دعواتكم لزميلنا المفكر د.الباقر العفيف بالشفاء العاجل
|
|
 موضوع هام: ترقبوا هذا البرنامج على قناة سى سبان 2 يوم السبت سبعه مايو
|
Prof. David Ray Griffin will appear on C-SPAN 2 (Book TV) this Saturday, May 7th at 2:30 PM EST (11:30 AM Pacific time). In his 80-minute lecture to a standing room audience of 400 at the University of Wisconsin, Prof. Griffin, one of the most respected theologians in the US, discusses his extensive research into the 9/11 cover-up. This nationally televised lecture first aired last weekend and will be repeated Saturday for those who missed it. David Ray Griffin is professor emeritus at the Claremont School of Theology, where he taught for over 30 years. He has authored or edited over two dozen scholarly books.
Two years ago, a trusted friend sent Prof. Griffin an email referring him to the reliable, easily verifiable information on the two-page 9/11 summary from our website, WantToKnow.info. After exploring the links to revealing articles on major media websites and progressing eventually to our 60-page 9/11 timeline and other excellent resources, he became convinced of a major cover-up around 9/11. Putting aside all of his work in theology, Prof. Griffin then devoted himself to writing The New Pearl Harbor, a devastating book which systematically presents a detailed account questioning the official story of 9/11.
Following the publication of the 9/11 Commission Report, Prof. Griffin published a second compelling book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, which convincingly deconstructs the official story presented in the report. These two books have sold nearly 100,000 copies both in the US and abroad. They have been translated into several languages, and have convinced many key people of the need for a truly independent investigation into that fateful day.
As this is the first time that the 9/11 cover-up has received national television coverage, I encourage you to watch this excellent program and invite your friends, family, and colleagues to join you. If you feel so called, email C-SPAN expressing your gratitude and support. We are moving ever closer to the critical mass necessary to force the media to cover this vital issue in news headlines where it belongs. Together, I know that we can and will build a brighter future for all of us. Below are several informative links and a newspaper article (with added links for easy verification) related to Prof. Griffin's lecture on what may be the greatest cover-up ever to be exposed.
With very best wishes,
Fred Burks for the WantToKnow.info Team
View the program online now for free. Windows Media Player required (free download)
http://www.911blogger.com/2005/04/proper-release-of-griffin-in-madison.html
Free audio version of program online. Windows Media Player required (free download)
http://www.septembereleventh.org/documents/drg_cspan.mp3
Biographical information on Prof. David Ray Griffin
http://www.ctr4process.org/about/CoDirectors/CPSGriffin.htm
C-SPAN 2 announcement for the program featuring Prof. Griffin
http://www.booktv.org/General/index.asp?segID=5677&;schedID=362
C-SPAN 2 schedule for Saturday, May 7th
http://www.booktv.org/schedule/
Order a copy of David Ray Griffin's show from C-SPAN 2 at:
http://www.c-spanstore.org/shop/index.php?main_page=pro...=186335-1&template=4
Article on David Ray Griffin lecture in Wisconsin State Journal
http://www.madison.com/archives/read.php?ref=wsj:2005:0...2716:LOCAL/WISCONSIN
Article covering lecture in Wisconsin's The Capital Times (see below for full text)
http://www.madison.com/tct/news/stories/index.php?ntid=36617&;ntpid=
Theologian calls for response to 9/11
By Samara Kalk Derby for The Capital Times
April 19, 2005
David Ray Griffin asks the tough questions about Sept. 11, contending U.S. officials had some knowledge of what was coming and possibly orchestrated the attacks.
Griffin, whose book, "The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11," came out a year ago, drew an enthusiastic standing ovation from the majority of the 400 or so people who packed his lecture Monday night at Bascom Hall.
A retired Christian theologian, Griffin, 65, taught for more than 30 years at the Claremont School of Theology in California.
His comments Monday night were directed at religious people, who he said need to respond to Sept. 11 - and the American empire that has ensued - based on the moral principles of their religious traditions.
Drawing laughter from the crowd, Griffin said he had in mind principles like: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors' oil" and "Thou shalt not murder thy neighbors in order to steal their oil."
While Griffin noted that his books and talks have not received attention from the mainstream media, C-SPAN had a cameraman at the event and plans to air the lecture at a future date. Madison's public access cable television station, WYOU-TV/Channel 4, meanwhile, will air the talk at 7 p.m. Thursday.
