Maestro - Dick Cheney Was In Charge On 9/11

As far as I'm concerned the entire administration is to blame for allowing 9/11 to happen, but likely Cheney moreso than others. Now we have his lunatic daughter blathering about how Obama's supposed comments mean he won't be able to defend against such an attack. If it ever happens again anything he does in response should be better.. The Bush Admin set the bar pretty low!

The problem is that since President Bush wasn't in control on 9/11, how do we know who will be in control in the next 'terrorist attack'?  

You'd think more people would have figured out the official story doesn't add up.

The alternative "explanation" requires such a high degree of incompetence that it ought to have been sufficient to impeach, so the idea that this was planned and the fact that it fits with Bush's War President thinking and Cheney's Energy Wars and PNAC wet dreams is more likely.  

When we step outside the spell cast by "9/11 changed everything," we could see that 9/11 by itself was a spectacular crime of little strategic impact.  We did it to ourselves in our reaction, and not getting bin Laden only makes sense when the larger design is the real action.  Keep the Fear Alive.

I appreciate the detail of the research into the depths of this crime.  I don't expect to have it taken seriously by the established powers or those who seek to work within "the system."  When we get around to putting together a system that can work, this lesson of history will be a profound teaching resource.

I'll say it again 9-11 was a "shock and awe" operation intended to snow all but the sharpest of Americans.  And those they got intel to label "conspiracy nuts."  This is a modus operandi used all throughout history.  Remember the old "Mission Impossible" TV series where the self-destructing tape would say " As always, should you or any of your IM force be caught or killed, the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions."  And BTW the force was called the "Impossible Mission Force" or IMF.  <grin>

It would follow then, that conspiracy nuts should be running the various offices of intelligence. We don't get fooled easily.

I posted on this topic on an adjoining thread about the believability of conspiracy theories.  I agree with the critics of the official version totally.  We, at least, do not know what really happened.

We do know how the event was misused and how well prepared they were to do so.  The PNAC script and logic of peak oil and the thirst of the imperial petro-military machine has a creepy rationality within its insanity.

The other question I raised is "what really changed as opposed to how 9/11 was used to cover for "changes" imposed upon us?  I think we kiss bin Laden's sandals everytime we fly, and the meme "everything changed" has a sad PR history compared to anything real.  Maybe naivete was lost as "oceans no longer protected us."  But really, did we have no idea that we had pissed off people around the world or that they would have no ability to inflict any "blowback" on us?  

We have learned nothing from 9/11 that has helped us "change" anything.

People should look at it this way. Our current socio/economic collapse came after eight years of Bush/Cheney. Now instead of watching the results of US foreign policy destroy Afghanistan and Iraqi lives, we get to feel the experience for ourselves.

If, and I say if, but if Bldg No. 7 was imploded, then it follows that al-Qaeda could not have been soley responsible. It follows then that elements within the Bush administration facilitated the attacks. It follows that the biggest mass murderers in US history gained control of the Whitehouse with the aid of James Baker, the man who threw the election for Bush, the man who defended the Saudis including the Bin Laden family from the families of the victims of 9-11, and James Baker is president of the Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce that concerns itself with creating the infrastructure to move oil paid for by US taxpayers.

All this is reality IF Bldg No. 7 was imploded. Was it?

http://buildingwhat.org/video-gallery/

If things are just as the official story says they are, then why is the media loath to even discuss this building. Test this, ask everybody you meet if they know what Building No 7 is. When it is obvious that the public knows virtually nothing about this building that collapsed at free fall rate at the World Trade Center, doesn't that suggest they (? fill in the blank______) don't want people to know about it. Like the link to the pipeline politics, some things are just too obvious and have to be covered up.

Well, in follow up on seeing that many of the critical analyzers of America's 9/11 three buildings imploding with two airplance impacts (like have never happened before--or in any real consideration of the conservation of mass and energy) in Choco's connection above are German (they should know fascism when they see it, don't you think?), I thought it would be pertinent to cite Adolph Hitler in Mein Kampf.  I know how many don't like to have all this compared to the Nazis--but I think there is something there for us to learn as Hitler 'learned' from the successful war propaganda of the Americans and British in World War I--inclusive of the very lie that the Lusitania didn't contain explosives used in war when the German U-boat sunk it.  This comes from Chapter VI titled in my translation (first edition translated by Ralph Manheim) titled 'War Propaganda':

All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to.   Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be.   But if, as in propaganda for sticking out a war, the aim is to influence a whole people, we must avoid excessive intellectual demands on our public, and too much caution cannot be exerted in this direction. 

The more modest its intellectual ballast, the more exclusively it takes into consideration the emotions of the masses, the more effective it will be.  And this is the best proof of the soundness or unsoundness of a propaganda campaign, and not success in pleasing a few scholars or young asthetes.

The art of propaganda lies in understanding the emotional ideas of the great masses and finding, through a psychologically correct form, the way to the attention and thence to the heart of the broad masses.   The fact that our bright boys do not understand this merely shows how mentally lazy and conceited they are.

