Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Sid Walker]

bump and a PS to note that contrary to the claims of "inside jobbers" the term "pull" is only used in CD to refer literally to the process of pulling a building or other structure dowm with cables and doesn't refer to CD in general nor demolition with explosives

It's nice to get your contributions, Len, as it helps keep the rest of us up-to-date with the official story as it evolves.

You are apparently familiar with the vernacular used in Controlled Demolition circles.

I cannot compete on equal terms, as I live a quiet life by comparison. But can you tell us how you know what CD insiders really mean when they say 'pull"?

And what on earth, on your account, did Larry Silverstein mean when he referred to "pull it" when speaking of WTC-7 on PBS in 2002?

Get the cables out?

[Sid Walker]

bump and a PS to note that contrary to the claims of "inside jobbers" the term "pull" is only used in CD to refer literally to the process of pulling a building or other structure dowm with cables and doesn't refer to CD in general nor demolition with explosives

It's nice to get your contributions, Len, as it helps keep the rest of us up-to-date with the official story as it evolves.

You are apparently familiar with the vernacular used in Controlled Demolition circles.

I cannot compete on equal terms, as I live a quiet life by comparison. But can you tell us how you know what CD insiders really mean when they say 'pull"?

And what on earth, on your account, did Larry Silverstein mean when he referred to "pull it" when speaking of WTC-7 on PBS in 2002?

Tug on the cables?

Edited March 8, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Sid Walker]

Chance the Gardener in Being There, articulated the essence of the TV age with the immortal words "I like to watch".

We miss you Peter Sellers! Your take on the War on Terror would have us all in stitches.

Here are a few short vids to take up the slack...

911 Truth: Arrested for Handing Out News Publication

World Trade Center 7 was brought down by a controlled demolition - includes the famous Silverstein "pull it" footage.

Controlled Demolition Expert and WTC7. A treat for those who speak Dutch; English subtitles for the rest of us. This video is especially well done; the expert is given a hypothetical, before he's told the event described took place on 9/11.

These are examples of the type of investigative journalism Brits pay licence fees for the BBC to undertake. In Australia, we pay taxes for the ABC to do this work.

It's really a bummer to discover these well-paid leeches are actually part of the problem - not the solution - and that bloggers on a shoestring so a better job reporting important news.

As of now, to find out the latest on the WTC-7 saga, don't bother with Goggle News. Use Google Blog Search - or some other facility for finding out what honest journalists are saying. Of course, there are a lot of silly and dishonest blogs. Each of us has to make our own choices about what to believe. But leaving that choice to corrupted, unaccountable institutions such as the BBC is clearly a recipe for ignorance and worse.

Edited March 8, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Greg Parker]

Media Release

Wednesday 22-Nov-2006 (1340 hrs CST)

Police warn against art scam

Police have issued a warning for consumers to beware when purchasing artwork from door to door salespeople.

Individuals are believed to be working in the Territory selling mass-produced prints as original artworks by up-and-coming artists.

The scam is believed to have been operating for years.

Detective Senior Constable Lisa Bayliss of the Palmerston Investigations Unit said there have been reports of the scam operating in the Palmerston area.

“The prints are being promoted as valuable ‘one off’ artworks by up and coming Israeli art students, however this is not the case and they are being sold well above their true value, which is part of an international scam” she said.

“We just want to warn those people who believe they are getting a genuine article, that this may not be the case and if they want an original artwork, they should probably look to purchase through a reputable art dealer, rather than an unknown door to door sales person” said Detective Senior Constable Bayliss.

Anyone who believes they may have purchased fraudulent artwork from a door-to-door salesperson and wishing to make a complaint should contact their local police station or call 131 444 to report the matter.

http://www.nt.gov.au/pfes/index.cfm?fuseac...=2006&mo=11

I lived in Palmerston (an outer suburb of Darwin) for a short while prior to moving to the inner-city. I can assure all here that there is nothing - absolutely nothing - in Palmerston that would be of even the remotest interest to any intelligence agency. I would therefore suggest they are mere scam artists, as suggested in the story.

What I could not preclude is that an intelligence agency "infiltrated" the scammers back in 2001 to use there travels and art selling as a cover. I'll let others debate that possibility.

[Ron Ecker]

I think that the truth movement is sort of grasping at straws with the notion that there is something sinister behind the BBC reporting the WTC7 collapse before it happened. There seem to be enough statements to the effect that a collapse was expected (rather these statements were planted or not) to make it believable that the BBC jumped the gun because of misinformation and a desire to be the first to report something.

The problem is that the truth movement is running out of things to research. This is due to the lack of access to the reports, interviews, etc. that the 9/11 Commission used in its "investigation" and report. You can only go so far with what has been available to study.

The Warren Commission, despite its whitewash report, published 26 volumes of supporting documents, everything from FBI interviews of witnesses to the dental records of Jack Ruby's mother. These 26 volumes contain a wealth of information that JFK researchers have feasted on for over 40 years. The 9/11 Commission was not so generous. It issued one paperback book, and locked up all the supporting documents in the national archives, where they are not even subject to FOIA requests.

No telling what gems of information are in all those interviews and reports, but the American people are not even entitled to look.

[Sid Walker]

I think that the truth movement is sort of grasping at straws with the notion that there is something sinister behind the BBC reporting the WTC7 collapse before it happened. There seem to be enough statements to the effect that a collapse was expected (rather these statements were planted or not) to make it believable that the BBC jumped the gun because of misinformation and a desire to be the first to report something.

The problem is that the truth movement is running out of things to research. This is due to the lack of access to the reports, interviews, etc. that the 9/11 Commission used in its "investigation" and report. You can only go so far with what has been available to study.

The Warren Commission, despite its whitewash report, published 26 volumes of supporting documents, everything from FBI interviews of witnesses to the dental records of Jack Ruby's mother. These 26 volumes contain a wealth of information that JFK researchers have feasted on for over 40 years. The 9/11 Commission was not so generous. It issued one paperback book, and locked up all the supporting documents in the national archives, where they are not even subject to FOIA requests.

No telling what gems of information are in all those interviews and reports, but the American people are not even entitled to look.

Interesting post, Ron. But I don't share your pessimism.

I do agree that the paucity of official information is a disadvantage. Nevertheless, the times are different. The Internet is the key. Plus the fact that many people around the world have, by now, spent a lot of time looking at 'hidden history'. We have the JFK research community, among others, to thank for that. I think the general level of naiveté, among the few who are deeply interested in these topics, is probably much lower than in 1963 - or '68.

I find your acceptance of the BBC story rather odd. Have you watched the BBC footage of Jane Stanley's report?

If you haven't done so already, I also suggest watching Aaron Brown on CNN tell the same story - then change in mid-sentence when he sees, with his own eyes, that WTC-7 is still standing. Very suss!

Combined with improbable stories about lost tapes, active attempts to "pull" the story involving Google and archive.org, determination to shield the BBC reporter from questions, and unwillingness to say who was responsible for the erroneous story in the first place - all documented above in this thread... well, if that doesn't seem strange to you, we must have different thresholds of suspicion.

I simply do not believe that CNN and the BBC cannot establish the identity of the source of the false story that WTC-7 had already collapsed. If they have nothing to hide why don't the tell the rest of us who that source was? Why the secrecy and dissembling?

As the BBC story has particular relevance to the British, I'd like to ask Brits on the forum for impressions on how this story is playing on home turf? Of course, there's effectively a mass media blackout on the story. But is it being talked about in pubs and living rooms? Or is everyone still dreaming of their next summer holiday, watching the cricket and worrying about their weight and pasty complexion?

Edited March 9, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Len Colby]

bump and a PS to note that contrary to the claims of "inside jobbers" the term "pull" is only used in CD to refer literally to the process of pulling a building or other structure dowm with cables and doesn't refer to CD in general nor demolition with explosives

It's nice to get your contributions, Len, as it helps keep the rest of us up-to-date with the official story as it evolves.

You are apparently familiar with the vernacular used in Controlled Demolition circles.

I cannot compete on equal terms, as I live a quiet life by comparison. But can you tell us how you know what CD insiders really mean when they say 'pull"?

And what on earth, on your account, did Larry Silverstein mean when he referred to "pull it" when speaking of WTC-7 on PBS in 2002?

Tug on the cables?

No Sid I don’t know this because I’m part of some “Jewish conspiratorial network” or the NWO or even a demolitions expert as you like to insinuate, no inside knowledge is needed. I have looked into the subject and this is what my research has revealed:

- I have asked proponents of the CD to provide citations of the term used to refer to a) CD in general or explosive CD on this and other forums and have seen them asked the same question on others, I’ve yet to see an example.

- Experts in the field say otherwise:

“We have never heard the term “pull it” being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we’ve spoken with. The term is used in conventional demolition circles, to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a pre-weakened building and naneuvering heavy equipment (excavators, bulldozers, etc.) to “pull” the frame of the structure over onto its side for further dismantlement.” (pg. 9)

Burt Blanchard, Senior Editor - ImpolsionWorld.Com and Director of Field Operations – Protec Documentation Services Inc (a leading independent authority on CD). “We” refers to Blanchard and other Protec employees who contributed to his paper. (pgs. 1 -2)

http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STU...rd%208-8-06.pdf

A Dutch “inside jobber” wrote:

I mailed Jowenko BV and asked if 'pull' was an industry term for 'demolish'. They said it wasn't. Implosionworld said the same thing. I run into the same problem when looking into different dictionaries. There is always a distinction made between 'pull down', 'pull away' and 'pull back'. And I have not been able to find one person on the internet who uses this word as a substitute for 'demolish'. So I think it's safe to assume that Larry needs to clarify what he meant, but unfortunately he refuses to do that.

<snip>

Now, lets see what implosionworld told me:

"There is no such phrase in explo-demo. Most likely he meant "pull out" as in have people evacuate. Conventionally, "pull a building" can mean to pre-burn holes in steel beams near the top floor and affix long cables to heavy machinery, which then backs up and causes the structure to lean off its center of gravity and eventually collapse. But this is only possible with buildings about 6-7 stories or smaller. This activity was performed to bring down WTC 6 (Customs) after 9/11 because of the danger in demolishing conventionally."

Of course these companies are not going to adhere to any conspiracy theories, but they did help in dispelling another possible red herring. The fact that it is very likely that 7 WTC has been blown up doesn't change at all, but I wonder why Silverstein made this strange statement and especially why PBS conveniently put that 'ready to pull building six' sentence in. Maybe someone is messing with our heads. I don't know.”

http://web.archive.org/web/20050327052408/..._review.htm#222

Note that Jowenko is the company of the Dutch demolition expert cited by Sid

According to Jim Hoffman one of the founders of the “truth movement”:

searching sites specific to the demolition trade does not support this meaning of 'pull'. The following Google searches of the two best known controlled demolition sites in October of 2003 did not return any results indicating that pulling and demolition are synonymous.

• site:controlled-demolition.com pull

• site:implosionworld.com pull

Searching Google with the query demolition pull and filtering out sites referring to the Silverstein pull-it remark returns only one result in about 10 pages of results that uses 'pull' to mean demolish:

City staff have contacted the property owner by phone to request that he obtain a demolition permit and pull down and demolish the building

http://www.wtc7.net/pullit.html

Jeff “Killtown” another leading “inside jobber” called Controlled Demolition Inc. (CDI) considered the leading company in the business:

Female receptionist: Good afternoon, Loizeaux Company.

Jeff: Um, sorry, do I -- is this Controlled Demolitions?

CDI: Yes it is.

Jeff: Ok, I was wondering if there was someone I could talk to briefly -- just ask a question I had?

CDI: Well what kind of question?

Jeff: Well I just wanted to know what a term meant in demolition terms.

CDI: Ok, what type of term?

Jeff: Well, if you were in the demolition business and you said the, the term "pull it," I was wondering what exactly that would mean?

CDI: "Pull it"?

Jeff: Yeah.

CDI: Hmm? Hold on a minute.

Jeff: Thank you.

CDI: Sir?

Jeff: Yes?

CDI: "Pull it" is when they actually pull it down.

Jeff: Oh, well thank you very much for your time.

CDI: Ok.

Jeff: Bye.

CDI: Bye.

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/06/cdi-p...it-down_30.html

Audio link to the conversation...

http://www.pumpitout.com/phone_calls/contr...demolitions.mp3

Many “inside jobbers” (like the author of the blog) are so devoid of critical thinking skills they think this backs their contentions but the receptionist after consulting someone else at the company said “pull it” means “pull it down” NOT implode it. In a similar vein they point to another clip in the same NOVA documentary where Silverstein made his “pull it” comment. In that clip a construction or demolition worker said “Oh, we’re getting ready to pull building six.” But like so many quotes cited by the “(bend the) truth movement” it was taken out of context, seconds later in documentary and probably immediately after in the interview he said: “Worker #1: We’ve got the cables attached in four different locations going up. Now they’re pulling pulling the building to the north. It’s not every day you try to pull down a eight storey building with cables”

A high resolution copy of the clip can be seen here: http://911myths.com/PullBuildingSix.avi

Most truthers including the aforementioned “Killtown” cut that bit of their videos just as they cut it out of their quotes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7he_sAVs0A

What did Silverstein mean? Probably “pull” the fire fighting operation around the building. This makes sense because he said “they (the NYFD) decided to pull” and in my previous post I provided numerous examples of FD commanders and personnel using the term ‘pull’ in that context. It also makes more sense in light of Silverstein having said “I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it."

Per the “inside jobber” interpretation of the expression the FD decided to demolish 7 WTC and thus was probably guilty of manslaughter (a Secret Service agent was killed in the collapse) and perhaps conspiracy to commit insurance fraud and presumably is covering up the murder of thousands of people including hundreds of their colleagues.

One must also wonder why Silverstein would have spontaneously admitted to demolishing the building or why if a reasonable person would think he meant “demolish it” why the insurance companies didn’t bring this up during their court battles with him.

The full quote BTW was:

“I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.”

Edited March 9, 2007 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

"Controlled Demolition Expert and WTC7. A treat for those who speak Dutch; English subtitles for the rest of us. This video is especially well done; the expert is given a hypothetical, before he's told the event described took place on 9/11."

Simply watching a video is not sufficient evidence from him to have reached a conclusion, was he aware the FD had been predicting the building’s collapse all afternoon? Did they show the part where the roofline stated collapsing 10 seconds before the façade?

“If you haven't done so already, I also suggest watching Aaron Brown on CNN tell the same story - then change in mid-sentence when he sees, with his own eyes, that WTC-7 is still standing. Very suss!”

He said “We are getting information now that one of the other buildins in the complex, building 7 is on fire and has either collapsed or is collapsing” a graphic then pops up and says it “may collapse”

As Ron noted not odd because the FD had been predicting the collapse for hours, it wasn’t the first or last time news got something wrong! He said soon after the FD established a collapse zone around the building.

“Combined with improbable stories about lost tapes,”

What was to be gained by falsely claiming this since copies were already in circulation on the Net?

“active attempts to "pull" the story involving Google and archive.org,”Evidence please?

“I simply do not believe that CNN and the BBC cannot establish the identity of the source of the false story that WTC-7 had already collapsed. If they have nothing to hide why don't the tell the rest of us who that source was? Why the secrecy and dissembling?”

Has anybody asked CNN? What do they have to hide? Someone screwed up! Also it's over 5 years after a very chaotic day.

[Ron Ecker]

I'm more interested in knowing who told Giuliani that the twin towers were going to collapse. I thought the first collapse sort of caught everyone by surprise. At least most people except for the select few like Giuliani who were given warning (in case they didn't already know) and got out.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_giuliani.html

[Kevin M. West]

“If you haven't done so already, I also suggest watching Aaron Brown on CNN tell the same story - then change in mid-sentence when he sees, with his own eyes, that WTC-7 is still standing. Very suss!”