Americans interpret the events of Sept. 11 in one of four ways, Griffin said:
• A first group accepts the official interpretation that Sept. 11 was a surprise attack by Islamic terrorists. It is easy for these people "to think of America's so-called War on Terror as a just war," Griffin said.
• A second group accepts the official line but thinks Sept. 11 has been used opportunistically by the Bush administration to extend the American empire. People who hold this view often believe that America's response to Sept. 11, which has led to hundreds of thousands of deaths, is far worse than the attacks themselves, he said.
• A third group believes the Bush administration knew the attacks were coming and let them happen. It shows the government as "deliberate and cold-blooded," advancing its imperial designs while hypocritically portraying itself as promoting a "culture of life," Griffin said.
Although there has been no national survey, a Zogby poll taken last year indicated that almost half of the residents of New York City share this view, he said.
• A fourth group believes that the government orchestrated the attacks. While no poll shows how many Americans believe this, polls in Canada and Germany have found as many as 20 percent of those populations do, Griffin said.
In his follow-up book, "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions," Griffin examines the questions that he and others in the "9/11 Truth Movement" charge were never examined by the federal government's 9/11 Commission.
Evidence to support the theory that U.S. officials had at least had some foreknowledge of the attacks comes from David Schippers, the chief prosecutor for the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, who reportedly received warnings from FBI agents about the attacks six weeks earlier, Griffin said.
Other government officials, including Attorney General John Ashcroft, would not respond to the warnings, he added.
There was the extraordinarily high volume of "put options" purchased in the three days before the attacks, Griffin said, with investors betting that stock in United and American Airlines - the two airlines used in the attacks - would go down. There were also a suspiciously high number of put options for Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, which occupied 22 stories of the World Trade Center.
"U.S. intelligence agencies monitor the market, partly to look for signs of impending attacks," Griffin said. "One wonders how information could be much more specific than this."
Griffin then made a case that government officials planned and executed the attacks.
For one, the United States military neglected to send fighter jets to intercept the hijacked planes. Such interceptions usually occur within 10 to 20 minutes after the first signs of trouble and are routine, happening about 100 times a year, Griffin said.
It seems implausible, he said, that the Pentagon was struck by Flight 77, since it is "surely the best defended building on the planet." The U.S. military has the best radar systems in the world and "does not miss anything occurring in North American airspace," he added.
Griffin also made a case that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was brought on by thousands of explosives placed throughout each of the buildings. They went straight down, at free-fall speed, as in controlled demolitions, and many people in the buildings reported that they heard or felt explosions, he added.
"High-rise steel-frame buildings have never - before or after 9/11- been caused to collapse by fire," he said.
Sue Adams, 50, introduced herself to Griffin after the talk, calling him heroic. "I think some day we may really know the truth," she said, adding that it will likely be after the Bush administration is gone.
Orion Litzau, a UW freshman studying engineering, agrees that the answers the government put out through the 9/11 Commission were more than a simple deception.
"They were not only partly false but a complete, bold face lie," he said. "David Ray Griffin brings out interesting points about what could be the true story behind the 9/11 attack."
Jim Goulding, 67, who teaches religious studies at Edgewood College, admitted at first he wondered whether Griffin was a crackpot, but instead found he had a "tremendous reputation as a theologian."
Goulding has read both of Griffin's Sept. 11 books.
"I think he makes a convincing case - well documented, well footnoted," he said.
E-mail: [email protected]
Published: 9:36 AM 4/19/05
Note: “On Wisconsin Pubic Radio (2/7/05) 27-year-CIA veteran Ray McGovern said he "used to be an agnostic" on the issue of official complicity in 9/11, but that David Ray Griffin's new book The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions has made a believer of him. McGovern is now fully convinced that the 9/11 Commission Report was an egregious cover-up and the case needs to be re-opened. McGovern is working with a group called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, who represent the tip of a very large iceberg of insiders who are appalled at what has been going on and are hoping to do something about it.