Once we understand how necessary it is for propaganda to be adjusted to the broad mass, the following rule results:

It is a mistake to make propaganda many-sided, like scientific instruction, for instance.

The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous.  In consequence, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan.  As soon as you sacrifice this slogan and try to be many-sided, the effect will piddle away, for the crowd can neither digest nor retain the material offered.   In this way the result is weakened and in the end entirely cancelled out.  

Thus we see that propaganda must follow a simple line and correspondingly the basic tactics must be psychologically sound.

For instance, it was absolutely wrong to make the enemy ridiculous, as the Austrian and German comic papers did.  It was absolutely wrong because actual contact with an enemy soldier was bound to arouse an entirely different conviction, and the results were devastating; for now the German soldier, under the direct impression of the enemy's resistance, felt himself swindled by his propaganda service.  His desire to fight, or even to stand firm, was not strengthened, but the opposite occured.   His courage flagged.

By contrast, the war propaganda of the English and Americans was psychologically sound.  By representing the Germans to their own people as barbarians and Huns, they prepared the individual soldier for the terrors of war, and thus helped to preserve him from disappointments.  After this, the most terrible weapon that was used against him seemed only to confirm what his propagandists had told him; it likewise reinforced his faith in the truth of his government's assertions, while on the other hand it increased his rage and hatred against the vile enemy.   For the cruel effects of the weapon, whose use by the enemy he now came to know, gradually confirmed for him the 'Hunnish' brutality of the barbarous enemy, which he had heard all about; and it never dawned on him for a moment that his own weapons possibly, if not probably, might even be more terrible in their effects.

Now, remember, this is the same guy that proposed something to the effect that 'the masses would more likely believe a big lie than a little one'--and it appears for the purposes of 'war propaganda', the bigger the lie the better....

Later on in that same chapter, Hitler writes:

What our authorities least of all understood was the very first axiom of all propagandist activity:  to wit, the basically subjective and one-sided attitude it must take toward every question it deals with.   In this connection, from the very beginning of the War and from top to bottom, such sins were committed that we were entitled to doubt whether so much absurdity could really be attributed to pure stupidity alone.

What, for example, would we say about a poster that was supposed to advertise a new soap and that described other soaps as 'good'?

We would only shake our heads.

Exactly the same applies to political advertising.

The function of propaganda is, for example, not to weigh and ponder the rights of different people, but exclusively to emphasize the one right which it has set out to argue for.  Its task is not to make an objective study of the truth, in so far as it favors the enemy, and then set it before the masses with academic fairness; its task is to serve our own right, always and unflinchingly.

No matter what the facts might, otherwise, indicate....

Keep the faith....

Oh, I had to add this part because I believe it gets right to what Hitler is thinking of when he states something has to be 'psychologically sound'.  It is, again, later on in that above chapter I refer to above (emphases will be mine):

It was absolutely wrong to discuss war-guilt from the standpoint that Germany alone could not be held responsible for the outbreak of the catastrophe; it would have been correct to load every bit of the blame on the shoulders of the enemy, even if this had not really corresponded to the true facts, as it actually did.

And what was the consequence of this half-heartedness?

The broad mass of a nation does not consist of diplomats, or even professors of political law, or even individuals capable of forming a rational opinion; it consists of plain mortals, wavering and inclined to doubt and uncertainty.  As soon as our own propaganda admits so much as a glimmer of right on the other side, the foundation for doubt in our own right has been laid.  The masses are then in no position to distinguish where foreign injustice ends and our own begins.  In such a case they become uncertain and suspicious, especially if the enemy refrains from going in for the same nonsense, but unloads every bit of blame on his adversary.  Isn't it perfectly understandable that the whole country ends up by lending more credence to enemy propaganda, which is more unified and coherent, than to its own?   And particularly a people that suffers from the mania of objectivity as much as the Germans.   For, after all this, everyone will take the greatest pains to avoid doing the enemy any injustice, even at the peril of seriously besmirching and destroying his own people and country.

Of course, this was not the intent of the responsible authorities, but the people never realize that.

The people in their overwhelming majority are so feminine by nature and attitude that sober reasoning determines their thoughts and actions far less than emotion and feeling.

And this sentiment is not complicated, but very simple and all of a piece.  It does not have multiple shadings; it has a positive and a negative; love or hate, right or wrong, truth or lie, never half this way and half that way, never partially, or that kind of thing.

English propagandists understood all this most brilliantly--and acted accordingly.   They made no half statements that might have given rise to doubts.

Their brilliant knowledge of the primitive sentiments of the broad masses is shown by their atrocity propaganda, which was adapted to this condition.   As ruthless as it was brilliant, it created the preconditions for moral steadfastness at the front, even in the face of the greatest actual defeats, and just as strikingly it pilloried the German enemy as the sole guilty party for the outbreak of the War:  the rabid, impudent bias and persistence with which this lie was expressed took into account the emotional, always extreme, attitude of the great masses and for this reason was believed.

