< HOME  Friday, February 17, 2006

The Bear That's There

All the stories we see in the TV news, print and Internet media today are like mice in a small room occupied by a grizzly bear. We can see the bear, hear him panting and growling as he attempts to stomp on us, but everyone pretends he's just not there, even though he's eating all the food and we mice are starving.

The bear is the U.S. government and media cover up of the 9/11 attacks. They never came close to proving that foreign "terrorists" were involved . . .

* * *

. . . Central government today is one-hundred times worse than under George III, yet how many Americans can see this? Perhaps most don't want to see it, because it might compel them to drop their precious remote controls.
Just a few strokes of genius by Jack Duggan. Read it ALL (very powerful) at Peaceful Assembly.org.

16 Comments:

At Friday, February 17, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

Read the 9/11 Report.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/

Believe the report or don't, that's up to you, but you should read the report before making the assertion that Bush planned the event. I personally believe he was criminally negligent and could have done way more to prevent everything. I also think he has ties to the hijackers. But I do not believe he planned this.

When you say things like "Norad was told to stand down." No, what happened was Bush was busy reading "My Pet Goat" and was not there to direct Norad to shoot down the planes. The law prior to 9/11 was that the prez had to direct Norad to do such things.

This goes back to his being criminally negligent.

 
At Friday, February 17, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

I want to add that there's ample proof that in fact the terrorists were who the media portrays them to be. There were cell phone calls made to family members from the plane, where passengers describe the hijackers. I think it is pretty clear the hijackers were who we the media says they are. I have no doubt about this, given the extensive evidence and the cell phone calls.

I also see no motive for blowing up Tower 7. What would be the motive? Was there some sort of secret documents in there? But wouldn't that be pretty easy to just steal from the building? I simply don't see the motive to blow that building up.

Then let's look at the two towers. Why blow them up? What would be the motive? As I previously said, there's ample evidence (from the 911 calls and calls to family members on the plane) that the alleged hijackers were the hijackers. So this means two planes crashed into two buildings. Whether or not the buildings were blown up, I would say that that alone is enough to incredibly scar the American psyche, if that was the goal. So why blow up the buildings? What exactly would be the motive to do so?

I saw the twisted metal. The science of 9/11 is being examined right now. I can tell you that the heat generated from the amazing amount of fuel, plus the unique material the buildings were made out of - it produced some pretty combustible and toxic stuff. I certainly would not want to live in Battery Park City.

Honestly, saying the hijackers were anyone but who they are said to be in the media is an assertion that requires proof. How exactly can any of the so-called proof from your link back up the proof of the 911 phone calls from the plane? And for the record, the sound of a building falling down which is one of the tallest in the world, combined with all the toxicity that was part of the building - that could sound like an explosion.

I believe 9/11 was a hoax only insofar as the media refuses to look at Bush's criminal negligence. But there is zero actual proof that anyone but the hijackers who were labeled as the hijackers in fact did the horrible deed.

Who are you saying hijacked the planes, then? Ted Olson's wife? I mean, there has to have been a motive of someone on the plane. Who else?

 
At Friday, February 17, 2006, Blogger vper1 said...

Who benefited the most from the attacks?

 
At Friday, February 17, 2006, Blogger Jeff G said...

Check out the research at:

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/

There are still a significant number of unanswered questions, many of which the 911 commission did not address. To say the buildings fell as a result of the plane crashes strains the laws of physics and the principles of engineering. For the buildings to have fallen in their footprints (rather than toppling) would require the 47 core beams to fail at the same level (floor) simultaneously. The odds are astronomical. Furthermore, the angle of impact from the second plane was skewed enough to miss the building's core entirely.

If the buildings were pulled (detonated), the question of who is still lingering in the air. Further investigation is certainly warranted.

I'm not claiming that the Bushies planned this, but they are, at the very least, criminally negligent, as Miss R says. Needing another "pearl harbor" event to garner public support for military aggression abroad, they may have even known it was going to happen and chose to allow it.

Whatever the case, we should not close the book on this event, but continue to learn as much as we can.

 
At Friday, February 17, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

Did any of you think that's it's possible the buildings were purposely blown up, but only for safety purposes? There is no question that the buildings were going to fall. The impact from the planes was enough to make the buildings tumble down. Maybe, someone DID plant bombs in the buildings, but it was for the safety of everyone in the neighborhood! Because, alternatively, the towers would have fallen into other buildings.

What I said below is absolute speculation. But what we do know at this point is that there is no proof AT ALL that Bush PLANNED 9/11 or that the towers "purposely" were taken down. I just am giving an alternative possibility to show that even if the towers were taken down by explosion, it doesn't have to be for nefarious reasons.

 
At Friday, February 17, 2006, Blogger vper1 said...

I have a hard time dealing with the 'saftey' aspect. Seeing as how the EPA declared the air safe to breathe after the attacks.

 
At Friday, February 17, 2006, Blogger qrswave said...

"Next week the MadCowMorningNews will succeed in doing something neither the Congressional Intelligence Committee’s nor the 9.11 Commission’s investigation ever did: depose under oath an associate of Mohamed Atta’s in Florida."

Thanks to MR at WRH for the link.

This charade is going down.

No one said Bush did it, and no one really knows WHO exactly knew what was going on. But, there is no doubt in my mind that 9/11 was an inside job, i.e., involved government officials.

People in the government - I don't know who - are behind this catastrophe. It's just a matter of time before the truth is uncovered for all to see.

 
At Friday, February 17, 2006, Blogger Jeff G said...

If the buildings were pulled for "safety" reasons while thousands of people were still inside, I find that somewhat nefarious. Especially given testimony that people were told to remain in place and that everything was under control.

