I heard on CNN today that our government is livid over the 9/11 series that ABC is televising.
They threatened to pull their broadcasting license. The censorship issue was almost entirely missed by the guy on CNN (sorry, don't know his name) who was discussing it.
He called 9/11 sacred. Does that strike anyone else as strange? Just think - a terrorist act - sacred.
Interesting.
Humm what I heard was the Clinton Admin. is squeaking cuz somethings said/shown will ruin his , ah , steller legacy ::) Also that it was suppost to reflect the findings of the biepartisen 9/11 commission , trouble is it doesn't follow what they found . Facts generally don't make good TV viewing ;)
Of course the finding are MTL all lies , and the Valachi papers , Bilateral commision , and Ilumanotty gang along with Elvis , JFK, Jimmy Hoffa and the ever popular Nostradomass are behind the whole kettle of fish ;D
Ok well part of that is true or what I heard ;)
Yeah......but evidently since today, bad TV equals censorship from our government?
I'm amazed that our government is against that one.
From the rumors I've heard it pretty well supports the administration view of 9-11.
But bear in mind I don't have TV. I did grow up without it until I was a junior in high school, so I'm not nearly as addicted as a lot of people.
But right here--too far away for through the air transmission, no cable down my road, and furthermore this is too far down in a ravine for a satellite (I'm not at all sure that that was true when I moved in, but it is now, the trees have shot up).
Ahh - PEG I see you are beginning to see the light-- I knew if I kept at you gently you would pull your head out of the sand.
Strange Miedrn -- not at all if they are thinking of telling the truth about 9/11. Sacred -- maybe when god's right hand man is running the country-- If the truth gets out this administration could be in some doo-doo. It's probably just about more of history repeating itself. :-/
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/prweb/20060907/bs_prweb/prweb434292_2
Censorship ?-- this administration? - the one who has reporters for their own sponsored TV station shot in the back for reporting/filming the wrong thing --- the one who blew the Al-Jazeera studios in Iraq off the map with a precision missile strike when they were told the coordinates of it so they would not bomb it ---- the one who shot at the reporters in the hotels in Iraq because they weren't in bed with the military? Surely you jest. :-/
Another article I saw yesterday - I was letting it slide but it fits here since there seems to be some interest in it. :)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=403757&in_page_id=1770
Here's a writeup of what you were talking about, I think, Miedrn. Probably not as spectacular as I'd like to see it be. :-/
Note - I haven't read all of it so .....whatever...
http://patterico.com/2006/08/31/5065/the-path-to-911-the-real-deal-from-abc-networks/
Maybe it was the tri lateral commission , or humpy dumpty, Gangass Con? McCarthy? John Lenon :-/The Cat in the Hat, ya thats it ,he always was sneakie ;D Never trust a cat with a big hat on :o
That could be possible PEG but reality seems to beg for an answer more like this one. Read it all and think about it - don't just pretend it isn't true or wish it wasn't. :) Careful of your blood pressure now PEG --- I don't want to get you upset at me. ;D
http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495;article=104298
;D ;D ;D Good comedy, thanks . That'a right up there with the SEAL team that blew the levie in NO after Katrina.
I'm still more leaning toward The Cat in the Hat ;)
BTW it' late ,don't,eat any more pasta it'll make ya dream odd dreams , then you might become a writter like that guy ::)
I remember -- you heard that one. :)
It's still quite questionable what went on there though - mercenaries against US citizens - Shootouts between the NOLA Cops and the Fed hired merc's. 3 story changes and no final true answer. Something is fishy in Denmark. :-/
Now you are making me hungry for some of my wife's finest Lasagna ---(from Costco). ;D
Anybody into a short quiz? I got 100% on my first try -- how did you do?
http://nomoregames.net/911_quiz/911_quiz.htm
More answers --or questions?
http://physics911.net/
http://nomoregames.net/
http://www.st911.org/
Note that I haven't read everything on these sites but they present many facts and questions that I have been questioning since the event. I am a pilot and am aware that these events could not have taken place as they did without inside help. I could not stray from an IFR route even a little without being confronted by ATC and intercepted in rough weather by a military plane -- little ole' me - a tiny little 6 seater Cessna. I haven't believed the official version since the start of the original lies and the day of the event.