And, in Mein Kampf, Hitler vowed never to make that mistake with how the Germans handled propaganda in World War I again....(Hitler's position on 'feminine nature of the masses' always has me remember verse 22 in the Gospel of Thomas '.....where the male not be male nor the female female....' in '...entering the kingdom.'). 

You people are the Progressive equivalents of righties who want to see the Presidents birth certificate.

Not exactly.  In the President's birth certificate case, it only requires the production of the document--and, even in that case, many of 'the believers' will still doubt it (the document was probably faked).   In 9/11's case, it really is an appeal to rational and logical scientific principles (Did you follow Choco's connection on that--especially as to what the German demolition expert said to the reporter who presented building 7's implosion to him unprepared?  The 'official explanation' put out years after the 9/11 Commission admitted that it didn't have an explanation for building 7's implosion was a brand new scientific phenomenon never presented before....and not getting much press on it, either....it's a different form of 'faking'....).  

Really?  PeeWee, your false equivalency fails on the point of evidence.  We have the President's birth certificate and lots of other evidence to support his claim of being born in Hawaii.  The conspiracy theory behind the birther crap is nuttier than the birth certificate itself as an issue.  Even the Superman story makes more sense than the Kenyan Conspiracy.

On the other hand, we look at Cheney's behavior and stated ideas about the world.  We see the evidence of 9/11 being whisked away to avoid examination, at least with public eyes and ears.  And we are left with a story that would either damn Cheney as incompetent or suggest criminality.  

You need a bit of reality serum to regain any semblance of rationality and objectivity about these matters.

I'm sooooo happy to see this topic discussed on Thom's board.  I wish more left leaning pundits like Stewart, Colbert, Maher, Maddow, and the rest wouldn't discount the 9/11 truth seekers.  Why is it so hard for people to trace A) the well published, 30 year old, Neo-Con agenda of spreading democracy through the middle east by use of force, B) W's statements prior to the 2000 election regarding taking out Saddam, C) an obviously stolen election in 2000, and D) the lies used to get us into war with Iraq after 9/11, to see that there is more than a large possibility that our government either willingly participated in, or turned a blind eye to, the mass murder that took place on 9/11???  There are sooo many question marks that remain regarding 9/11 and none of our corporate sponsored media have the balls to point out the obvious; however, a Tea Party member who has a problem with Obama's policies and boy oh boy watch out, it's wall to wall Tea Party coverage.  Its all BS in my opinion!!!

 Actually I think Pee Wee is progressing from the tin hat comments. As to the birther comparison, 9/11 would seemingly be a more impactful issue, but they probably are correct with the facts as they know them. And I certainly support the idea that they have their questions addressed as well.

 As for Mineta I hope people realize that the 9/11 commission claims all the events Mineta claims to have happened with his encounter with Cheney did occur, but they occured at 10.10 rather than 9.25. A little hard to believe that Mineta could be 45 minutes in his account of his whereabouts that morning given the certainy he claims regarding the time. Further. Mineta claims he left his office when the White House had first begun to evacuate. You will hear it claimed that the evacuation began much later, supposedly casting doubt on Mineta's accuracy of events, but White House photographer Broder confirmed the unofficial evacuation began much earlier.

 So you might be interested in what the 9/11 commission claims Cheney was responding to with Mineta at 10.10. The claim is that the secret service had an estimate on wher flight 93 was. In actuallity 93 was crashing in Pennsylvania at approximately that moment. Further virtually every military commander has made statements that they had tracked 93 from around 9.30. Nonetheless the commission report states that the secret service estimate was that 93 was approaching Wasington at 10.10 and that Cheney was barking orders in response to a phantom report of flight 93 approaching D.C Whether there were actual interceptors involved in looking for the supposed plane remains unknown.

I was quoting Hitler in Mein Kampf to give you a perspective on a fascist's idea on war propaganda as a way to compare it to today's war propaganda.  I suspect that I'm not the only one that has read Mein Kampf.

I don't remember anything in Mein Kampf concerning Hitler's father beating him--or being an alcoholic for that matter (but he might have been).  His comment on feminism is rather striking in its contrast--Hitler claimed 'the masses' were 'led by emotion'--but, then, had simple attributes of 'right and wrong', 'love and hate', etc.--things Hitler was later to master manipulate in his rather simple but emotional public speaking appearances. As a form of coping mechanism, we often project that which we don't like in ourselves as 'the other'....

Two things I do remember in Mein Kampf.   Hitler's hatred and scapegoating of the Jews actually started as a personal experience for Hitler.  Hitler had wanted to be an architect--the Registrar who refused his admission into the prominent architectural university in Vienna was a Jew.  I wonder if that Registrar ever realized that.  Also, Hitler's exposure to nerve gas in World War I damaged Hitler's eyesight (which hampered his ability as an artist) and may have later led to some progressive nerve dysfunctions later on in Hitler's reign--noted by a mild form of dementia and a progressive shaking dysfunction in one of his arms (he had to realize at that point he wasn't the 'perfect Aryan').   But we know about mildly demented leaders, don't we?--Ronald Reagan started showing evidence of that in the later years of his presidency.  

