Monday, March 27, 2006

Time for the 9/11 Movement to Grow Up

I've remamed this essay "Eyes on the Prize", so the essay has been moved here.


Blogger bb said...

LIHOP or MIHOP, both are damning. In a way, as soon as you LIHOP, you are a MIHOP. Bottom line, we need a hard investigation soon, period.

3:58 PM  
Blogger vper1 said...

I don't see a difference between LIHOP & MIHOP.

5:24 PM  
Blogger Tom said...

Controlled Demolition has been debunked for all reasonable and sane people:

The bucking of the exterior steel columns, in the minutes well before the buildings collapsed, disproves the idea that explosives brought the buildings down for the simple fact that explosives don't explode in slow motion over several minutes.The bucking of the exterior steel columns was witnessed and photographed inthe minutes - in some cases many minutes - before the buildings came down. More details here. The "controlled demolition" theory has been debunked, sad that some people are to imature to admit basic facts.

What people have to do is grow up and stop banning people from "9/11 truth" forums when the facts are presented. Some people wonder why they haven't be exposed to the facts of the buckling steel columns. There is a good reason, when people try to get these facts out to the "9/11 truth" crowd, people will delete the posts and ban the people. (this has happened to me)

I must admit I find the "controlled demolition" and "inside job" theory irritating since I see people wasting time on this nonsence and ignoring the brutal realities of the motives for the 9/11 attacks:

These are the real reasons and they has been stated for years:

The motivation for the attacks was set out in a 1998 fatwa, it lists three "crimes and sins committed by the Americans":

* U.S. occupation of the Arabian Peninsula.
* U.S. aggression against the Iraqi people.
* U.S. support of Israel.

"We swore that America wouldn't live in security until we live it truly in Palestine. This showed the reality of America, which puts Israel's interest above its own people's interest. America won't get out of this crisis until it gets out of the Arabian Peninsula , and until it stops its support of Israel." -Osama bin Laden, October 2001

And what was the motives of the two suicide pilots that crashed the two planes into the World Trade Center?

A German friend of Mohammed Atta (the hijacker pilot who flew into WTC 1 ) is quoted as describing him as "most imbued actually about Israeli politics in the region and about US protection of these Israeli politics in the region. And he was to a degree personally suffering from that."

Marwan al-Shehhi (the hijacker pilot who flew into WTC 2 ) answered, "How can you laugh when people are dying in Palestine?" when someone asked why he and Atta never laughed.

Andthemastermind of the 9/11 plot, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, was angry withtheUnited States "not from his experience there as a student, butratherhis violent disagreement with US foreign policy favoring Israel"

These facts point to a motive for attacking the WTC in 2001 that is consistent with the motive expressed by terrorists in a letter sent to the New York Times after the 1993 bombing attack of the WTC, "We declare our responsibility for the explosion on the mentioned building.This actionwas done in response for the American political,economical, andmilitary support to Israel the state of terrorism andto the rest of thedictator countries in the region."

It is also the same motive that Mir Aimal Kasi had for killing CIA employees Frank Darling and Lansing Bennett outside CIA headquarters in Langley,Virginia in 1993. Mir Aimal Kasi said, "What I did was a retaliation against the US government for American policy in the Middle East and its support of Israel."

And look how the real motives get suppressed:

The Gorilla in the Room is US Support for Israel.
Lee Hamilton insults the American people at a "9/11 Public DiscourseProject"Q&A. At the August 2, 2005 "public event," Hamilton quickly trys to silence someone who asks why US support for Israel isn't being addressed since it is what drove the plotter of 9/11 to attack us.

And I don't agree that LIHOP means a "stand down." I knew we were going to get attacked at some point. We know Bush didn't act on the warnings, we don't know why.

6:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


The pictures that suggest both WTC 1 and 2's exterior 'buckled' before collapse are not debunking the theory of controlled demolition, because:

1. The facade of both buildings are not what 'holds' both buildings

2. It does not explain the discrepancies between impact and collapse times of buildings 1 and 2

3. It does not explain the fragmentized (i.e. crumbles and dust) remains of both buildings

4. It does not explain the collapse of building 7

5. It does not explain the way the US government handled the 'crime scene' by shipping the remaining debris as fast as they could to Asia

Judging an event like 911 in general, and the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 in particular, by merely looking at photographs puts you in the same category as those who claim there was no aircraft at the Pentagon. Stating it is reasonable and sane doesn't change a thing about this.

2:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tom's theory also does not consider the possibility that photos that purportedly show buckling are distorted by heat waves. Do any steel samples show the buckling? Note the Zipper Theory that held sway for three years supposed the perimeter columns buckled outwards. Why should we believe they buckled inwards?

Forget LIHOP and MIHOP and settle for HIHOP--Helped it Happen on Purpose. There's no difference if Osama was wearing his CIA Asset hat when (and if) he ordered the attacks.

8:36 PM  
Anonymous Gary said...

Jim Fetzer who appears with 9-11 Scholars FINALLY got me interested in talking about the collapse in a simple way.

NINETY SIX FLOORS GAVE WAY IN TEN SECONDS? Think about that. One sec per floor would be over a minute and a half. Less than 0.125 seconds per floor for all the trusses to break loose. NO RESISTANCE.

"Are you crazy?" (not you, to other doubters) What did they use, Elmer's and cardboard when they built it?

Jim Hoffman made the other point. All the trusses around the outside would have had to fail at once, SYMETRICALLY, ALL THE WAY DOWN. It is impossible to do that with TOOTHPICKS.

But I was staying away from these questions of physical evidence and using the political trail that Ruppert and Chossudovsky popularized.

Or as Hopsicker said, the biggest 9-11 crime scene is miles away from the WTC down in Venice, FL, and the FBI didn't bother to question the witnesses.

Here's the questions on my site:

1) Does any evidence exist to show that our government would ever even consider sacrificing it's own citizens and lying about it, to achieve narrow, selfish policy objectives? In other words, is there any reason to believe that our own government could ever a stage "False-Flag" act of terrorism to frighten us into submission. obedience, and to promote a War agenda?

2) Has our government ever done this before, created terrorism to blame on enemies? What was the Strategy of Tension? Operation Gladio?

3) WHO FOUNDED AL-QAEDA and WHY? Most people assume that Al-Qaeda was founded by Osama bin Laden. This is flatly untrue. (see below)

4) How much MONEY did American taxpayers spend to create Al-Qaeda?

5) What Lawyer successfully blocked a civil suit for ONE TRILLION DOLLARS brought by Widows from 9-11 families. (Some Leftist trial lawyer? Ramsey Clark?)

6) What Prosecutor stepped out of their regular career to defend an accused Al-Qaeda money-launderer (who "lost" $6M in public funds)?

7) Who said "Let Bin Laden go free"? (Some liberal actress? Barbra Streisand, perhaps? Sean Penn? Dennis Kucinich? Cindy Sheehan?)

8) Who was nailed for insider trading on 9-11, betting 600 times over normal against Merrill Lynch, and against American and United (but not other airlines), etc.? In other words, what investors had specific advance knowledge of 9-11?

9) Which Govt Official collaborated with a man whom FBI called the Moneyman behind Sept 11, who sent $109,000 to the "Al-Qaeda" hijackers in Florida?

10) Under which Presidents did the Pentagon and CIA run joint operations with Al-Qaeda?

11) What was the most common line of work the "terrorists" and "hijackers" performed in recent decades?

12) How quickly must have each (undamaged) floor strained and interlocking steel trusses separated from outside vertical structures and 47 center columns for the South Tower to have collapsed in less than 10 seconds? What did they DO with the EVIDENCE, all the steel that melted from exposure to a black smoke kerosene "campfire"?

10:02 PM  
Anonymous Gary said...

OR a BETTER way to put it:

I can prove 100% WHO pulled off 9-11, it does not matter exactly HOW. - Mike Ruppert [paraphrased]

sorry for the double post

10:05 PM  
Blogger WorkOutWellForAll said...

I think LIHOP vs. MIHOP gets at the central ideological problem we face.

We have 10% of the population, at every level of the population, who are consciously and deliberately misreport what they understand and perceive ALL THE TIME, on a daily basis.

And then we have 90% of the population, that try to be as honest as they can, and generally believe people who lie about what they think.

The 10% bullies consciously create lies, and manipulate people deliberately through conversational techniques and hidden motivations.

And then the 90% good guys/girls, who swallo the piggo lies, and then repeat them uncritically on behalf of the original lie-creators.

The problem with agent provocateurs is that they have a conscious, deliberate purpose to thwart other people's figuring process.

Thereby, treating a provocateur's lies as 'just one view point among many' destroyed anybody's ability to sort out what is accurate/inaccurate.

So -- smoking out the spooks must involve a smarter strategy than simply treating the deliberately deceptive views of the spy-thugs amidst us as equal in merit to someone's accurate report of perception and understanding.

It might sounds a little bit complicated -- the terminology, but once you add just one more level of sophistication to the 'lie/truth' debate -- then everything sorts out real clearly.

There's a good, simple chart that illustrates the difference between a) same-for-everyone reality
b) preception of reality
c) report of perception of reality


Great article!

I appreciate the in depth analysis of the movement -- and your observations are incisive and valuable.

10:31 PM  
Anonymous Alan Strangis said...

Excellent article GW. I've seen your blog a couple of times, linking from

We should toss away the LIHOP/MIHOP paradigm, because if L is true, then M is true, at least in a legal definition. To deliberately not act, or obstruct the resources that could have prevented 9/11 means that the blood is equally on their hands.

As for tom saying that Controlled demo being debunked...

Sorry, but your sudden proliferation of self-generated "anti-controlled demo" information smells suspiciously like COINTELPRO.

Besides, let me point to a source that ISN'T my own blog...

In that sequence of the south tower collapse, as the "top" of the tower begins to tilt and fall, it's base is more or less absorbed at the area of impact, as the top is reduced to rubble. The impact level manages to decimate half of the "top's" mass, with relatively few floors below showing any sign of damage, which suggests that a significant portion of the energy from the cap is expended in the obliteration of the "top" itself.

There's no reasonable explanation as to why the remaining half of the "top" then suddenly manages to create a progressive collapse that unfolds at nearly freefall speed.

Once again, NEVER has the physics of the collapses been adequately explained. To suggest that they have been "debunked" is a bit of a stretch.

I've taken a look at your blogs, and there's some good information, but there appears to be an unspoken agenda behind outside the scope of 9/11 truth.

12:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, Tom . . .

What's it like to walk around balancing a full outhouse on your neck, eh?

Or are you just a full-on Zionist? Or perhaps one of the "experts" from Popular Mechanics? Or am I being redundant?

Your head is so far up your colon you probably couldn't see it with the Hubble telescope.

5:53 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home