12/7 Truthers Demand: When Are We Going to Finally Get Hitler?
by Phillip Ellis Jackson | View comments |
Print This Post
Those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.
It’s been 63 years since the United States formally ended all major combat operations against Nazi Germany. In 1945 Democrat President Harry S. Truman declared “mission accomplished” in Europe, despite the fact that the head of the Nazi forces — Adolf Hitler — was not, and to this day still has not been, apprehended.
Forget about the fact that the American war with Nazi Germany was conducted on false pretenses. It was the Japanese who attacked us on December 7, 1941, not the Germans. And yet, 90% of our wartime resources were devoted to invading and conquering a country that had no part in this attack on US soil.
Obviously Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt had ulterior motives for this unprovoked military assault on the peace-loving German people. He deliberately allowed the attack on Pearl Harbor so as to mobilize the country to put his real plan into action: namely, “regime change” in Germany to rid the world of weapons of mass destruction that, coincidentally, we never found!
Lest you forget, the original Zionist-dupe “neo-neocon” Albert Einstein lied to Roosevelt (who purported to be a Christian despite his last name) when he raised the specter of a German Atom bomb in a letter he wrote on August 2, 1939, pointing out that Germany was hording uranium from the Czechoslovakian mines which it had repatriated under German control. This “yellow cake” scare was an obvious and deliberate lie, since Germany never actually developed an atomic weapon. From this we can only conclude that the U.S. attack against Germany was completely unjustified.
And yet, eight years into the 21st century, after the deaths of countless U.S. soldiers and German civilians alike, we still have U.S. troops stationed in Germany with no end in sight. The continued presence of these troops in a foreign nation has already led to an Aryan-backlash against the U.S. and its allies, as neo-Nazi groups spread throughout Great Britain and Montana. But we stubbornly continue to occupy the Rhineland to give U.S. corporations an opportunity to plunder the Reich for ill-gotten profits that add to the Roosevelt family’s personal trust funds. And let’s not forget about the corporate interests that helped push us into this illegal war. How long must American taxpayers continue to support Coca-Cola’s plan to dominate the Western world through a U.S.-backed strategic foothold in central Europe?
So I ask again, if Germany had no WMD despite the world’s “smartest guy’s” assessment about its nuclear intentions, and if — as we’ve learned since September 11, 2001 — the only measure of true success in a military operation is to capture or kill the chief bad guy, where is Hitler? Sure there were rumors that he committed suicide and his body was burned, and the Soviets hid his remains from us. How convenient! There are plenty of 12-7 Truthers out there unafraid to tell us what really happened. Hitler escaped with the help of the CIA which hadn’t actually been invented yet, but that’s just a detail, and was supported by “Big Cola” as he hid out in the hills of Bavaria, laughing at us for our inability to bring him to justice.
And as long as he remains at large, the Neo-Nazi movements around the world that look to him for inspiration will continue to grow, which puts us all at peril. Such is the law of “unintended consequences,” about which we’ve heard so much lately.
The time for hand-wringing and cover-ups is over. As we enter into the upcoming national elections, I have only one word of advice, one prescription for action. It’s time to hold the political party that got us into this mess accountable for the sorry state the world is in today.
Either that, or loosen the tinfoil a bit on your own cap as some of you struggle to make sense of the world today.
Jackson-ic@hotmail.com
http://www.scifi-jackson.com/
Read more articles by Phillip Ellis Jackson
Priceless!
Comment by Jeff Osonitsch | January 12, 2008
Cheap! Good try though…
GreginNY
Comment by GreginNY | January 12, 2008
Phil, unless I am wrong, and I probable am, Germany declared war on America alter Pearl Harbor – not the other way round. And again, and I’m probably wrong on this as well, the US military build-up started well before Pearl Harbor, in fact even before the start of WWII.
Otherwise, a good analogy. But I think it is pretty certain today, since the Russians have made the remains of the Little Corporal available, that the little jerk did die in his bunker.
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | January 12, 2008
Greg — It's always interesting to see who you offend when you make fun of the 9-11 Truthers.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 12, 2008
Greg (cont.) … and Liberal Democrats, the New York Times, and the logic and reasoning of Code Pink.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 12, 2008
And when is your next novel? I want a signed copy.
Comment by hvance | January 12, 2008
Certainly American Jews must have played a much bigger role in the conspiracy to cause our entry into WW-II against Hitler. What about "Big Chocolate" (as in Hershey)?
Comment by sedonaman | January 12, 2008
hvance … funny you should ask. I'm discussing a sequel to "The Lucifer Covenant" with my publisher as we speak. Phil
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 12, 2008
“Germany declared war on America after Pearl Harbor – not the other way round.”
*** You are correct. However, as the Truthers are fond of pointing out, declarations of hostile intent do not constitute an “attack”, and only an actual attack justifies war.
“the US military build-up started well before Pearl Harbor, in fact even before the start of WWII.”
*** Yes, but not with any of the unrestrained fervor post 12/7. It took an attack against American soil to bring us out of isolationism, where we participated in WWII only indirectly (Lend Lease, the Flying Tigers in China, etc.), and went on a full military footing.
“since the Russians have made the remains of the Little Corporal available, that the little jerk did die in his bunker."
*** Well, that’s what they WANT you to believe! It took them 40 years to manufacture the evidence and release it to the world. If Hitler really died in 1945, they would have shown us his body then!