I've also read someone comment here in cyberspace that perhaps the real target for flight 93 might have been building 7--but something went wrong.....

Another part to listen to in Choco's above connection is that three part series on the NIST's assessment of building 7's fall.   This was done by a high school physics teacher (who had to qualify his remarks that it was only 'his opinion' and not the opinion of the organization that he belonged to).   It's interesting (and somewhat distressing) to me that the higher up in the eschelons of academia some reach, the more obscure they describe the facts of the issue at hand. 

Another quote relative to this would be in that same Don Henley song, Gimme What You Got, where I keep quoting 'A man with a briefcase can steal more money than any man with a gun'---later on in that song, Henley writes, 'When you cross a lawyer with the godfather, he'll make you an offer that you can't understand'.....why some of those in higher academia give themselves the right to obscure more than delineate is probably one of the problems as to why 9/11 hasn't been seen for what it is--a contradiction to the very laws that describe how matter and energy interact.....and 'free fall speed' is, as those high school physics students described so well in their Loose Change video, is the problem with how every one of these buildings at the World Trade Center fell....especially building 7 that didn't even get impacted by the planes....

Perhaps it had to do with material from the towers falling on them causing structural weaknesses combined with fires that raged for hours as they  were unable to be extinguished because of the lack of water.

To believe the official version is to admit that you know nothing of physics. It's like watching a Hollywood action movie and believing the stunts are real.

It comes down to this: steel columns, girders, trusses and pre-stressed reinforced concrete are resilient materials. They are not akin to crystalized glass. There is no way tempered steel columns and the interlocking structures could have simply collapsed all at once in symetrical fashion. Since no steel framed skyscrapers have ever fallen as the ones in Manhattan did on that day, despite having much more severe fires for much longer time, proves this out. Steel resists collapsing. Steel is not a wet noodle, different materials have different resistance to deformation. Steel could not be collapsed at free fall rate. That some believe it could would mean that they believe steel offeres absolutely zero resistance. The physics (not to mention eye witnesses) prove that the resistance was removed by controlled demolition. It's the only way to make the physics that we saw obey the laws of physics. In other words, a free fall collapse of steel and concrete would be a complete violation of the laws of physics.

There's a good reason the Architects and Engineers of 9-11 Truth superimpose a known imploded building with No. 7. It is to show that they look like each other because the method of destruction was the same. It's sad and pathetic for a human to see something with his or her own eyes and then let someone else tell him or her that they actually saw something else. It's like religion, someone else reads the same book you can read, then proceedes to tell you what it means.

When you combine the physics with the motive as laid out in Paul Thompson's Pipeline Politics, it's a solid case of Means, Motive and Opportunity. The fact that these people are not in jail only underlines the frustration we all have expressed here in that the system has become so corrupted by big business money that even man's and God's laws are ignored and coopted by those who benefit from war and Imperialism. Nothing is real except for what we say is real. Money from nothing defies physics too.

wrong answer Gotitdone.  If building 7 were to have collapsed from debris and raging fire, then it wouldn't have fallen in the same manner as the towers did.  All 3 buildings mysteriously collapsed on themselves.  Wow.  What a coincidence huh?  3 buildings that shouldn't have fallen in a style consistent with demolition, fell in just such a manner.  I can see how it could be possible for one of the towers to fall that way, but the chances are so slim that for all three of those buildings to have fallen in such a manner makes an intelligent mind question the validity of the events of 9/11.  Don't believe the hype my friend.  Ask your own questions.  And when the answers aren't sufficient, ask again until you get to the truth.

The only way for the towers or Bldg 7 to collapse on themselves in the manner they did, would be if they were purposely demolitioned.  The NIST report claims that there may have been pockets hot enough to melt steal.  Pockets?  May have been?  Hmmm.  So if there MAY have been only POCKETS hot enough to melt steal, why didn't the bldgs buckle on their way down?  Wouldn't it be consistent with the NISTs report that the building would buckle at some point?  Its impossible for the bldgs to have come down the way they did without planned explosives.  Anyone accepting the official story is either stupid, gullible, or part of the cover up.  Which are you??

The tallest building ever demolished with explosives; 26 story, 439 ft. the Hudson dept store.                       

http://www.implosionworld.com/records.htm

Building 7; 47 stories, 610 ft

Twin towers 110 floors and 1300 ft +

The Hudson building took 12 people 24 days to set up.