He said “We are getting information now that one of the other buildins in the complex, building 7 is on fire and has either collapsed or is collapsing” a graphic then pops up and says it “may collapse”

As Ron noted not odd because the FD had been predicting the collapse for hours, it wasn’t the first or last time news got something wrong! He said soon after the FD established a collapse zone around the building.

Even less odd when you consider the evidence that there was a collapse on the south side well before the rest of the building came down. He might not have been wrong at all when he said 'has collapsed or is collapsing', part of it may have collapsed by that point

Here's video clearly showing a section of the south roofline has collapsed. Pictures and videos from earlier in the day show less damage in the same spot. This is pretty undisputable proof that parts of the building had started to collapse well before the final global collapse.

[Guest John Gillespie]

"Controlled Demolition Expert and WTC7. A treat for those who speak Dutch; English subtitles for the rest of us. This video is especially well done; the expert is given a hypothetical, before he's told the event described took place on 9/11."

Simply watching a video is not sufficient evidence from him to have reached a conclusion, was he aware the FD had been predicting the building’s collapse all afternoon? Did they show the part where the roofline stated collapsing 10 seconds before the façade?

“If you haven't done so already, I also suggest watching Aaron Brown on CNN tell the same story - then change in mid-sentence when he sees, with his own eyes, that WTC-7 is still standing. Very suss!”

He said “We are getting information now that one of the other buildins in the complex, building 7 is on fire and has either collapsed or is collapsing” a graphic then pops up and says it “may collapse”

As Ron noted not odd because the FD had been predicting the collapse for hours, it wasn’t the first or last time news got something wrong! He said soon after the FD established a collapse zone around the building.

“Combined with improbable stories about lost tapes,”

What was to be gained by falsely claiming this since copies were already in circulation on the Net?

“active attempts to "pull" the story involving Google and archive.org,”Evidence please?

“I simply do not believe that CNN and the BBC cannot establish the identity of the source of the false story that WTC-7 had already collapsed. If they have nothing to hide why don't the tell the rest of us who that source was? Why the secrecy and dissembling?”

Has anybody asked CNN? What do they have to hide? Someone screwed up! Also it's over 5 years after a very chaotic day.

______________________________________________

Len,

As one who believs that WTC-7 had a function and was used for a purpose by the perpetrators, I nonetheless agree with your assertions here, all of which are framed by reasonability and good common sense. When people shoot from the hip and miss badly, everyone near the bullseye has good reason to relax because those who consider themselves moderate, reasonable and mainstream Average Americans (when, in fact, they may simply be mainstream Useful Idiots) tend to dismiss the theory or theories out of hand, and rightfully so, after which said theory or theories quickly become a joke.

The same aspect of human nature - in play when everyone seemed totally in acceptance of the collapse of WTC-7 as something inevitable because, after all, those nearby towers collapsed (like the myth of a dead auto headlight bulb being the direct cause of the other to follow suit) - also was at large during the perpetuation of the "...has collapsed" and "...may collapse" stories. William of Occam does pull his knife occasionally, though one would be hard-pressed to find acknowledgement of that in this neighborhood.

Nice Work,

Regards,

JG

[Len Colby]

The BBC it seems has already provided the kind of explaination Sid said he was looking for but I have a sneaking feeling the goal posts are going to move now (possibly to another stadium)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007...nspiracy_2.html

I found the clip I was looking for, an NBC or MSNBC anchor said just after 7 WTC collapsed, “what we’ve been fearing all afternoon has apparently happened, we were watching number 7 World Trade…”

http://msnbc.com/modules/interactive.aspx?...0911&type=v

As to Ron’s question the statement of Albert Turi, then the NYFD’s Chief of Safety provides some insight apparently the city’s Office of Emergency Management (OEM) noticed instability in the towers:

[Turi]...We didn’t have any indications of any structural stability at that time.

Then Steve Mosiello, Chief Ganci’s executive assistant, came over to the command post and he said we’re getting reports from OEM that the buildings are not structurally sound, and of course that got our attention really quick, and Pete said, well, who are we getting these reports from? And then Steve brought an EMT person over to the command post who was I think sent as a runner to tell us this and Chief Ganci questioned him, where are we getting these reports? And his answer was something, you know, we’re not sure, OEM is just reporting this.

