The gubernatorial candidate in Texas, Debora Medina, recently took serious flack from Glenn Beck regarding her position on the 9/11 truth, or truther, movement. Mr. Beck, who himself is a self-admitted truther when it comes to a host of other issues, essentially dismissed Ms. Medina as a quack because she would not confirm or deny her position in regards to 9/11. According to Beck, because Ms. Medina has unanswered questions regarding 9/11, she must believe that the government was responsible for this crime.
Those opposed to the truth movement usually use this tactic to discredit legitimate questions surrounding the attacks of September 11.
But the unanswered questions surrounding 9/11 have much more to do with just implicating members of the government. Before one could make any such implication, we must first verify what actually happened, and this is where the real questions arise.
The Washington Post reports that the American Institute of Architects is also looking for answers, with over 1000 members signing a petition requesting a formal inquiry into how the twin towers and building #7 actually came down:
“In order to bring down this kind of mass in such a short period of time, the material must have been artificially, exploded outwards,” says Richard Gage, a San Francisco architect and founder of the nonprofit Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
“The official Federal Emergency Management [Agency] and National Institute of Standards and Technology reports provide insufficient, contradictory and fraudulent accounts of the circumstances of the towers’ destruction. We are therefore calling for a grand jury investigation of NIST officials,” Mr. Gage adds.
The technical issues surrounding the collapse of the towers has prompted years of debate, rebuttal and ridicule.
He is particularly disturbed by Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper, which was not hit by an aircraft, yet came down in “pure free-fall acceleration.” He also says that more than 100 first-responders reported explosions and flashes as the towers were falling and cited evidence of “multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally 600 ft. at 60 mph” and the “mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking.”
There is also evidence of “advanced explosive nano-thermitic composite material found in the World Trade Center dust,” Mr. Gage says. The group’s petition at www. ae911truth.org is already on its way to members of Congress.
Are these architects suggesting that President Bush, his father and long-time friend Dick Cheney had something to do with the terrorist attacks? Are they saying that a shadow government organization, or Israeli Mossad, were involved?
It doesn’t sound like it.
What it does sound like, is that over 1000 professional architects, who understand how steel buildings are constructed, maintained and demolished, have some questions – questions that were left unanswered by the 9/11 Commission Report.
Considering that the government spent less than $1 million investigating 9/11, which was about $6 million less than the government spent investigating Bill Clinton’s sexual proclivities in the White House, we think that having a grand jury look at the facts would be the least that Congress could do.
An argument often used to implement policies and laws affecting the American people is that if we are doing nothing wrong, then we have nothing to worry about.
If the 9/11 Commission Report was accurate, then government officials involved in the investigation have nothing to worry about.
Let the questions be asked, debated and answered in a public forum. Present all sides of the argument to the American people and let them decide.
Are we truthers? Yes, we certainly are, and you should be too.
If we can question the accuracy of unemployment statistics, the Federal Reserve’s transparency, Wall Street’s connections to Washington politicians and the legitimacy of foreign wars, then we should also seek the complete, unadulterated truth regarding the deadliest terrorist attack in the history of the United States.
How did those steel buildings come down considering jet fuel doesn’t burn hot enough to melt steel? Were explosives used inside of the buildings to help bring them down?
We are not attempting to implicate anyone here – we just want answers to these simple questions (andÂ a few others).
If that makes us truthers, and we’re subsequently labeled crazy because of this, then get the straight jackets and lock us up!
We seek the truth, nothing more, nothing less.
THIS IS WHY THE COLLAPSE IS INEVITABLE:
“If the reserve requirement is 10%, for example, a bank that receives a $100 deposit may lend out $90 of that deposit. If the borrower then writes a check to someone who deposits the $90, the bank receiving that deposit can lend out $81. As the process continues, the banking system can expand the initial deposit of $100 into a maximum of $1,000 of money ($100+$90+81+$72.90+…=$1,000).”
So much of the “money” out there today is basically made up out of thin air.
In fact, most banks have no reserve requirements at allÂ onÂ savings deposits, CDs and certain kinds of money market accounts.Â Â Primarily, reserve requirements apply only to “transactions deposits” â€“ essentially checking accounts.
The truth is that banks are freer today to dramatically “multiply” the amounts deposited with them than ever before.Â But all of this “multiplied” money is only on paper – it doesn’t actually exist.
The point is that the broadest measures of the money supply (M2 and M3) vastly overstate how much “real money” actually exists in the system.Â
So if the U.S. government went out today and demanded every single dollar from all banks,Â businessesÂ and individuals in the United States it would not be able to collect 14 trillion dollars (M3) or even 8.5 trillion dollars (M2) because those amounts are based on fractional reserve banking.