Why was FEMA there the night before it happened?
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fematape.html
QuoteI'm amazed that our government is against that one.
From the rumors I've heard it pretty well supports the administration view of 9-11.
But bear in mind I don't have TV. I did grow up without it until I was a junior in high school, so I'm not nearly as addicted as a lot of people.
But right here--too far away for through the air transmission, no cable down my road, and furthermore this is too far down in a ravine for a satellite (I'm not at all sure that that was true when I moved in, but it is now, the trees have shot up).
Looks like you are right about that , Amanda. Here is a reasonable answer to why they are making all of this noise - they want you to think they don't like it. Now that makes sense.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2006/090906pathtodistraction.htm
Miedrn, that also fits in -- CNN -- the Counterfeit News Network is baiting people up to watch it and then when it whitewashes the whole thing with cute inconsequential stories, the government will appear vindicated and more people will say -- see I told you --now put your head back in the sand where it belongs-- you and all of those silly questions. :) but .... more and more people are figuring them out every day. They can only cry "wolf" so many times.
Ok the Easter Bunny did it ::)
You are getting much closer now PEG in fact you are HOT.
The Easter Bunny is officially of pagan origin -- same place these guys came from. :)
http://altreligion.about.com/cs/alchemy/a/mpreviss.htm
glenn you are the man I only got 8 of the 10 correct....Sort of forgot that three towers fell ...and did not guess the quote from Osama
Silverstein bought the Towers about 6 months before it happened -- insured them for terrorist attacks.
He admitted on video he told them to pull (demolish) the building 7. If it was wired for demolition already, why wouldn't the Towers have been? All evidence points to the fact that they were - videos of the cutting charges going off - unexplained molten pools of steel in the basements for 3 weeks after the event - straight unhindered fall down in their own footprint - no toppling as would have occurred if the planes were even capable of melting the steel - great Hollywood special effects though.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2005/220605silversteinresponds.htm
http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/wtc7/pullit.html
http://www.rense.com/Datapages/WTC7.htm
I believed the Osama quote when it was first aired. He had no reason to lie and in fact if he had done it, he would have been bragging about it. Besides , his family members were business partners of Daddy Bush in the Carlyle group.
Glenn
Remember that as much as Sadaam was America's friend when taking orders..So was Osama...
Went to University in California...Trained by the Cia and FBI...Worked for them assasinating enemies of the USA...The USA loved him because he was smart, ruthless and fanatical...That was when he was working for uncle sam
Before Sept 11, the US government tried unsuccessfully to assasinate Osama at least 3 different times....
You are right about Osama not being responsible for Sept 11...He was involved in Bombing the USS cole and he did not hesitate to accept responsibility for that attack
We have to wonder when you have a guy like Osama Who follows a clear predictible pattern...And then you have the US government name him as the person responsible for 9/11 and his does not fit his profile...Does not even conincide with his fanatical beliefs or viewpoints.
It is not like the US Government would not release outdated flawed intelligence reports to the people about Osama....They did it with Sadaam...The Yellowcake purchases in North Africa that were bogus...Bush held press conferences stating that they needed to attack. Then there were the intelligence reports of enrichment chambers that were fuel cells for airplanes.
But Bush and company wanted in Iraq so they went with false information because it sounded good to joe sixpack listening at home....Why would they even bother to worry about the truth for Osama...Lies and Deception worked great in Iraq....No need to change plans for Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea..etc..
here's a few more links to add to the collection... ::)
Gov't Scare Tactics - San Francisco Chronicle
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/09/08/DDGK1KT8371.DTL
Down for the Count - PBS
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/236/index.html
Study Finds Lung Problems in WTC Workers - NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Attacks-Health.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
"...taking the techniques of persuasion and information and true propaganda that we have learnt to apply nationally in war, and deliberately bending them to the international tasks of peace, if necessary utilizing them -- as Lenin envisaged - to 'overcome the resistance of millions' to desirable change. The task before UNESCO... is single. The task is to help the emergence of a single world culture....