Don't miss the point.   Even the three NIST videos in Choco's above connection about the NIST 'final report' on building 7 has those experts point out it is physically impossible for buildings to do that and that they couldn't explain why a building would fall at free fall speed under non-demolition circumstances--and then, as the video shows, they go on to try to fudge the numbers to try to say that it didn't happen (numbers never put out for anyone else to independently confirm--which, in any other circumstance but this one, would have been considered shoddy science)--free fall does, indeed, mean that all support was lost simultaneously--impossible for buildings to do without simultaneously destroying all support.  Watch those videos--it's high school physics teacher's report and he does a pretty good job explaining it--after all, he is a teacher....

http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

It really takes no imagination to see that these buildings fell in a complete and rapid fashion--like no other buildings before.   Two with an impact each (that could not have destroyed all the support at once)--and one with no impact at all.   Even the original 9/11 Commission admitted it had no explanation for building 7--that came years later and, as the videos in Choco's connection above indicate, using science that was not allowed to be independently reviewed.  If this had been a study submitted to a peer-reviewed journal, it would have been rejected.  And, this got little to no mass media coverage....

Even the original 9/11 Commission report made no attempt to explain the entire collapse sequence of the buildings that did get impacted by the planes--it only made computer models to try to explain the beginning of the collapse and said that 'the rest doesn't need to be explained'....and, don't forget all the circumstantial evidence--most of the material was quickly taken away and sold to China....they never planned on investigating this thoroughly.....even though over 3000 people lost their lives....and just how did was it so quickly determined that Al Qaeda did this after the event if nothing was known (or even 'suspected'--Bush, Cheney and Rice all said that no one could have even suspected that planes could do this even though, even at the time, there was a mock-drill being done on terrorist attacks including planes flying into the World Trade Center--highly coincidental--but, not enough it looks like for 'the masses' to question it...).  

Yeah, we've seen that tripe already. Do you realize that this is not partisan politics? Many of the 9-11 Scholars call themselves republicans? This is the event/subject that crosses party lines. Many democrats are in on the cover up just as many republicans are. It's not a matter of politics, its a matter of truth and justice.

 I looked at your link though, just for the hell of it. It's bogus from the outset. First of all it's calling the facade beams. Those aren't beams. The beams are covered by the aluminum facade. Second point, nobody ever said an imploded building has to fall at exactly free fall speed. Look at videos of controlled demolitions. Not all are falling at exactly free fall speed, close, but there is no physical requirements that they have to fall at free fall rate. The idea is to detonate the charges in sequence so that when the upper floor falls, it's weight collapses on the next floor and then it detonates and so on. It takes milliseconds for each floor to accelerate so as long as the lower floors are not tardy in their detonation, then it's not crucial. Too late and the upper floors may spill off the floor that is not detonated. That's why they use computer programs and remote, wireless transmitters to detonate the charges. They could play a symphony with the explosions if they desired too.

Your so called evidence has worked against you. You are working against the truth, it seems.

I'm a cabinet maker, not an engineer so this stuff is not something I have a full understanding of and am not knowledgeable enough to argue the mechanics of it.

But what I do know is that what is required to set up the demolition of a building requires a great deal of man hours and the notion being put forth here is that three buildings magnitudes larger then any other building ever demolished was some how rigged with explosives (something that would require thousands of man hours) and nobody noticed? Just does not seem plausible.

And also the larger question of why? If the goal was to goad the American people then would the planes crashing in not be sufficient to achieve that goal? Actually taking down the buildings in the manner being put forth here would be an incalculable risk of being discovered.

Since it was an element within the US government then of course they would have all the resources our tax money could buy at their disposal. And they were discovered and the buildings security systems were shut down and they did leave evidence of accessing the innards of the buildings and this is also available in the vast 9-11 Truther archives.

Because crashing the planes might not have been traumatic enough. If you recall, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait because Kuwait was slant drilling into Iraq oil fields and our Ambassador (name?) I don't want to look for her name now, gave Saddam the ok (in so many words)  to invade with the assurance the US was not interested in this affair between two monarchies or two dictatorships however you want to look at it. But then the story about the Kuwati babies being torn out of their incubators and left to die on the hospital floors was told by a young crying Kuwatti hospital worker. Turns out she was the daughter of the Kuwati ambassador to the US and was coached into play acting her role by the Manhattan PR firm of Hill and Knowlton. The incubator story was a lie. Hill and Knowlton polled people in the US and found out there was little support for a war with Iraq over the squabble of two Muslim kingdoms. But support for an invasion because of human rights atrocities was another matter.

It's all in the records so look it up.

The real shitter here is that they weren't very worried about being found out because they thought they had everything covered, they know their network of control is almost complete, they own the media, the intelligence agencies, the banks and the politicians. Their arrogance, audacity and brutality is simply too much for some people to comprehend, kinda like us mere mortals trying to comprehend Einstein's theories. Einstein was a genius and the masterminds of 9-11 were diabolocal geniuses. Ever hear of the Solomon Asch experiment? This shows how people respond to their peers. The Muslims did it story was pushed onto the American public while the trauma was still fresh and the need for accounability and revenge was still thick in the air.

Why do you think the FBI Mueller under orders from Aschcroft stopped the investigations by Colleen Rowley and Sibel Edmonds on al-Qaeda in the US. The FBI agents discovered the patsies and were taken off the case and silenced in order to preserve the patsies. Ever see where they trained at?

