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.Just a few strokes of genius by Jack Duggan. Read it ALL (very powerful) at Peaceful Assembly.org.
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.
posted by qrswave @ Friday, February 17, 2006
9 Comments:
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.
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?
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.
"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.
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.
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.
For edification - seetl = steel. That was a typo!
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.
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