"..two opposing philosophies of life confront each other.... You may categorize the two philosophies as two super-nationalisms, or as individualism versus collectivism... or as capitalism versus communism, or as Christianity versus Marxism. Can these opposites be reconciled, this antithesis be resolved in a higher synthesis? I believe not only that this can happen, but that, through the inexorable dialectic of evolution, it must happen...." Julian Huxley (Aldous Huxley's brother)
From the answers to that quiz...
Question 1: "If you read the official 9/11 Comission report, you would have missed this key fact, as it was omitted. However, it is common knowledge among engineers that have studied the building collapses, that WTC7 fell that day as well."
It's also common knowledge among the millions of people who watched it collapse on TV. No engineering degree is needed. Suggesting that someone is trying to cover up the collapse is idiotic.
Question 3: "Although one would expect that the 19 hijackers would appear on the official death lists, none of their names appear."
The "official death lists" are as published by CNN. The headline clearly states that these are "Lists of victims". It would be grossly insensitive to list the terrorists as victims, don't you think? I guess "No More Games" thinks otherwise.
Question 4: "Because of this, and the high melting point of steel, NO steel building has ever collapse due to fire before or after 9/11."
No mention of the fireproofing insulation required to protect that steel. No mention of the significant structural damage resulting from the initial aircraft impacts.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
"The collapse of the WTC towers was not caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent multi-floor fires that day. Instead, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel. No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001."
Question 6: "Controlled demolition, despite it's simplicity and ability to account for much of the physical evidence, is largely ignored"
No it isn't.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
"In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view."
Question 8: "what did the authors say was necessary to expedite the process?"
"the actual quote from the PNAC document (available here) is 'C', the need for a "New Pearl Harbor"."
An outright lie. The authors do not say anything about "expiditing the process" or "the need for" anything.
Question 9: "Although never covered on CNN, Fox, or any mainstream articles, Osama appeared to be very outspoken in denying any involvement"
Another lie.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/13/administration.terrorism/index.html
"Bin Laden, too, has denied responsibility through spokesmen, although he has expressed congratulations to the attackers"
Question 10:
No citation is given. Sounds like typical BS anti-Semitic rumor-mongering. update: Netanyahu was no longer even Prime Minister. BS anti-Semitic rumor-mongering confirmed.
No More Games. Yeah right.
Ya Bart you rock , I think :-/I'm still leaning toward the Cat in the Hat as the lone gunmen on the grassy knoll ::)
PEG - you agree with Bart because he is telling you what you want to hear. :)
#! The coverup is not the point on this on, Bart. The point is that Silverstien told them to demolish the building There was not time to set the explosives in Trade center 7 that day yet they were able to do a controlled demolition on it and take it to the ground.
Larry Silverstein, WTC Leaseholder:
"I remember getting a call from the, uh, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'You know we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull it.' Uh, and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."
http://killtown.911review.org/wtc7/pullit.html
If bldg 7 was already loaded with explosives for controlled demolition then it is likely that the Twin Towers were too.
The point is not that the collapse is being covered up - there is much evidence that controlled demolition is being covered up. The debris was sent to smelters in foreign countries before it could be analyzed.
#3 The point here is not that the hijackers were not included on a victims list. They were not even included on any passenger list - not one arab name. http://911review.org/Sept11Wiki/PassengerList.shtml They didn't show up late or show up in the autopsies either. Also see Gary North of The Daily Reconing - article - http://www.rense.com/general15/perplexingpuzzle.htm
#4 UL Executive Speaks Out on WTC Study - Kevin R. Ryan is Site Manager of the Environmental Health Laboratories at South Bend, Indiana EHL is a division of Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.
QuoteFrom: Kevin R Ryan/SBN/ULI
To: frank.gayle@nist.gov
Date: 11/11/2004
Dr. Gayle,
Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly.