Gottitdone, none of the links you post or reasons you cite are anything new to us.  They are reasons put forth by the cover up and their logic is riddled with holes; their explanations sink faster than the titanic.

You explain that you can't see how it would be possible to pull something like that off, and I understand that reasoning.  Its easy to believe something is impossible if you can't imagine it possible.  Then to have an official panel or web page verify for you that its impossible lends validity to your already skeptic mind.  I see that.  I understand that.  And so do those who planned 9/11.  As stated by Choco, the gov't has resources at its core and can do anything it wants.  I know, I know, then how come nobody fessed up?  I don't know.  I really don't.  But I also know that its impossible for those towers to come down the way they did.  So unfortunately for you phsyics wins this debate.  It simply cannot happen that way, therefore it didn't.  The fact that you or I can't imagine it possible for a massive cover up does not mean it isn't possible.  What about Kennedy's assassination?  Or Robert Kennedy's?  Or MLK's?  What about the lies that were told to jump from 9/11 to invading Iraq?  What about the questions remaining over W's election results, both times....'00 and '04??  Don't these things add up for you?  At what point do you stop believing the reasons Fox News gives you?  Seriously.  Come on man.  Have some sense of right.  Stop being so partisan.  Open your eyes and at least admit that you can see how the offiial 9/11 report has holes and could potentially be bogus.  Any 3rd grader could see where the facts point in this storyline.

What about the Lusitania?  The Germans put out ads in American newpapers for people not to travel on it--it was a suspected transport for explosives used by the British in World War I.   Many ignored that--and the Lusitania was sunk by a German U-boat--which endorsed the American justification to get into World War I.   The 'official response' by both the British and the Americans was that there were no war explosives on that boat--and it wasn't found out until decades later when divers went down to the sunken Lusitania to find out that actually it was the Germans that were right--it had tons of explosives for war in it.   Many people had to be involved in that--how come no one came forth to 'tell the truth'?  

It can happen--and has happened before....and, I think that I have already alluded to one mechanism that supports this 'code of silence' in this statement I made above (I'll emphasize the point that I'm trying to make):  "This was done by a high school physics teacher (who had to qualify his remarks that it was only 'his opinion' and not the opinion of the organization that he belonged to)."   'His opinion'--but, 'the organization' has remained silent....so, it appears to be just 'his opinion'......but, in this particular case, 'his opinion' has some valid objective basis in science to it (but you'd have to listen to it--and follow it--to understand that)--but, since there are 'experts' that 'officially' claim to disagree with him (and 'his organization' doesn't even support him), well, what are 'the masses' to think?   That's it's just 'his opinion'......must be a 'conspiracy nut'....and, Hitler may be right, some of 'these masses' wouldn't believe it if it were shown to be a lie with proof from someone in on it (unlikely to happen since they were actually in on it and also might just be 'seen as a nut'--plus, just how would this information get to people anyway?  Nothing about the explosives in the Lusitania was ever exposed in the mass media of the time--after all, can't question 'our purposes' if we are already in war--I believe that stuff 'contradicting the war effort' was only ever brought out in the mass media in the Vietnam War--have you ever heard of it anywhere else in history?  I don't recall any--and, of course, just like Hitler says in Mein Kampf, all that 'exposure' did 'confuse the masses' in the Vietnam War--can't have that happen, again, now, can we?).  

Can you provide me a link to a site you feel best explains this free fall theory?

Here's a good starting point. http://www.ae911truth.org/ Richard Gage opens one lecture by stating that he actually called himslef a Reagan Republican. It's not partisan, it's the search for the truth.

You will notice that over 1,300 registered and licensed architects and engineers are signatories of the petition calling for a new investigation based on the false conclusions of the 9-11 Omission Comission, FEMA and NIST.

After spending a fair amount of time with what the link had to say and looking at the explanations of the unique building engineering that went into the towers and then watching the fall of the towers I don't find the demolition theory plausible. When watching the towers actually fall I see it began directly above the impact points. If there were detonations planted I don't see how they could have survived the initial impact.

In building 7 there were fires that raged unchecked for hours. I am no explosive expert but I do not see how explosives could have survived these fires.

Add to that what it takes to rig a building for explosive detonation and these theories simply do not hold water in my mind.

So you're saying you or someone else could bring a 47 story steel-framed  building down at freefall rate symetrically into its own footprint with a few random diesel fires? See, that even sounds ridiculous.

 Would that we could find a building and make some bets on this. Somebody with some dough should buy a condemned building and start taking bets using Las Vegas bookies and all the publicity they could get. Then televise the attempt to collapse a building with diesel. That would make for some good entertainment, I know I'd be watching. Where's the free market entrepreneurs when you need them? Hey somebody, you can get rich off this demonstration.

And don't forget there were other buildings around the twin towers that got damaged too but didn't fall which makes it strange if WTC 7 fell due to damage doesn't it? 

