Member since Apr 8, 2009



  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

Recent Comments

Re: “What's crazier, believing the U.S. orchestrated 9/11 or that Saddam did?

" would certainly be too incompetent to cover it up."

Which is precisely why we are still talking about this...

It is one thing to believe they were too incompetent to pull it off, except, what if they were competent enough? Believing they weren't, if they were, leaves you as the one lacking. Re-think your position. Trusting to their incompetence after all that has happened to our country doesn't seem too wise.

Posted by sdemetri on April 8, 2009 at 12:54 PM

Re: “What's crazier, believing the U.S. orchestrated 9/11 or that Saddam did?

"Taken seriously by few" is a relative observation. The website, Patriots Question 9/11, contains a list of hundreds of people, engineers, academics, government officials, fire officials, firefighters (who were there), police, pilots, military officers, fighter pilots, architects.... hundreds of people, some with impressive credentials, some without, who all have serious reservations about the story that we have been told about the who, what, and why of the 9/11 attacks.

An interesting exercise regarding the media's reporting of the event is to go to the Internet Archive for the television coverage the major networks gave the event. It is astonishing to me that literally within minutes of the first plane crashing into the North Tower, the narrative that still exists today began to be voiced.

Commentators like Peter Jennings talked in real time about the collapse of the South Tower looking like controlled demolition, discussing the possibility of planted explosives. He said, "If you want to do this you are going to have to get at the under-infrastructure of a building and bring it down." He said a few minutes later, "I am desperately confused about what may have caused the building to collapse." The thought of planted explosives is dismissed by the "expert" at his elbow, and the al Qeada narrative takes shape.

The New York City Fire Department Oral History project, interviews taken of 503 fire department employees from Oct 2001 to Jan 2002, before, as Fire Commissioner Van Essen said a "collective memory" sets in, contains 118 eyewitnesses with 178 accounts of explosions in the buildings. Several tell of three massive explosions just prior to each building beginning to pulverize into expanding billows of dust.

Days ago a peer reviewed paper, that required months of work satisfying the stringent requirements of the reviewers, was published that shows highly explosive nano-composite compounds in dust samples taken from around the collapsed buildings. Nano-composite compounds have been the subject of research by several official and military research groups.

The official government story is as much a conspiracy theory as a Saddam/Bin Laden association. The theory that best fits the evidence that continues to come to the light is, the towers in Manhattan were brought down by explosive demolition, not fire and aircraft damage. They were specifically designed to withstand that type of damage. And none of the fire chiefs or fighters expected the buildings to collapse. They went in to rescue people. Had they expected something else, they would have not gone in.

Posted by sdemetri on April 8, 2009 at 10:54 AM
Classified Listings

Powered by Foundation   © Copyright 2017, Charleston City Paper   RSS