As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.
There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel . . . burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown's theory."
We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451
#6 Bart, using NIST data and answers to prove your point is like asking the Coyote who ate the chicken when it was in his mouth. NIST is an agency of the U.S. Commerce Department's Technology Administration.
Controlled demolition is the only thing that drops buildings like this in their own footprint without a delay by resistance from undamaged structural members.
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/911-WTC-NIST-Lies30mar06.htm
#9 Simply asks who said it -- I remember vividly hearing the statement as claimed. http://www.unknownnews.org/060214a-Barrett.html
#10 I have to disagree with you, Bart. It's always easy to pull out the anti-Semitic card - they do it every time someone complains about them killing Palestinians or Lebanese or running over a war protestor with a Caterpillar and backing over her again for good measure or at any other appropriate time.
Per http://www.sundayherald.com/37707
QuoteAfter the attacks on New York and Washington, the former Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, was asked what the terrorist strikes would mean for US-Israeli relations. He said: "It's very good." Then he corrected himself, adding: "Well, it's not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy [for Israel from Americans]."
September 11, 2001: Former Israeli Prime Minister: 9/11 Very Good for Israeli-US Relations
Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, when asked what the 9/11 attacks means for relations between the US and Israel, replies, "It's very good." Then he edits himself: "Well, not very good, but it will generate immediate sympathy." [New York Times, 9/12/2001
Larry Silverstein --Right place at the right time? -I should be so lucky. Concidence that Bush and company controlled security?
http://www.fourwinds10.com/NewsServer/ArticleFunctions/ArticleDetails.php?ArticleID=10744
QuoteIncidentally, it's worth noting that one of Lucky Larry's closest friends — a person with whom it's said he speaks almost daily by phone — is none other than former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Couldn't find Osama- should have asked Dan Rather.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20060909&articleId=3194
Dan Rather also found out that FEMA arrived for the event the night before it happened.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fematape.html
QuoteKenney: "We're currently one of the first teams that was deployed to support the city of New York for this disaster. We arrived on late Monday night, and went into action on Tuesday morning. And not until today did we get a full opportunity to work the entire site."
Just great intuition on the part of the government I guess - although most others did not know.
OK -- so I lied a bit here --Jeb Bush declared martial law in Florida on September 7th four days before it happened - but with one brother in the White House and another in charge of security at the WTC and airports, why wouldn't he be let in on the deal. http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20011008.htm
OK - one more -- Buzzy Krongard - but he was CIA - he can't be blamed. http://www.hereinreality.com/insidertrading.html
Oh yeah - and Condoleeza called Willie and told him to stay out of the air. http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1000
Here's a report of a couple of interesting, and kind of topic-related, studies.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bella-depaulo/watch-abcs-dramatization_b_29137.html
QuoteIncrimination through innuendo: Can media questions become public answers?" That was the title of an article published by a team of social psychologists in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. People who participated in the research were shown one of four different newspaper headlines about a political candidate.
1. Some of the participants read a headline that was directly incriminating.
For example: "Bob Taybert Linked With Mafia."
2. Other participants read a headline in the form of a question: "Is Bob Taybert Linked With the Mafia?"
3. A third group read a denial of the charge: "Bob Taybeg Not Linked With Mafia."
4. The final set of participants read something totally innocuous: "Bob Tayberg Arrives In City."
Later in the study, the participants were asked to describe their impressions of Bob Tayberg. Unsurprisingly, the people who read the directly incriminating headline were most negative about Bob. More interestingly, the people who simply read the question about Bob (Is he linked to the Mafia?) were just as negative about him as the people who read the direct incrimination. What's more, the people who read the denial were only a shade less negative than those who read the question. (Bob seemed just fine if all he did was arrive in the city. And since Bob was not a real person, no actual reputations were damaged by the study.)
What this research suggests is that just raising a question about someone can end up smearing that person. Even linking a person with a bad act only for the purposes of denying it (Bob NOT linked with Mafia) can leave a bit of a smudge on that person's reputation.
And the second study--this one by the blog's author and someone else:
QuoteIn a practice setting, interviewers met with job applicants. Half of the interviewers were warned that some of the applicants would fictionalize their life story. The other interviewers were given no such warnings. None of the interviewers were told which applicants or which life stories to believe. Were the forewarned interviewers better at separating the truth from the fiction? They were not. In fact, they were simply more cynical, disbelieving more of what they heard (including some of the truthful stories) than did the interviewers who were not forewarned.
Glenn
What about the pictures that clearly show that several different Sadaams have been on TV as the real Sadaam since He was "captured"
Noticeable different hairlines, Bottom rows of teeth and coloration of the eyes...
Not hard to say for sure it is several different people when you look at the different photos...
I cannot believe our Government would use trickery to deceive us in this manner ::)
Nor would I, Peter. ::) Who knows if they even have the real one now? ...but as long as it fits their purposes.
I haven't seen the side by side photos before, but I remember that at least one for sure didn't look like him.
Here is one comparison - check the jowels and ears - 4 pages - two different guys obviously.
http://thefolklorist.com/main.htm
Interesting studies, Amanda. It goes along with something I noticed myself a few years back. Our government warnings to not hate muslims --middle easterners etc. I noticed it had the opposite effect. Every Arab or middle east looking person anyone saw soon for the most part became the enemy -- look at happenings on planes now --- people mutiny if an Arab speaks his language - or anybody similar does it. The gov really put the fear into them. :-/
Before we attacked Iraq I didn't know a thing about Muslims - thought it was stupid that Cassius Clay changed his name to Mohammad Ali - had a general disrespect for them - but when the "Christian" Preachers got in bed with Bush and started the new Crusades - the indiscriminate bombing of women and children - the use of white phosphorus in Falluja meltinig civilians flesh off -- our military sniping of ambulance drivers as they were trying to rescue wounded -our treatment of them at Abu Ghraib-- I gained a different feeling for them. I don't agree with their beliefs but don't feel they should be the enemy because of it. We are more ruthless than they are.
Riverbend - blog- http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/
I haven't read her blog in ages - she's still posting -I don't know how-- I know what we're doing over there- we've destroyed it and we're losing it, but This girl was a computer technician -- why she's still alive I don't know. I encouraged her once to keep blogging - I should at least read it once in a while -- she replied and thanked me for worrying about her. During or shortly after one of our periods of heavy bombing- Note : She is a Muslim - had local Christian friends and felt sorry for the Christians as they were catching it there because of our attack. She dressed -- acted and thought Western before we attacked - it is unsafe for her to do so now. As I said -I haven't read her blog in ages but I can bet that you will find that she still does not hate the American people--(a possible dislike of world leaders and politicians -but I have that)-- --even though she probably should -- I don't think she has it in her. She is becoming more upset with the occupation because of the occupiers actions and deeds. If we endured what she has we'd all be fighting the occupation. For a good , honest, inside look at what's going on there check her out. She is a great writer -- too bad it's all real.
Copy of her response with my note below - she is in Baghdad.
Saturday, April 24, 2004 2:21 AM
Subject : Re: We Missed you
Inbox
Dear Glenn,
Thanks so much for your words. It means a lot to have so many people concerned
about my well-being. I can hardly believe it sometimes. I will try
to write more often but sometimes it can be so difficult doing something as
trivial as blogging when the world seems to be going crazy outside of my
window.
Thanks again Glenn... hope you and yours are safe and happy always.
Regards,
R.
glenn kangiser <glenn-k@msn.com> said:
> <html><div style='background-color:'><DIV class=RTE>Dear river,</DIV>
> <DIV class=RTE> </DIV>
> <DIV class=RTE>Finally another blog from you so we know you are OK. I
can understand your not feeling like writing in your situation, but I was very
concerned about your safety - like I could do anything about it-eh?. I
realize you probably don't have time to respond to all the e-mail you get so I
just wanted to write and let you know that we care about you. Please at
least write a short note to let us know you are okay every few days
anyway. This time was way too long. Please, you and your family-- be
safe.</DIV>
Glenn,
1. The question/answer only refers to how many buildings fell. There is no mention of "explosives" or "controlled demolition".