For numerous excellent articles on 9/11 with links to the original sources, click here
See our archive of cover-up news articles at http://www.WantToKnow.info/coverupnews
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: موضوع هام: ترقبوا هذا البرنامج على قناة سى سبان 2 يوم السبت سبعه مايو (Re: Tumadir)
|
وهذا لقاء مع الرجل كاتب الكتاب لمن يود متابعة الامر
his World refreshing News is making the rounds. Keep it going to everyone you know Even the small acts of non complicity you make will help to make Another World Possible. Add to your resistance of government crimanality a prayer for more love in our own heart and the world will become much better for the many. Yes! G
Thinking Unthinkable Thoughts
Theologian Charges White House
Complicity in 9/11 Attack
by Nick Welsh
There’s nothing the least bit wild-eyed or hysterical about David Ray Griffin. In person, he’s disarmingly calm, and speaks in the unflappably precise and deliberate style of a lifelong academic. Which is exactly what Griffin is. A respected philosopher of religion at the Claremont School of Theology since the 1970s and longtime Santa Barbara resident, Griffin is now raising questions that even President Bush’s harshest critics are afraid to think, let alone ask aloud.
In his latest book, The New Pearl Harbor — released just two weeks ago — Griffin all but accuses the Bush administration of taking a dive on September 11 and giving Al Qaeda terrorists an unobstructed shot at the World Trade Center. According to Griffin, a case can be made that the Bush administration arranged the attack, or allowed it to happen. He is aware that he may be dismissed as a conspiracy nut, but given the “transcendent importance” of the issue, Griffin is willing to assume that risk and has taken to repeating Michael Moore’s line on the subject: “Personally, I’m not into conspiracy theories except those that are true.” I met with Griffin over coffee to discuss his book and the September 11 investigation. The following is an edited account of their conversation.
NICK WELSH:
Is there a smoking gun that shows the Bush administration knew 9/11 was likely to happen and did nothing about it?
DAVID RAY GRIFFIN: I think there are four. One is the fact that standard operating procedures for dealing with possibly hijacked airplanes were not followed on 9/11. Those procedures call for fighter jets to be sent out immediately upon any sign that a plane may have been hijacked. These jets typically get to the plane within no later than 15 minutes anywhere in the United States. And on that day, there were four airplanes that went for a half-hour or more after they were hijacked without jets intercepting them.
What’s the official explanation of that?
I’m afraid the press has not done its job. They have not forced government officials to explain why standard operating procedures were not followed that day, nor have they pressed the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) to explain why they didn’t report these hijackings as they were supposed to. The official story is that [the fighter jets] were very late.
And the other smoking guns?
The second strongest piece of evidence I would say is the crash at the Pentagon. The physical evidence contradicts so violently the official account, that the Pentagon was hit by a Boeing 757 — Flight 77, that is. The physical evidence, photographs, and eyewitness testimony say that the Pentagon was hit by something that caused a hole no larger than 18 feet in diameter. The story the Pentagon put out, and was published by the Washington Post, was that the hole in the Pentagon was five stories high and 200 feet wide. If you look at the photographs taken by Tom Horan of the Associated Press — that’s just not the size of the hole.
But if the hole was only 18 feet wide, it had to have been created by something other than a Boeing. Whatever went into the Pentagon pierced six reinforced walls. This was the west wing, the part of the Pentagon being refurbished and reinforced. These walls were extra strong, and yet whatever it was went through six walls creating a hole about seven feet in diameter in the sixth wall. This had to have been something with a very powerful head on it. A Boeing 757 has a very fragile nose, and would not have pierced through all those walls; it would have been crushed by hitting the Pentagon. And given that it only penetrated these three rings, the rest of the aircraft would have been sitting outside on the yard. And yet the photographs taken just as the fire trucks got there — very shortly after the crash — show no plane whatsoever.
What do they show?
They show no aircraft whatsoever. And everyone agrees on this. The official story is that the whole aircraft went inside the Pentagon. The problem with that — the firefighters in there would have seen the airplane. They would have seen the engines, they would have seen the aluminum fuselage, but they reported nothing. Ed Plower, the fire chief, when asked what he saw, said, “I didn’t see any big pieces, no fuselage, no engines, no nothing.” But about a month later, when asked he said, “Oh yes, I saw all that.” His memory had had time to be refreshed.
If what you’re saying is accurate — that it was a missile — then what happened to the plane and all the people on it?
That’s why I stress I’m not trying to give an account of what really happened. I have no idea what happened to Flight 77.
President Bush has also been criticized for behaving somewhat bizarrely that day.