And I don't believe that the buildings' collapse was a certainty. The towers were engineered to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, which differs only slightly from the weight and thrust of the planes that actually hit on 9-11.

Too many questions have not been answered satisfactorily. I'm not making any assertions regarding who may or may not have been complicit. But our understanding of what happened that day is far from complete.

 
At Friday, February 17, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

Jeff G,

People were told to remain in place after the first tower was hit. They were not told to remain in place after the second tower was hit. I should know. I know a close family friend who was in Tower Two when Tower One was hit. If he listened to the instructions, he would be dead today. He told me about the timeline of 9/11 in detail.

That said, the fire fighters were going up into the buildings as they were collapsing. Somehow there was a miscommunication if the buildings were collapsed for safety reasons.

In any case, I still believe the towers fell on their own. The buildings were not built to withstand those 747 planes with that massive amount of fuel in them. That was the issue - not the impact of the planes, but the massive amount of fuel and all the material inside the towers that were highly combustible.

 
At Friday, February 17, 2006, Blogger vper1 said...

I don't think any of us is able to make an accurate prediction of just exactly what exactly burnt inside the building and what didn't. Personally I think pulling the buildings for "saftey" reasons is dubious.

I think the Achilles heal is the pentagon;If there's no cover up, then why has the pentagon only released 5 frames of video? Surely if it was a 747 they could just release all the surveillance data that day.

I'd also like to see some of flight 93's wreckage.

 
At Friday, February 17, 2006, Blogger Jeff G said...

Its my contention that the fires were not hot enough to cause the collapse of the towers. (link)

The following is a quote from the above link:

Prof. Thomas Eagar explained in 2001 that the WTC fires would NOT melt steel:

"The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.... The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.

In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame.... In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire. Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types... The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1000 °C -- hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1500 °C.

But it is very difficult to reach [even] this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame.
There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio... This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500 °C to 650 °C range [Cote, 1992]. It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke.... It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425 °C and loses about half of its strength at 650 °C [Cote, 1992]. This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse... The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable... Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650 °C fire." (Eagar and Musso, 2001; emphasis added.)

 
At Friday, February 17, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

The fire in the WTC is not thought to have reached the temp merely because of the jet fuel. There was also material actually present in the buildings - computers, lamps, desks, chairs - that is thought to have increased the temperature of the fire.

I saw the material from the WTC. I stupidly forgot to bring my camera with me, but I saw what probably 200 people in the world (tops) have seen. I walked the grounds of Ground Zero - something almost no one else has been able to do.

I am not a scientist, but I see it as conceivable that the mix of whatever was in the building + the fires caused an incredible heat that melted the steel. I saw - with my own two eyes - melted seetl - representing several flights of the WTC, mixed with a filing cabinet sticking out of it. How it is possible that the filing cabinet somehow did not completely melt and the floors did is anyone's guess. But it seems clear to me that anything powerful enough to cause that reaction is not yet understood by science. Jumping to the conclusion that "well, the building must have been blown up" seems premature at best. I saw scientists analyzing this material with my own two eyes. This is still being studied and examined.

 
At Friday, February 17, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

For edification - seetl = steel. That was a typo!

 
At Friday, February 17, 2006, Blogger Jeff G said...

Its the contention of the physicists at Brigham Young University (and professors abroad)that the melted steel you witness on the ground was a result of high temperature cutter-charges (i.e. thermite, thermate...used in building demolition).

From the link I previously quoted:

"Thus, molten metal was repeatedly observed and formally reported in the rubble piles of the WTC Towers and WTC 7, metal that looked like molten steel or perhaps iron. Scientific analysis would be needed to ascertain the actual composition of the molten metal.

I maintain that these observations are consistent with the use of high-temperature cutter-charges such as thermite, HDX or RDX or some combination thereof, routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel. Thermite is a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum powder. The end products of the thermite reaction are aluminum oxide and molten iron. So the thermite reaction generates molten iron directly, and is hot enough to melt and even evaporate steel which it contacts while reacting. Thermite contains its own supply
of oxygen and so the reaction cannot be smothered, even with water. Use of sulfur in conjunction with the thermite, for example in thermate, will accelerate the destructive effect on steel, and sulfidation of structural steel was indeed observed in some of the few recovered members from the WTC rubble, as reported in Appendix C of the FEMA report. (FEMA, 2005; see also,


http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html
.) On the other hand, falling buildings (absent explosives) have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal.

 
At Friday, February 17, 2006, Anonymous Byrne said...

Miss r, I'd be interested in your explanations of all the 9/11 coincidences listed here

I'd recommend everyone to read this excellent article & follow the link.

 
At Friday, February 17, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

I am not denying the possible accomplice of the government in this whole reaction. I agree there are too many coincidences. I just think the actual people who planned and carried out the attacks were Islamic fundamentalists. I also think the government knew or certainly should have known the attacks were coming, and did nothing in response. That all said, I believe, coincidences notwithstanding, the Islamic fundamentalists carried out the attacks.

It is certainly possible that Islamic fundamentalists carried out the attacksand the government was criminally negligent or even an accomplice to everything. There are so many documented ties between Bush and Bin Laden that this seems like the most likely possibility.

This is also my belief about WWII. I believe FDR knew or had an idea the attacks were coming on Pearl Harbor, and did not do his job to prevent them. I do not believe FDR actively planned the attacks.

There is simply no explanation for the documented deaths of the people on the planes + all the cell phone calls.

Yes, Bush had much to gain from 9/11. Yes, I really don't think the people at the top, such as Cheney, care much for human life. But no, I do not think they actively planned the attacks. (they did not STOP them, but didn't PLAN them)

 

Post a Comment

<< Home