What I always found rather "amusing" about 9/11 (and I mean no disrespect to the victims).  Is that a bunch of men in caves in Afghanistan could outsmart the US intelligence agencies? 

I don't know what happened on that day.  But I think anyone who honestly believes the "official" US government version of the events, is naive at best.

I think it's worse than naivete. I think it is subconcious racism and bigotry. It's far easier for so many, even progressives, to believe dark skinned Muslims did it than white small c christians. This is despite the massive evidence of motive as neatly laid out in Paul Thompson's Pipeline Politics.

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=pipelinePolitics

Compare the motive of the NeoCon, Oil Tycoons, radical Zionists who clearly lusted to have the Taliban removed from power so the pipelines could be built, to the offical excuse that the radical Muslims hate us for our freedoms and wanted us out of their Holy Lands. What was accomplished with this attack? Did we vacate their Holy Lands, their Muslim homelands? No we invaded and occupied them, we murdered their innocents and warriors indiscriminently and the pipelines are now being built.

Those who are quick to suspect the Muslims would be wise to remember that the 2000 year persecution of the Jews was at the hands of the universal Church, Catholic, white folks, the Crusades were Catholic, the 600 year reign of terror known as the Inquisition was Catholic. Hitler was roused to hate Jews by the help of the Protocals of the Elder of Zion, a condemnation of the Jewish bankers running the world, and so on. Never mind the Anglo-American bankers running the world. The slave traders were white christians, the genocide of American Indians was at the hands of white christians, the British East India Tea company wars with China, The Opium wars, were white christians. Those who find it much easier to believe dark skinned Muslims could do this heinous act forget about Hitler and Stalin and George W. Bush who invaded Iraq with no justification. Iraq is an example of the Bush Cheney Oil administration brutality in lying their way into a war and war kills innocents. Bush's friends Hunt of Hunt oil made a deal with the Kurds, The oil theft is on schedule, the pipelines from the Caspian Sea basin are being built and our military in Afghanistan and Pakistan are there to see the pipelines constructed and protected. That's why we won't ever be leaving.

Bush and Cheney fought against forming a 9/11 commission but were finally forced to by the wives of the victims of 9/11 known as the Jersey Girls. They capitulated under public pressure and wanted to name Henry Kissinger to head the commission. The Girls wanted Kissinger to divulge his client list as he had close business ties with Saudi Arabia. So rather than divulge his clients, he bowed out. In comes the executive director of the commission, Philip Zelikow. Zelikow was so conflicted it's a pathetic joke that he was in charge of deciding who would be interviewed, how extensively, what questions to ask and what question not to ask.

From David Ray Griffin's book: The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions: "

"Zelikow had been very closely associated with the Bush White House. He was on the National Security Council in the Bush I administration, where both he and Condoleezza Rice served as aides to National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft. During the Clinton years, while the Republicans were out of office, he and Rice co-authored a book. "Germany Unified and Europe Transformed: A Study in Statecraft." Zelikow aslo directed the Aspen Strategy Group, which involved Rice and Scowcroft as well as among others, Dick Cheny and Paul Wolfowitz. (PNAC, the ones who called for a Catalyzing and Catostrophic Event Like a New Pearl Harbor). Then he served on the National Security Council's team for the transition between the Clintona and Bush II administritons. In this role he provided recommendations for Rice, who was becoming the National Security Advisor to the president.

Now lets not forget, Brent Scowcroft, like Kissinger and Obama's handler, Brezenski are founding members of the US/Azerbijain Chamber of Commerce: http://usacc.org/contents.php?cid=2 along with the founder, James Baker who stopped the Florida recount and who arranged the exodus of the Bin Laden family and many other Saudis by jet while the rest of the nation was under a no flights standown. The US Azerbijain Chamber is concerned with the infrastructure of Azerbaijan on the west shore of the Caspian Sea and John J. Maresca, VP of Unocal, while a partner in the Centgas pipeline, called for Congress to remove the Taliban from power and reinstate a bill that would allow the US taxpayers to fund the reconstruction of Azerbaijan's infrastructure. In other words, the oil companies found a way to externalize the expense of infrastructure that would allow them to seize and transport the oil and gas, and keep all profits for themselves and their Wall St. shareholders.

Condoleeza Rice was a Chevron Exec and had a Super Tanker named after her. http://articles.sfgate.com/2001-05-05/news/17598495_1_chevron-board-chevron-officials-tanker

The Commission was a cover up, a fraud and the members were highly conflicted. Stay tuned, there will be more on this.

 The evidence is that there were only small fires in 7. Since Mel mentioned that caves, let's not forget Rumsfelds decleration of the certainity of AQ elaborate cave structure in Bora-Bora. He was certain they existed. There are of course no such structures, and of course there is no debate or recognition in the media that any such glaring assumptions existed. After all we are all so certain of the threat of the terror that certain mistakes in evaluating the threat have no bearing.