As he and the Secret Service got word that a second plane had crashed into the World Trade Center and that three planes had been hijacked, there could have been no possible doubt in their mind that the United States was under terrorist attack . . . The most horrendous attack the United States had ever suffered. And they would have had to assume that one or more of them were heading toward President Bush himself. And so upon learning about this, the Secret Service surely would have whisked him away immediately. In fact, one Secret Service agent on the scene said, “We’re out of here.” But obviously he got overruled because President Bush stayed there. After Andrew Card reported the second crash on the World Trade Center, the president just nodded as if he understood and said, “We’re going to go ahead with the reading lesson.” And he sat there another 15 minutes listening to the children read a story about a pet goat. This was a photo op and when it was over he lingered around talking to the children and talking to the teacher.
Bill Sammon, of the Washington Times, wrote a very pro-Bush book, yet he comments how casual and relaxed the president was given the fact he’d just learned the country was under attack. He said Bush took his own sweet time and in fact called him “Our Dawdler in Chief.” And then the president went on national TV, going forward with an interview that had been planned and announced in advance . . . then they took their regularly scheduled motorcade back to the airport. In other words, [Bush and the Secret Service] showed no fear whatsoever that they would be targeted for attack, which strongly suggests they knew how many aircraft were being hijacked and what their targets were.
Couldn’t it have been that he was trying to project calm in the eye of the storm, that this was Bush projecting Churchillian resolve in the face of calamity?
People who want to believe such things can, of course, imagine such scenarios. But the president in a situation like that does not make the decisions; the Secret Service team makes the decisions. And the guys in the Secret Service are trained to be ready for a catastrophe like this where they make snap decisions and whisk the president to safety immediately. They would have had an escape route planned; they would have had contingencies planned — they always do. It is at least not very plausible to think they would have remained there and endangered the lives of all the children and teachers at that school in order to exude that Churchillian confidence.
What about the plane thatcrashed down?
We know that on Flight 93, which crashed over Pennsylvania, the passengers were trying to get control of the aircraft. They had decided the hijackers did not have bombs and probably didn’t even have guns. And because their plane didn’t take off until a half-hour after the others, they knew that the others had crashed into the World Trade Center — so they knew they were going to die anyway, even if they didn’t do anything. So as one of the passengers is saying, “They’re doing it, they’re forcing their way into the cabin, they’re going to make it.” As soon as that happened, with the FBI listening in, the plane went down. There was a whoosh, then the sound of wind. And people on the ground reported hearing what Vietnam veterans said sounded like a missile. Furthermore, there was debris from the plan eight miles from the crash site, suggesting the plane had been hit and stuff started falling out. And one of the engines was found over a mile from the crash site. Of course, if it had been a missile that downed the plane, it most likely would have been a heat-seeking missile that would have found the engine and knocked it off.
Why would the government have an interest in doing this?
So the hijackers couldn’t speak to anyone?
That would be a very good reason. If it were a conspiracy and the hijackers knew about it, it would have been very threatening to those who made the plan to have anybody left alive. Again, I don’t pretend to know, but that’s at least a plausible scenario. There were many rumors that day that the plane was shot down, but the government denied it.
You suggest that the World Trade Center buildings must have been detonated with explosives to account for the heat generated and the speed the structures collapsed on themselves. That sounds extreme. What’s the evidence?
The evidence is cumulative — several things that point to controlled demolition. First, a steel-framed building, according to all the reading I’ve done, has never collapsed solely because of fire. They will bend and buckle in a very large all-consuming fire that lasts for a very long time. But they have never collapsed.
But it was not just fire — it was fire and impact at the same time.
The twin towers were very large buildings and extremely well built with a lot of redundancy. Even people who believe the official theory say that the crash of the plane into the towers should have been insignificant, that the shock would have been immediate, but it was over very soon and that the buildings were extremely solid and stable and not moving. In the south tower, much of the fuel from it spilled outside as it collided into the corner. So there was a giant firebomb which looked very impressive, but what that means is that most of the fuel was burned up within a minute, so there was not much fuel inside. Therefore, the fire in the south tower had almost gone out in less than an hour. And that brings us to another strange fact about the towers. If the official story were correct, that the combination of the crash and the fire brought the buildings down, we would expect the north tower to have come down first, because it was hit first. And yet the south tower collapsed first. It collapsed in less than an hour. That makes perfect sense if you’re willing to accept that it was caused by controlled demolition, meaning the building was wired with explosives. And if the official story has it that the buildings were brought down by fire, you’d want the buildings to go down before the fire had completely gone out.