So the bottom line is this….
#1) If all money owned by all American banks, businesses andÂ individualsÂ was gathered up today and sent to the U.S. government, there would not be enough to pay off the U.S. national debt.
#2) The only way to create more money is to go into even more debt which makes the problem even worse.
You see, this is what the whole Federal Reserve System was designed to do.Â It was designed to slowly drain the massive wealth of the American people and transfer it to the elite international bankers.
It is a game that is designed so that the U.S. government cannot win.Â As soon as they create more money by borrowing it, the U.S. governmentÂ owes more than what was created because of interest.
If you owe more money than ever was created you can never pay it back.
That means perpetual debt for as long as the system exists.
It is a system designed to force the U.S. government into ever-increasing amounts of debt because there is no escape.
We could solve this problem by shutting down the Federal Reserve and restoring the power to issue U.S. currency to the U.S. Congress (which is what the U.S. Constitution calls for).Â But the politicians in Washington D.C. are not about to do that.
So unless you are willing to fundamentally change the current system, you might as well quit complaining about the U.S. national debt because it is now mathematically impossible to pay it off.
I can say with confidence that 70% of the people with whom I have brought up the 911-Truth subject, do not even know about building # 7.Â Of course, some of these people do not know the difference between the budget deficit and the trade deficit.Â Did those buildings fall right on their collective footprints as the US government says they did; I highly doubt it.Â Was the government complicit or active it the acts, we do not know.Â Do we owe our future generations a truthful explanation, yes!
Well said Mac.Â Such and important world changing event and little to support the ‘official’ story.Â I don’t want to have to guess or prejudge, allÂ we want is the truth.
While I agree with your basic premise, as a former welder I can tell you that the fire created was plenty hot to sufficiently weaken the structure.Â Steel loses most of its strength WELL before its melting point.Â That part of the question is pointless, and that particular “talking point”Â or question is irrelevent.
There’s several explanations for whyÂ steel would fail from a jet fuel fire.Â Â The strongest one is that steel starts to fail around 500C, well below the temperatures that a simple jet fuel fire would produce.Â http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7607473.stm
Secondly, as you add oxygen any fuel will burn even hotter.Â E.g kerosene is mixedÂ with liquid oxygen as aÂ rocket fuel which burns at 3400C. Even a small boost in oxygen from an updraft effect where the tower acted as a chimney for the fire, would have boosted the temperature.Â
All we can do is attempt toÂ learnÂ the best arguments for both sides of an issue, start to keep track ofÂ whenÂ one side is just throwing up shit on the walls – ala moon-landing-deniersÂ – and hoping it will stick, and then apply theÂ logic of Occam’s Razor to help sort through it all.Â Â Â
All good points, folks.
And herein lies the problem. Will we ever get the “real truth?”
I am no engineer, and there are millions just like me. From one side I hear steel is capable of weakening at the temperatures involved in the twin tower collapses. From the other, I am told that the steel frame would not give way, and the evidence for this is that no other steel buildings have ever collapsed from fire.
In regards to building #7, there was no jet fuel. And we have audio of the building owner actually saying that he was told they were going to ‘pull’ the building (demolition speak for bringing it down). What does it all mean? I don’t know, but I sure would like to get more questions asked and answers provided. If we need to subpoena every witness with something to share, then we should do so.
The attacks did, after all, lead to significant changes in domestic laws and foreign policy – so knowing as much of the truth behind this is important to maintain our system of checks and balances.
There, are, of course, other questions surrounding 9/11 that I did not delve into – but we’ll leave those for another time.
I don’t think we’ll ever get to a place where we all agree we have “the truth” becauseÂ someone can alwaysÂ come up with someÂ unlikelyÂ scenario that is not easily disprovable.
There was 24,000 gallons of diesel in #7, which is essentially the same thing as jet fuel (and is the same amount that a 767 can carry). Now, it’s been ruled out by the experts as being a significant factor – they have several better theories – though none require thermite.
Hit submit too quick:
I agree that the important thing is how our government responded. How different would the world be today if instead of a military response to the terror attack, we instead beefed up our intelligence and counterterror operations?
Â I think we’ve now proven that even when we occupy a country like Iraq or Afghanistan, it doesn’t preclude that from being a ‘safe haven’ for terrorists to train and operate, and that was pretty much the entire premise for a military response.
It seems as though bin Laden got it right when he calculated that he could bleed America to deathÂ by the simple cost of our asymmetric military response.
Comments…..The FBI confiscated all of the local security tapes showing the Pentagon being hit. Surely if there was nothing to hide they would release these tapes showing the plane striking the pentagon.