 Also Meljomur points to this strange patradox that the greatest intelligence and military apparatus ever seen is overcome by folks in the hills of one of the poorest countries on earth. It does seem like cognitive dissonance in the extreme should be the logical result of this strange contradiction. Apparently it is all being hatched at the trainig camps. What powerful techniques are being taught that suddenly make these cats the newest and apparently biggest all time threat to civilization? I don't think that is a question we need look at right? Direct channeling from Allah perhaps.

 I always wonder what would happen if you took the american public with the pre 9/11 mindset and then simply told them of the physical events of 9/11. . Would they believe such a thing was possibly done by terrorists with nothing exceptional to offer? Maybe. I have little idea the limits of gullibility. Finally I assume it is obvious that you do not believe 9/11 was an inside job to believe the terror threat is an irrational hoax. At worst 9/11 should have been seen as an abberation in our ability to defend ourselves from terrorist threats of this kind

They told us to get out of there because they were
worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it,
coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon
building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom
corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over
to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up.
Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was
tremendous, tremendous fires going on.

I suppose the firefighters were in on it also?

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Banac...

'The whole bottom corner of it was gone'.   Why did the building fall straight down 'in it's own tracks'?    Did you watch the videos that Choco posted--especially the one where the NIST is commenting on 'free fall' that that high school physics teacher put up (it's in 3 parts about 10 minutes each)?  When one leg of a table is knocked off, does the table fall straight down?  Why would this building behave differently if one corner 'was gone'?   Or, did 'all corners go at once'? 

And, note, this is a statement coming from a fireman two months later.  Is that what the firemen (or anyone) claimed to have seen at the time?   Many reporters at the time were commenting all along that all these buildings 'were falling as if they had been demolished'......even stating that, like your fireman above, firemen and police officers (and other people) heard 'other explosions' going off.....but, we are led to believe that 'we' can't believe 'our lying eyes'....or our 'lying ears'.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfR-YX1N9i4&feature=related

You can see the collapse begin in the corner.

Which corner?  I saw a building fall straight down.   If it started in 'one corner' (which I didn't see it do), how did all the other corners catch up to fall straight down?  You really ought to look at Choco's connection with that high school physic's teachers presentation (3 parts--about 10 minutes each) on the NIST report.   I think it was the middle section that shows building 7 falling frame by frame.  The line of the building stays perfectly horizontal from start to finish--in another video in Choco's connections, a German reporter is going to a German demolition expert and showing him that film without any statements to its significance and asking him what he thought is happening to the building.   The man said it had been demolished--with the 'bottom sections all removed at once for it to fall straight down like that'.   When the reporter told him it was building 7 that imploded the same day as the other two towers, he shrugged his shoulders as if to indicate he didn't have an answer for that that would match the presentation.....

This is nothing like Obama's birth certificate fiasco....there is a problem with the description fitting the findings....and, in most other science that I know of, when the theory doesn't fit the findings, you have to reasess the theory.....until it does.....

Here's a short list to help those who think things were on the up and up instead of the down and down and down. This might help assure you that the Bush/Cheney administration ought to face some serious questioning under oath, alone!

http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up

Feel free to explore the site after you run down the list. There's lots more and I can keep them coming . . .

Nobody commented yet on the Pipeline Politics link I included that pretty much sums up in chronological order the driving force behind the NeoCons lust to get our military into Afghanistan.

From one of the sources from the link above. Here's what cutting to the chase sounds like:

He wrote that the U.S. oil company Unocal Corp. had been negotiating with the Taliban since 1995 to build “oil and gas pipelines from Turkmenistan, through Afghanistan and into Pakistani ports on the Arabian sea.” He cited Ahmed Rashid’s authoritative book “Taliban, Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia” as a source for this information.

Rashid, who has reported on Afghan wars for more than 20 years as a correspondent for the Eastern Economic Review and the Daily Telegraph, carefully documents in his book how the U.S. and Pakistan helped install the Taliban in hopes of bringing stability to the war- ravaged region and making it safer for the pipeline project. Unocal pulled out of the deal after the 1998 terrorist attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were linked to terrorists based in Afghanistan.

“The war against terrorism is a fraud,” exclaimed John Pilger in an Oct. 29 commentary in the British-based Mirror. Pilger, the publication’s former chief foreign correspondent, wrote, “Bush’s concealed agenda is to exploit the oil and gas reserves in the Caspian basin, the greatest source of untapped fossil fuel on earth.”

These harsh assessments are not just those of embittered ideologues. They are common fare. “Just as the Gulf War in 1991 was about oil, the new conflict in South and Central Asia is no less about access to the region’s abundant petroleum resources,” writes Ranjit Devraj in the Hong Kong-based Asia Times, a business- oriented publication.

A popular French book titled “Bin Laden, the Forbidden Truth,” which alleges that the Bush administration blocked investigations of Osama bin Laden while it bargained for him with the Taliban in exchange for political recognition and economic aid, is guiding much of the recent European coverage.