And within ten seconds of that conversation, I was writing on my clipboard—can I use foul language on this?

Q. Absolutely. That conversation, by the way, took place in the ramp driveway leading into the garage?

A. That is correct; right at the ramp. The ramp was still on the exterior. We were not in the garage. Maybe 20 feet from the opening of the garage. The next thing I heard was Pete say what the xxxx is this? And as my eyes traveled up the building, and I was looking at the south tower, somewhere about halfway up, my initial reaction was there was a secondary explosion, and the entire floor area, a ring right around the building blew out. I later realized that the building had started to collapse already and this was the air being compressed and that is the floor that let go. And as my eyes traveled further up the building, I realized that this building was collapsing and I turned around and most everybody was ahead of me running for the garage, and I remember thinking I looked at this thing a little bit too long and I might not make this garage. But I did...

(Pgs. 13 – 14)

Interestingly immediately before the passage above he recounted that he expected a partial collapse:

[Turi]...I thought to myself that, based on other high-rise fires that had burned out of control, that we would probably have some type of localized collapse up on the upper floors, especially in the core area of the building, which I mistakenly thought was block construction. After further investigation, of course, after the fact, it wasn’t block construction. The elevator cores were encased in sheetrock actually.

Q. For the record, would you tell us what block construction is?

A. Yes. Block is usually like a four-inch cement block that’s laid and that’s what encloses elevator shafts. In the construction of the Trade Center, due to the high speed and the travel distance of the elevators, they used a sheetrock construction over steel so there was more give for the wind forces created by the elevators. They felt that it would probably have knocked the block over. So I thought we would be pretty good for about three hours. Three hours is usually what the fire walls are rated for in high-rise construction. It’s usually a three-hour rating...

(pgs. 12 – 13)

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110142.PDF

[Len Colby]

Perhaps Peter can produce evidence that the US or some other country had reconnaissance satellites taking images of those buildings at the relevant moments and would be willing to tell us what he would expect them to show (or not show).

[Sid Walker]

The "someone would have talked" argument is familiar to JFK researchers.

The response that plenty of folk talk did needs documentation. It is not a service provided by the western mass media.

There's a similar 'anti-inside job' argument.

It goes something like this: "lots of people in the know would be talking about it"

As we now know, in the JFK case, they were...

Same with 9/11.

Here's an interesting summary of comments by prominent conservative Americans about 9/11 unlikely to appear any time soon on the front pages of the controlled media:

It's worth visiting the original on George Washington's Blog, for links to the original sources.

Leading Conservatives: 9/11 Cover-Up

Is questioning the government's version of what happened on 9/11 a traitorous activity? Is it something cooked up by liberals and the Democrat party to weaken the conservative movement or to undermine the President's ability to lead the country in this dangerous time?

Well, let's see what leading conservatives have to say:

Current Republican Congressman states that "we see the [9/11] investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on"

Former U.S. Republican Congressman and senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, who served six years as the Chairman of the Military Research and Development Subcommittee, has shown that the U.S. tracked hijackers before 9/11, is open to hearing information about explosives in the Twin Towers, and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan said that the official story of 9/11 is "the dog that doesn't hunt" (if you suspect he is a closet liberal, take a look at his bio)

Former high-ranking Reagan official and very influential conservative finds "massive evidence that the 9/11 Commission Report is a hoax"

Former Air Force Colonel and Pentagon official, who was part of the influential Office of Special Plans, and who was at the Pentagon on 9/11 does not believe the official story regarding 9/11 (see also this essay)

In addition, the following high-level military and intelligence personnel have also questioned 9/11 (it is not clear whether or not they are conservatives; but their credentials are impressive):

Retired Lieutenant Colonel who served 21 years in the U.S. Marine Corps, a fighter pilot who flew over 300 combat missions, questions the official version of 9/11 and said "This isn't about party, it isn't about Bush Bashing. It's about our country, our constitution, and our future...Your countrymen have been murdered and the more you delve into it the more it looks as though they were murdered by our government, who used it as an excuse to murder other people thousands of miles away."

