If I wish to determine if a person is involved in the cover up of a crime, I can think of two things I would be particularly interested in examining:
1. What are the physical evidence linking the person to the crime?
2. Cui bono? meaning "for whose benefit is it?" i.e. who benefited from the crime? If the person benefited from the crime, it is also likely that he was involved.
When it comes to the official conspiracy theory of what happened on September 11, 2001, nothing really seems so add up. It was claimed that 19 al-Qaeda terrorists were able to crash 3 airliners into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, causing the Twin Towers and building 7 to collapse at almost free fall speed within a few hours of the crash. They were able to take control of the airplanes using box cutters as their only weapons. So far the story seems quite unlikely, and adding the ridiculous amount of evidence against this story, it becomes no less than science fiction. Taking the evidence into consideration, it becomes obvious that 911 was an inside job. Why would the Bush administration otherwise have done everything in their power to hide evidence from public scrutiny.
1. The physical evidence that I present contradicting this official story is just a sample of evidence that can be found, but I find these to be the most compelling.
Twin Tower and Building 7 collapse.
The evidence that these buildings came down through controlled demolition is overwhelming. And in order to take down buildings as large as these, weeks and weeks of planning and work would have been needed to plant the devices. There is no way that al-Qaeda could have had access to these buildings. So someone else besides al-Qaeda must have been involved in the attacks...
Silverstein, the owner of building 7, seems to have been unaware of the amount of work that goes into taking a building down though controlled demolition when he makes the statement that they decided to "pull the building". He is basically confessing that the building was deliberately taken down though controlled demolition! You would think that the insurance company would be interested in knowing this, since he collected a huge compensation ($2.2 billion) for his "losses" from the insurance policy he got shortly before the attacks.
Here is further evidence. A Danish scientist has found nanothermite in the dust from the World Trade Center dust. In the end he says "I think there is only one conspiracy theory worth mentioning, the one involving 19 hijackers. I think the viewers should ask themselves what evidence they have seen to support the official conspiracy theory."
1. What are the physical evidence linking the person to the crime?
2. Cui bono? meaning "for whose benefit is it?" i.e. who benefited from the crime? If the person benefited from the crime, it is also likely that he was involved.
When it comes to the official conspiracy theory of what happened on September 11, 2001, nothing really seems so add up. It was claimed that 19 al-Qaeda terrorists were able to crash 3 airliners into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, causing the Twin Towers and building 7 to collapse at almost free fall speed within a few hours of the crash. They were able to take control of the airplanes using box cutters as their only weapons. So far the story seems quite unlikely, and adding the ridiculous amount of evidence against this story, it becomes no less than science fiction. Taking the evidence into consideration, it becomes obvious that 911 was an inside job. Why would the Bush administration otherwise have done everything in their power to hide evidence from public scrutiny.
1. The physical evidence that I present contradicting this official story is just a sample of evidence that can be found, but I find these to be the most compelling.
Twin Tower and Building 7 collapse.
The evidence that these buildings came down through controlled demolition is overwhelming. And in order to take down buildings as large as these, weeks and weeks of planning and work would have been needed to plant the devices. There is no way that al-Qaeda could have had access to these buildings. So someone else besides al-Qaeda must have been involved in the attacks...
Silverstein, the owner of building 7, seems to have been unaware of the amount of work that goes into taking a building down though controlled demolition when he makes the statement that they decided to "pull the building". He is basically confessing that the building was deliberately taken down though controlled demolition! You would think that the insurance company would be interested in knowing this, since he collected a huge compensation ($2.2 billion) for his "losses" from the insurance policy he got shortly before the attacks.
Here is further evidence. A Danish scientist has found nanothermite in the dust from the World Trade Center dust. In the end he says "I think there is only one conspiracy theory worth mentioning, the one involving 19 hijackers. I think the viewers should ask themselves what evidence they have seen to support the official conspiracy theory."
Did you know that the 911 Commission report completely omits reporting on the collapse of building 7, simply because they have no way of explaining how it could have come down.
For more information: Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth
The Attack on the Pentagon
The Pilots for 911 truth are questioning the official story as to what happened to the Pentagon. Maneuvering a 757 like the supposed terrorist did is impossible, especially considering that he couldn't fly. Also, the airplane is nowhere to be seen on footage of the accident and the FBI refuses to release footage from cameras that filmed the attack. This video summarizes the oddities:
The drills on 911 and NORAD's complete failure to intervene
Just like during the 7/7 bombing in London, drills were being run on the day of the attack, making it hard to make the distinction between real and exercise. This seems like a big coincidence. Also, NORAD was strangely enough completely incapable of defending the skies on the day of the attack. Bush and Rice claimed that they had no way of envisioning airplanes being used as weapons and flown into the Pentagon and WTC and that's why they failed to react. But that turned out not to be true.
The 19 hijackers
Who were the 19 hijackers? How can some of them still be alive? And how is it possible that a passport is found in the rubble of the Twin Towers although everything else was disintegrated? Seems to me that evidence has been conveniently planted.
2. I found interesting clips from a Dutch show called "The Devil's advocate" where they find Osama Bin Laden not guilty to the 911 attacks. This is the first one out of four parts:
Terrorist organizations take pride in their accomplishments, so how come Al-Qaeda never confessed to the attacks on September 11? What could they possibly have hoped to gain from the attack? Well, we have heard that their only motive was that they hated democracy and our freedoms, so that is why they attacked us. Isn't it ironic then, that the Bush administration have gone out of their way to enforce rules upon us that restricts our freedoms in order to protect us from terrorists?
Bush was quick to sign the Patriot Act.
The Act increases the ability of law enforcement agencies to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial, and other records; eases restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States; expands the Secretary of the Treasury’s authority to regulate financial transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities; and enhances the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities in detaining and deporting immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts. The act also expands the definition of terrorism to include domestic terrorism, thus enlarging the number of activities to which the USA PATRIOT Act’s expanded law enforcement powers can be applied.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act)
Bush also went to war quickly against Afghanistan even though there was no hard evidence to support that Afghanistan had anything to do with 911. So now thousands of young have been sacrificed in phony wars against Afghanistan and later Iraq simply to keep up the US hegemony and influence in the Middle East intact and concentrating power to a few.
Couldn't a war against Israel have been more justified?
This is the first part of two videos:
For most people, it is hard to believe that the government had knowledge of the attacks and that they are hiding information from us. One realizes that they are complicit in the killing of innocent people, not on the other side of the world, but right on their own territory. It is a terrifying thought, because if they were capable of this, what else are they capable of doing? Will we see our freedoms slip away even further and more false flag terrorist operations to come? Now, the big threat seems to be bio terrorism or a great flu pandemic. Did you know that, in case of an emergency, the President has the right to further suspend our rights?
Totalitarianism, is it inevitable? It seems like we, for every day that passes, are loosing more and more freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism. Since 911 has been used as a pretext to limit our freedoms, is it important to expose the truth.
If you are interested in a simple overview of the 911 inconsistencies "Loose Change" covers quite a lot:
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment