Look - I'm not trying to go all "Loose Change" on a motherfucker, but the fact remains that if we are still debating the legitimacy of the whole 9/11 official story, then shouldn't we actually take another objective look at it?
I'm not saying Dick Cheney was laughing maniacally as the towers fell, but I will say that it's been seven years, these men have proven themselves completely untrustworthy and perhaps it's time that we just reopened the books, just to be sure nothing inappropriate went on behind closed doors.
"Who the hell is debating the legitimacy of the 9/11 story?" you ask?
Why, it's some kooky fucking Arizona Republican calling out the government, of course!
Verbatim:
A recent letter to the editor asked for evidence of my claims regarding the tragedy of 9/11. Below I present some points that are presently known. I won’t be able to convince anyone who doesn’t want to be convinced, but for those who are willing to deal with factual evidence, consider the following:
• 37 different people reported explosions in the basement of the World Trade Center Towers before the first plane hit, and seismic equipment recorded both the explosions and the impacts. In addition, people were injured by the explosions in the basement, providing well-documented evidence. Yet this evidence is ignored.
•The media and government have promoted the “pancake theory” as the cause of the collapse of the Twin Towers — that is, fire weakened the steel support beams, causing the upper floors to collapse. Then the weight of the collapsing floors above caused the floors below to collapse. This theory is not consistent with scientific principles or the facts. Frank Legge, who has a doctorate in chemistry, and Tony Szamboti, a mechanical engineer, reported in December in the Journal of 9/11 Studies: “It appears therefore that the official concept of a free-fall collapse of the upper portion through the initiation story, due to heat effects from fire, is a fantasy. If the temperature did become high enough for collapse to occur” — and everyone agrees that it did not — “it could not have happened in the observed manner. In particular it could not have been sudden and thus could not have produced the velocity, and hence the momentum and kinetic energy, upon which the official story depends for the second stage of collapse.”
• The theory that the buildings collapsed due to controlled-demolition explosives, however, is consistent with scientific principles and the facts. The “demolition” theory, in fact, is the only one which scientists have been able to corroborate. That is, “… all observations are in accord with the use of explosives in a time sequence.” (Legge and Szamboti, December, Journal of 9/11 Studies.)
• Peer-reviewed reports indicate that the masses of dust particles created by the disaster contained tiny pieces of metal that had been exposed to both extreme temperatures (higher than could have been produced by a burning office or burning airplane fuel) and extreme pressure (such as an explosion) that would fragment material into minute particles. Official reports ignore this.
• In December, physicist Steven Jones announced the discovery of thermite chips in World Trade Center dust samples. The chemical composition of these chips are an exact match to known thermite samples used in controlled demolitions — further corroboration that explosive devices were involved.
• Steel support beams recovered from the site of the World Trade Center exhibit cut edges that are characteristic of thermite used to slice steel support beams in building demolitions but are not characteristic of steel beams that have been burned in a fire.
When the 9/11 Commission Report was finally released, it was woefully inadequate. It never even addressed the collapse of Building 7, for example. Former FBI Director Louis Freeh has stated that there are inaccuracies in the report and unanswered questions. Even the two chairmen of the 9/11 Commission — Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton — have accused the CIA of “obstructing” the commission, and one commissioner, U.S. Sen. Max Cleland, resigned, stating that the commission was “compromised.”
Private individuals with specialized knowledge — scientists, engineers, architects, demolitions experts, and the firefighters and police officers who were on the scene on Sept. 11, 2001, have tested theories, constructed models, provided testimony, and dug for the truth about what really happened on 9/11. They have been ignored by media and the government.
The mainstream media parrot the less-than-credible conclusions of the 9/11 Commission without giving any thought to the many omissions and inconsistencies. In a truly free country, the press would ask hard questions and do real investigating, but this is not happening. Only the alternative media, such as Internet news sites, have done any solid investigating.
The events of 9/11 led immediately to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and passage of the Patriot Act (what double-speak), both of which deprive us of Constitutional rights and have brought us to the brink of becoming a police state. Homeland Security is currently trying to force a national ID card down our throats, although some governors have politely (or not so politely) told Secretary Michael Chertoff where he can go.
If we’re going to sacrifice our freedom, there ought to be a very good reason, and we have a right to know what that is. It isn’t enough for government to say, “Trust me.” It’s way past time for Congress to authorize an independent investigation of 9/11 that will consider the mass of new evidence that has been gathered in the past seven years. The longer they stall, the more suspicions grow.
Sen. Karen S. Johnson, R-Mesa, represents District 18.
Say what you want, but the lady makes some solid points. She also has, y'know numbers and shit, which look impressive. It's always good to have things like data and such to back your claims.
I show you this, so I can then show you the other. And this is really why I think we need to reopen the investigation. For as you will see, while poor Karen Johnson must live in a world where things like reality and numbers factor into her perspective,
those who oppose her views on 9/11 seem less inclined to do so.
