| |
 |
Wednesday, February 28, 2007 |
Borowitz: "Just days after former Vice President Al Gore received an Academy Award for his global warming documentary 'An Inconvenient Truth', the United States Supreme Court handed Mr. Gore a stunning reversal, stripping him of his Oscar and awarding it to President George W. Bush instead."
12:13:20 PM 
|
|
I warily give in to report on this issue. But it may be important, even very important. The internet is abuzz with the news that on September 11, 2001, the BBC broadcast and purportedly showed the news that the Salomon Brothers Building, also known as Building 7, had collapsed while the building was still standing behind the reporter. This would mean there was foreknowledge about the 'collapse' and that this was without a shred of doubt a controlled demolition. This would be fuel to the theory that the attack on the WTC was an inside job. However, it could be a hoax, though it does not look like one; it is possible to tamper with images though.
A few weeks ago I had already reported on Building 7. Even without the latest video it is clear Building 7 did not collapse, but was demolished in a controlled way.
Until now I have read these books about 9/11:
- The 9/11 Commission Report Omissions and Distortions - David Griffin
- Towers of Deception - Zwicker
- 9/11 Synthetic Terror - Webster Griffin Tarpley
- 9/11 The Big Lie - Thierry Meyssan
- Die CIA und der 11. September - Andreas van Bülow
- Crossing the Rubicon - Michael Ruppert
- Cover Up - Peter Lance
I have watched these DVDs:
- Loose Change 2nd ed.
- Confronting the Evidence
- The Great Conspiracy
- 911 Eyewitness Hoboken
- 911 In Plane Site
Next to all the documentaries and news from the mainstream media, this is a lot of information. Initially my theory was that the American government let it happen. But the 'mistakes' and indications are so overwhelming that an objective opinion can only conclude this could not have been done without the active involvement of a government.
The collapse of Building 7 was without any doubt a controlled demolition. That building was not hit by a plane and was built to resist a bombing. And the controlled demolition would necessarily have to have been planned and organised before September 11.
If you look at other evidence there are serious indications that the neat collapse of the twin towers was a controlled demolition as well.
It is not possible that these three buildings all of a sudden defy all laws of physics. These would be the only buildings to have ever 'collapsed' by an impact of a plane and/or fire. This has never happened before.
The only way to demolish high towers like that in a way that would not endanger surrounding buildings, would not be to start the detonations from the bottom, but from the top. The puffs of smoke appearing below the 'collapse' line indicate that there were explosions. Each floor would have to be fired consecutively in a very short series of explosions. Only this would guarantee total destruction. And this is exactly what happened.
Then there is the attack on the Pentagon. How is it possible that the facade of the building still stands after the explosion and the hole is too small to have let pass a Boeing? What the site looks like immediately after the impact is exactly like it would have looked after an impact of a cruise missile. An impact of a Boeing would have destroyed the facade immediately.
Moreover, how is it possible that there is damage to one of the inner rings of the buildings, when the plane is supposed to have been burnt up completely right in front of the facade? The damage could only have been the result of a deep penetration missile.
Then there is the fact that nothing was done to intercept the hijacked planes. And afterwards seven of the purported hijackers were still found alive abroad. It simply is not possible that everything on that day worked favourably for a successful attack.
If the government has the footage to show that a plane hit the Pentagon why don't they show it? Now let them defuse the recent BBC video find.
We were told that Bin Laden was responsible. But until now no evidence has been given for this. And Bush has no plans of bringing him to justice. So far the Bin Laden theory is no more than a conspiracy theory.
The only thing that prevents people from seeing this as an inside job is the fear of being dubbed a 'conspiracy theorist' and that this would imply a really monstrous conspiration beyond belief. But there is reason enough to doubt the official version of the attack. And Monbiot is simply refusing to look at the facts.
Everything points to a criminal involvement of insiders. If this newly found video is genuine then it definitely points to an orchestrated WTC demolition. But even without this video there is so much that contradicts the official version, that a really objective investigation should start now.
12:04:56 PM
|
|
© Copyright 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