Former 20-year Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer, the second-ranking civilian in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence, and former CIA clandestine services case officer stated that "9/11 was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war", and it was probably an inside job (see Customer Review dated October 7, 2006)

Former FBI translator, who the Department of Justice's Inspector General and several senators have called extremely credible (free subscription required), said "If they were to do real investigations we would see several significant high level criminal prosecutions in this country. And that is something that they are not going to let out. And, believe me; they will do everything to cover this up". She also is leaning towards the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job

Former director of the U.S. "Star Wars" space defense program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, who was a senior air force colonel who flew 101 combat missions believes that the military was intentionally disabled on 9/11 in order to allow the attacks to succeed (see also this statement)

High-ranking general and the former chief of NATO (in Danish; hint -- he mentions bombs in the Twin Towers)

[Peter McKenna]

The "someone would have talked" argument is familiar to JFK researchers.

The response that plenty of folk talk did needs documentation. It is not a service provided by the western mass media.

There's a similar 'anti-inside job' argument.

It goes something like this: "lots of people in the know would be talking about it"

As we now know, in the JFK case, they were...

Same with 9/11.

Here's an interesting summary of comments by prominent conservative Americans about 9/11 unlikely to appear any time soon on the front pages of the controlled media:

It's worth visiting the original on George Washington's Blog, for links to the original sources.

Leading Conservatives: 9/11 Cover-Up

Is questioning the government's version of what happened on 9/11 a traitorous activity? Is it something cooked up by liberals and the Democrat party to weaken the conservative movement or to undermine the President's ability to lead the country in this dangerous time?

Well, let's see what leading conservatives have to say:

Current Republican Congressman states that "we see the [9/11] investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on"

Former U.S. Republican Congressman and senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, who served six years as the Chairman of the Military Research and Development Subcommittee, has shown that the U.S. tracked hijackers before 9/11, is open to hearing information about explosives in the Twin Towers, and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan said that the official story of 9/11 is "the dog that doesn't hunt" (if you suspect he is a closet liberal, take a look at his bio)

Former high-ranking Reagan official and very influential conservative finds "massive evidence that the 9/11 Commission Report is a hoax"

Former Air Force Colonel and Pentagon official, who was part of the influential Office of Special Plans, and who was at the Pentagon on 9/11 does not believe the official story regarding 9/11 (see also this essay)

In addition, the following high-level military and intelligence personnel have also questioned 9/11 (it is not clear whether or not they are conservatives; but their credentials are impressive):

Retired Lieutenant Colonel who served 21 years in the U.S. Marine Corps, a fighter pilot who flew over 300 combat missions, questions the official version of 9/11 and said "This isn't about party, it isn't about Bush Bashing. It's about our country, our constitution, and our future...Your countrymen have been murdered and the more you delve into it the more it looks as though they were murdered by our government, who used it as an excuse to murder other people thousands of miles away."

Former 20-year Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer, the second-ranking civilian in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence, and former CIA clandestine services case officer stated that "9/11 was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war", and it was probably an inside job (see Customer Review dated October 7, 2006)

Former FBI translator, who the Department of Justice's Inspector General and several senators have called extremely credible (free subscription required), said "If they were to do real investigations we would see several significant high level criminal prosecutions in this country. And that is something that they are not going to let out. And, believe me; they will do everything to cover this up". She also is leaning towards the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job

Former director of the U.S. "Star Wars" space defense program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, who was a senior air force colonel who flew 101 combat missions believes that the military was intentionally disabled on 9/11 in order to allow the attacks to succeed (see also this statement)

High-ranking general and the former chief of NATO (in Danish; hint -- he mentions bombs in the Twin Towers)

It is interesting to note that the quotes are by "Former" officials.

It would be interesting to know what if any pressure was applied to current officals, or even what retribution is 'perceived' to exist if overt prssure isn't used.

In eiher case, someone will speak up sooner or later .

Edited March 11, 2007 by Peter McKenna