"#3 The point here is not that the hijackers were not included on a victims list. They were not even included on any passenger list - not one arab name."
No More Games didn't provide any evidence and neither do you. Both of your links refer to the same CNN "List of victims". Expecting the hijackers to be included on a list of victims is ridiculous and disrespectful.
#4 You've missed the point. No More Games suggests that the WTC fires are comparable to fires in other steel buildings. But No More Games omits crucial differences: No other steel framed building has been hit by a large airliner. The impacts weakened the structures directly and also dislodged protective fireproofing. As a result, comparing the WTC fires to others is like comparing road apples and agent oranges.
(By the way, NIST confirms that the steel did not melt, but it did soften enough to deform. See questions 7 and 13 of their FAQ:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm)
"#6 Bart, using NIST data and answers to prove your point is like asking the Coyote who ate the chicken when it was in his mouth. NIST is an agency of the U.S. Commerce Department's Technology Administration."
That is the point: NIST IS a government agaency and IT DID NOT IGNORE the controlled demolition theory. No More Games said "Controlled demolition...is largely ignored". To the contrary, NIST tackles it head on. Five questions on their FAQ page deal with explosives or thermite. Whether you believe the controlled demolition theory or not, you can't credibly claim it was ignored.
"#9 Simply asks who said it"
The lie isn't in the question, the lie is in their explanation. "Although never covered on CNN..." They would have us believe that there is some sort of media coverup going on. But that is BS, I easily found entensive CNN coverage. The link I posted was just one of a dozen or so articles.
#10 I searched for the claimed quote and could not find any reliable verification. And no wonder because, big surprise, it's a deliberate misquote. The original interview was with the New York Times. As the Times as well as your Sunday Herald and other sources make clear, the reporter asked how the attacks would affect US-Israeli relations. No More Games omits that context and also adds the made-up introduction "Regarding what took place on September 11". In No More Game's altered version of reality, Netanyahu seems to approve of the attacks themselves.
Why would No More Games deliberately twist Netanyahu's words to alter their meaning? Why would No More Games promote him to head of state, thereby associating their made-up comments with the entire state of Israel? If anti-Semitism isn't the answer then what is?
Glenn, you often rail against government propoganda. Why are you so willing to turn a blind eye to conspiracy theorist propoganda? If No More Games really does have evidence of a conspiracy, why do they have to resort to half-truths, twisted truth and outright lies?
PEG, I hate that damned cat. And I want my hat back.
Good healthy discussion, Bart and I hope to work on this more soon -- out of time now. Maybe tonight. Note that No More Games is new to me and I just happened across the quiz there. I commonly refer to www.whatreallyhappened.com - usually mainstream quotes.
The BYU professor apparently had samples from ground zero that were analyzed to have thermate or thermite in them. I haven't verified this. There have been reports of and pictures of infrared imaging of the molten pools of metal under the buildings for a long time indicating molten metal obviously from a source much hotter than that required to soften the metal.
Great to have differing views.
I like the Dr. Suess analysis of the site also. Thanks for informing us of that. PEG.
Regarding passenger lists-
I found a pretty in depth study - It seems the lists are involved in the 9-11 government screenplay and coverup also. If there is nothing to hide why don't they just publish real copies of the official airline manifests? That would prove that part once and for all -if there was nothing to hide. Unfortunately, publishing the real manifests would likely incriminate them without question. All of their presented evidence of innocence is based on hearsay. They haven't even positively proven that there were any passengers. No wonder there are conspiracy theories. They can't prove their innocence without incriminating themselves.
QuoteWhat a mess ! This crime - the murder of approximately 3000 people , and the excuse for two wars and alarming attacks on civil liberties - and presumably more to come - is supposed to have been properly investigated and documented ? Why should we be expected to believe who the hijackers were, when the spin doctors can't even do a credible fabrication job of a list of innocent victims ?
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/flight_11_passengers.html