Szamboti etc. As I wrote I was surprised at how the towers came down and wanted an explanation which made sense to me. The USG was not interested in this and eventually NIST and the 9/11 commission produced reports which simply served to support the a typically aggressive but not unexpected policy of the hawkish Bush administration which populated the halls of power with Neocons. I opposed the post 9/11 wars as I had opposed them all since Vietnam.
As a result of the failure of the USG to supply a reasonable explanation to ME about why the towers came down as they did.... I turned to AE911T as an architect assuming they would take this on and provide the explanation I was looking for and signed their petition asking for a new investigation. At the time I was only mildly aware of the truth movement's claims. I had a distrust of official pronouncements and was aware of how intel's actions in the assassinations of Allende and Mosedegh and so forth were covered up. I read Agee and several other books, followed Sibel Edmonds and read John Perkins and Naomi Klien and Naomi Wolff and had been a supporter and listener to WBAI since the 60s.
I explained how I volunteered to help Gage when I met him at the first 9/11 event I attended in 2009. At that date I was not well informed about the truth case for CD and the inside job. Over the Fall over 2009 through the Spring of 2010 I read and saw as much as the materials I could.
The truth case was not conclusive. There was ambiguity at best. Their (false) certainty was not warranted. I discovered some incorrect statements which were used as evidence. I soon realized that all positions about the event were based on what was called evidence and that this was usually subjected to interpretation. The solution/explanation was evidence starved. Why this was is something I can't explain except that the hawks/neocons had no interest in details and simply wanted to roll out their plains for war and the New American Century.
The truth movement saw this as the proof of a false flag... I read it as an analysis of what the Hawks wanted to see - full spectrum dominance of the US by use of the military... a think tank paper which was intended to (and successfully did) drive US policy.
Most of the 9/11 truth materials are repetitious and rarely is there anything new. Gage does the exact same dog and pony show in his presentations. I've attended enough 9/11 truth conferences to know that the presentations are always the same and the audience is filled with 9/11 supporters and hardly any with no opinion or people who are well informed and support the official account of 9/11.
In Spring of 2010 after I left AE911T because they could not abide my independent thinking and without a resounding support of all their bullet points I was characterized as a spy and infiltrator, dis info agent and worse. It was really bizarre behavior and resembled McCarthyite behavior by a group who had "truth" in their name. These groups were no interested in truth, but advancing their VIEW of a CD inside job false flag.
The case for CD has never been made and no evidence for it presented. It's a case of incredulity because the truther can't believe that buildings can collapse from almost any cause except placed devices. They are wrong. Several try to come up with smoke and mirror explanation which sound and appear as technical. These are all flawed for one reason or another...usually flawed observations and data, ignoring data, and assumptions about conditions which were not present. All this is possible because NIST has not collected and made available all the data to properly analyze the collapses.
However there are explanations which do not required devices and some of those that do, such as mini nukes and directed energy weapons have clearly been shown to be wrong.
I don't dispute that officials lie and also engage in wrong doing and cover this (and incompetency), and protect the old boys all the time. We have an accountability problem in this country. The elite and powerful are allowed to escape justice and accountability. We see this in the recent financial collapse ion the mortgage industry and the trading of financial instruments. Corruption is not punished.
The burden of proof of a CD is upon those who make the claim... So make your case and avoid the socio political in your arguments. I've not been convinced by those I've read or heard to date.
As far as deep politics go... I would leave this motivation out of the technical explanation. Once it has been determined what happened... then who was behind it can be identified.
I am not an agent... just an interested person with some time to devote to this. But it's becoming a waste of time because of the endless repetition. I don't excuse the USG and believe they did obfuscate about 9/11. I have seen no convincing case for CD.