What you’re suggesting sounds like something from. X-Files. But on X-Files, you always had agents Scully and Mulder trying to get the truth out. Here we don’t have any Scullys and Mulders. You’d think this whole new unilateral _expression of military supremacy might have opponents within the administration coming unglued and that they’d be leaking info damaging to Bush, but we don’t hear those voices. Why not?
Members of the FBI, the CIA, and other intelligence agencies have taken oaths to not reveal things they’ve been told not to reveal . . . and if they violate this oath, repercussions may occur. You have a wife and children, and somebody says to you, “If you go public with that I cannot guarantee the safety of your family.” Would you go public with that? You have to choose between your family’s welfare and the welfare of the nation, and your story might not do that much good. You might just be denounced as a conspiracy kook. The press would ignore you, belittle you. People might look into your past and find that you had done some things you’re not so proud of. People would learn very quickly to keep their mouths shut.
Let’s say there has been this complicity. To what end?
There were several benefits that could have been anticipated from 9/11. One was the so-called Patriot Act. It did appear that the Patriot Act, given how fast it was rushed into Congress, voting had already been prepared. The Patriot Act is so large that it’s inconceivable it could have been written after 9/11. Rushing it through Congress when most members had not even read a small portion of it was clearly one benefit, giving the government increased powers.
Also, there was the desire to wage war in Afghanistan to force out the Taliban and put an American-friendly government in place because of the desire of Unical and other gas companies to build an oil pipeline, which they felt was too dangerous with the Taliban in power. There was a meeting in Berlin in July 2001, a final effort to get an agreement between the Taliban and the United States that would allow a sort of joint government, where the Taliban would share power with more American-friendly leaders. The Taliban refused, at which point they were told, “If you don’t take our carpet of gold, we’ll bury you under a carpet of bombs.” The Pakistani representative at this meeting said the Americans told him that the war would start before the snows came that October. And after 9/11 happened, there was exactly the right amount of time for the U.S. forces to get organized to begin the war, and the war began on October 7.
Another benefit is that many senior members of the Bush administration had for a long time wanted to attack Iraq. Getting control of the oil there was one motive; the more general motive was to secure a military presence in that part of the world.
Don’t you think it’s a good thing that Saddam Hussein was taken out, and don’t you think Bush had a moral obligation to do so because it was his father who was responsible for building up Hussein in the first place?
Certainly you can say there were some benefits to the people of Iraq. But if we had an obligation to take out Saddam Hussein then we have obligations to take out many other nefarious leaders around the world, many of whom are far worse, believe it or not, than Saddam Hussein. And the sorry history is that we have in fact supported such leaders and that Saddam Hussein was in power only because of American support. He remained in power after gassing the Kurds became common knowledge. Donald Rumsfeld himself visited Saddam at that period. Actually our aid to Saddam went up after we knew that he had done this.
So you think this is mostly about oil.
It is to a significant extent about oil, given the projections that the world is beginning to run out
of oil. The United States wants to get control of it because our way of life, which is so dependent upon oil, is nonnegotiable. And also because military dominance itself runs to great extent on oil. But it’s not just about oil. It’s about geopolitical dominance. And this brings up the U.S. Space command. In the document “Rebuilding America’s Defenses,” published in 2000 by the Project for the New American Century — an organization founded by people such as [Richard] Perle and [Paul] Wolfowitz and [########] Cheney and Rumsfeld — there is a statement in there that says we need to move forward with this revolution in military affairs. The central feature of this is the augmentation of the U.S. Space Command through which the United States would have what’s called now Full Spectrum Dominance. In addition to having dominance over land, air, and sea, we would have dominance in space. But building the space stations and the satellites for the weaponization of space will be an extremely expensive undertaking. One projection has the first stage of it being about a trillion dollars. So an enormous amount of money has to be shifted from the American taxpayers and other parts of the economy to the military and the space command. The document states that such a revolution in military affairs will probably proceed very slowly absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event such as a new Pearl Harbor.
Hence the title of your book . . . You’ve complained the American media has been asleep at the switch on this. How do you account for this?
It is very difficult for Americans to face the possibility that their own government may have caused or deliberately allowed such a heinous event. Secondly, one can understand that insofar as the media is owned by companies like General Electric, which is one of the largest makers of weapons, stations like NBC that are owned by GE would not wish to publicize these connections. And finally, 9/11 was immediately treated not only as a matter of patriotism but almost as a religious event. Bush declared his war on terrorism from the national cathedral. And so from then on, any questioning of the official account could be and was criticized as being undemocratic and almost sacrilegious.