Example 1:
Not impossible, but still crazy
Like I have always said, people believe what they want to believe and refuse to believe what they do not want to believe, as Sen. Karen Johnson once again demonstrates (“Backing my claims about 9/11 questions,” Opinion 2, Saturday).
The History Channel did a program examining 9/11 conspiracy theories and offered evidence that these theories were not credible. But it is not possible to prove, of course, that our government did not attack America and destroy the World Trade Center. It is possible to think this is a silly and dangerous idea. Once an event happens it becomes history and can only be reconstructed from less-that-perfect evidence. This invites everyone to give it his or her own two-cent ideas.
To concentrate on proving our government is this evil is to ignore the reality of our enemy. They have proven motive, means and opportunity for 9/11. They have been killing Americans for more than 40 years now and have in their own thoughts been at war with America for a long time.
It would be wrong to ignore the problems in our intelligence community and in the State Department, that have persisted through several administrations, of all persuasions, that has given us such a poor understanding of the Middle East.
JAMES R. SCHER
CHANDLER
If you're scoring at home, yes, Mr. Scher cited The History Channel as his main source.
Example 2:
Wacky and wackier
What a double-header on the Opinion 2 page Saturday! I wasn’t sure whether it was “Dumb and Dumber” redux, or nut and nuttier. I’ll settle for the latter, because Tibor Machan and Sen. Karen Johnson probably are intelligent, just wacko....
Johnson has never met a conspiracy theory she didn’t like. Her brain has a sign on it that says “for amusement only.” I think she is almost due to leave the Legislature thanks to term limits — now we just have to pay her retirement for the rest of her life. How about a story from the Tribune on the retirement pay for legislators? And a sidebar on the regular pay including per diem and travel allowances?
This started out to be a cancellation of our subscription (what a shame — our family has read the Trib since the 1940s), but my wife likes the bridge column and I do the crossword. We’ll try to avoid the editorial pages from here on out to help our blood pressure.
FRANK BENNETT SR.
MESA
As you can see, Mr. Bennett has eschewed sources in favor of good old-fashioned insults.
Example 3:
Why trust Congress?
I was saddened to read Sen. Karen Johnson’s, R-Mesa, piece (Opinion 2, Saturday) defending her belief that 9/11 was a government conspiracy. She says she can’t convince anyone that doesn’t want to be convinced and then presents the “factual evidence” that should convince those who can be convinced.
When I first saw the “evidence” some years ago, I too was intrigued by it, but then I did something that the 9/11 conspiracy folks never seem to do — I sought out knowledgeable explanations for the “evidence.”
Beyond the fact that the “evidence” is refutable, I would ask Sen. Johnson and all those who are so eager to believe in a 9/11 conspiracy (other than the actual one hatched by bin Laden), did you not believe your eyes? We saw the planes hit the buildings. The people who were on those planes are gone, are they not? We know who the hijackers were and how they trained for their hideous mission. Do you have any idea how long it takes and what is involved in preparing a large building (let alone the Twin Towers and Building No. 7) for demolition with explosives? And none of the many thousands of people who worked in those buildings every day noticed anything untoward?
Most of the 9/11 conspiracy folks tend to be leftists who are so warped by their hatred of President Bush and his “evil administration” they have no problem accepting the most absurd premises; so it is with some surprise to see Johnson, who I usually agree with politically, getting fitted for a tinfoil hat. I would ask her one last question. If she truly believes that the government was behind 9/11 and she wants “Congress to authorize an independent investigation,” how does she know Congress isn’t in on the conspiracy?
DAN DOMINEY
MESA
Mr. Dominey chooses to refute Sen. Johnson's ideas, but he cites only his "own eyes" as his sources. He does say that he did a bit of research, but he doesn't say where. He then calls into the question the basic patriotism of anyone who doesn't like President Bush.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying I agree with the Senator's views on this. I'm not saying some of her information isn't possibly false. What I am saying is that her argument is constructed in such a way so as to cause me to think she is someone who might possibly have her wits about her.
As such, I think that an abject dismissal of her point of view is unfair. To call her patriotism into question simply because she refuses to support the worst President we've ever had is just imbecilic.
Why is it that I can't tell you that I believe that an administration that has no problem torturing people, wiretapping its own citizens or starting a war for the sake of profit and deflection might - I mean maybe, possibly, I'm not saying they did I'm just saying they could have - might have possibly not let us all in on the full story of what went down on the day that basically GAVE THEM THE RIGHT TO PULL EVERY SINGLE TYPE OF BULLSHIT THEY'VE BEEN PULLING EVER SINCE IT HAPPENED???
Seriously, you don't think maybe we should keep digging until we absolutely know beyond a shadow of a doubt that these guys are clean?
It'd be a better use of our tax money than the war, in my humble opinion.