I at least hope that if we can begin to get a public discussion of 9/11 and of the many, many discrepancies between the official story and what at least appear to be the facts, that some of those people might be emboldened to step forward.
How has researching and writing this book affected you personally?I fear that our democracy is in much worse shape than I had imagined, and that even the appearance of democracy we now have might be quickly swept aside.
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: موضوع هام: ترقبوا هذا البرنامج على قناة سى سبان 2 يوم السبت سبعه مايو (Re: صديق الموج)
|
ما المنبر يا صديق الموج البستاهل يسحبوا منه الثقة ... السياسة السياسة
"حاجة فى غاية الخساسة"
تتذكر الاغنية بتاعة جنة الاطفال الزمان ديك؟
الاجازة الاجازة حاجة فى غاية اللذاذة..
انا قنعت من خيرا فى السياسة ...
البتكون فى صفو بكرة تلقاه فى الصف البهناك وناس الصف البهناك تتلفت تلقاهم جنبك
انت منو والتانيين منو دى انا ما اتعرفت لى..حسة ده شنو الحاصل فى السودان ده؟؟ عشان طلع قرار بمحاكمة المجرمين شوف اتعملت كم حبكة؟؟ جنازة الخاتم تعاون مع السى اى ايه واخيرا موضوع محمد طه محمد احمد...
وشوف الخواجات بعملو فى شنو؟؟
عارف انا عملت شنو؟
انتبه لى دروسى واكل سندوتشى واشرب لبنى وانوم..بكرة الصباح اغسل وشى واقول لى ما ما كيف اصبحتى...وامشى مدرستى واعمل واجبى..
واحب اطفال العالم وكل الابرياء الماعندهم دخل بالحكاية المجوبكة دى..حتى النخاع
اها انت معانا ولا مع الخيانا؟؟
تحياتى وهههههههها مع انو شر البلية ما يضحك...
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: موضوع هام: ترقبوا هذا البرنامج على قناة سى سبان 2 يوم السبت سبعه مايو (Re: Tumadir)
|
تماضر ....تانى جيتك والله الونسة معاك منبرين..
مش ملاحظة انو الحاجات البتبدأ بى الس....كلها ثقيلة
يلا معاى:
السياسة...السرقة...السواقة...السكر بفتح السين او بضمها كلها صحيحة
السودان....الس....فهمتى!!!!!!! السوس.....السوق....السهر...
السرطان....السيجة.....السفة....السفاهة...السعر.....السفالة
السذاجة...السطحية...السيف..السكاكين...السفروك...السخافة....
السلفة...السادية.... السحاحير.....يلا تمى الباقى يا منقة
راجعلك،،،،،
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: موضوع هام: ترقبوا هذا البرنامج على قناة سى سبان 2 يوم السبت سبعه مايو (Re: Tumadir)
|
Thanks Tumadir for the links
Everyone these days wants to jump in the 911 wagon
I watched the online video of the same program, and found that this professor just want to be seen on TV.. sorry
He said that the Pentagon plane was maneuvering to hit the west side because no military personel were there, ant that the side was recently ennforced so a minimum damage would occur -hinting that the government planned the attack.. but the fact is that the piolt had maneuvered because he wanted to crash into the Pentagon becuase he was flying in a high altitude, and he needed to make a nice circle to reach the ground in a limited maneuvering
area
Also he said that the planners did not want to sacrifice miltary personel and the western side was only ocupied by a limited number of civilian workers.. if this is true, then why the government let more than 200 firefighters to die in NY, including the Chief of Fire dept.. why didn't dealy their dispatch.. didn't they find any reason for that
Our perfect analyst also continued to say that WTC collapse was due to controlled demolition -just imagine that.. tones of explosives, hundreds of boxs of electronic devices, scores of mechanical, electronic and software engineers, days of evacuated buildings (to keep secrecy)!! keeping it secret after employing all this army of engineers
absurd
(عدل بواسطة Abureesh on 05-06-2005, 09:10 AM)
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Tumadir
صديق الموج
Abureesh
Hussein Mallasi
فيس بوك
تويتر
انستقرام
يوتيوب
بنتيريست