Whew … this mind meld with the Truthers is starting to get a little scary!
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 12, 2008
Phil,
In your reply (#5), you wrote:
Greg (cont.) … and Liberal Democrats, the New York Times, and the logic and reasoning of Code Pink.
In respone to that, I say…and the far right Amish, the Weekly World News and the logic and reasoning of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. What the hell are you talking about??
You have to lay off the talk radio Phil. It's getting to you. You are suffering from straw man stream of consciousness thinking. They are radio entertainers. They shouldn't be taken that seriously.
At least you corrected the record as far as Germany declaring war on the United States. You kind of missed that important fact in your original post. I'm sure you just forgot.
But, since we're in this theater of the absurd, let me take my stab at your Iraq/WWII analogy.
Japan attacks Pearl Harbor.
The United States declares war on Japan.
Germany declares war on the United States.
The United States invades Canada.
GreginNY
Comment by GreginNY | January 13, 2008
Greg: Like I said, it's always amazing to see who gets exorcised when I parody the 9-11 Truthers, both in the “facts” they use and the logic by which they express their thoughts.
By the way, a point of friendly advice. Don’t give up your day job for a career in writing political parody. I will admit it’s pretty convincing stuff when you do it accidentally (i.e. simply expressing your thoughts), but it falls flat when you actually “try” to do it re: your “Canada” reference. The first codicil of parody writing is that it has to be relevant. It’s the relevancy that makes it funny, not just pulling something out of thin air.
But then I find myself once again explaining the obvious to you, which is always a losing proposition. Why else would you be unable to see that the parody is against Liberal Democrat/New York Times/Code Pink doublespeak. To my knowledge, the Amish haven’t stated an opinion on the matter yet. (At least not in the reality I and everyone else are in contact with).
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 14, 2008
For the military/security state apologists it’s always 1939 isn’t it? Always some existential threat looming on the horizon ready to snuff us out unless we are in some far off country killing people. Of course that may cost a couple of trillion dollars and a lot of dead innocents as well as our soul, but such costs are trivial if the survival of our very nation is in peril. It is little matter that all the Muslim terrorists in the world couldn’t pose an existential threat to this nation if we abolished our entire military and relied on Joe Lunch Pail and his deer rifle to defend us, but no matter. There is fear to be mongered and hatred to be stoked. What better way than the tried and true argumentum ad Hitlerum.
Funny, when I say we should go back to the America First non-interventionism of the inter-war period because it is the best policy and the only policy consistent with conservatism, I am repeatedly told “it’s not 1920 anymore.” But yet it is always 1939. So which is it, not 1920 or always 1939? The Islamomeanies are coming to get us Chicken Little crowd needs to make up its mind.
Comment by Dan Phillips | January 14, 2008
Dan:
Well, it was just four and a half months ago that I said that paleoconservative philosophy is just a bunch of empty slogans that is incapable of being translated into specific policy proposals without exposing the true underpinnings of those beliefs (see “How to Fix a Problem”). We all remember your comments, Dan, about your belief in a kith and kin-based “natural hierarchal social order”. To which I asked, exactly what does this mean for US immigration policy, as one example? End it completely? End it for non-Europeans only. Send back all non-Europeans already in the country, etc?
You’re very good at offering slogans, but absolutely refuse to tell us — from a practical policy perspective — just how to put these slogans into effect. And when you are confronted with the charge that “You have no guts to state your case forthrightly,” as I confronted you back in August 2007, you responded as follows:
“I am going to write an article on what I think we ought to do about immigration. It is a very long and complicated issue and deserves an in depth treatment.” Comment by Dan Phillips | September 3, 2007
Well, we’ve now entered a brand new year, and you’ve still refused to accept your own challenge to do more than offer empty meaningless slogans.
I am going to remind you of the vacuity of your own beliefs every single time you want to insert another slogan into the comment section of something I write, just to once again show what an empty suit this kind of pseudo-political analysis is. Until you actually do what you said you would, I see no reason to treat anything you say seriously, since all you are doing is shooting off your mouth.
Or, to again summarize my reply to your September 3, 2007 comment when you said you’d actually give us a practical policy analysis: “Dan, when you write your article … could you find your way to actually offering a real world policy instead of regurgitating your belief that paleoconservatism is the True Conservatism, that everyone else is acting unconstitutionally, that neocons are unprincipled, that you reject liberal baseline assumptions, and that the natural order demands only one course of action which we should all infer from the above, because you still haven’t gotten around to telling us what we should actually do? Or are we just going to be treated to another long preamble about what you believe philosophically, rather than what the nation ought to do in concrete practical terms?”
It’s been about 140 days and counting since YOU volunteered do this to shut me up, and still you can’t do anything but offer more slogans. I can’t say I’m shocked. I for one am not surprised that you’re apparently incapable of producing anything of real substance.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 14, 2008
Dan Phillips:
I doubt that you really believe what you wrote. Therefore I give you a pass on either being 1) intellectually argumentative (weak) or 2) stupid.
Comment by hvance | January 14, 2008
Dan:
To quote my wife, you are full of prunes.
Comment by hvance | January 14, 2008
Phil, I wish you remembered your Political Theory class as well as you remember every word I ever wrote.
hvance, what part of what I wrote do you think I don't believe? Or better yet, what part of it do you have a problem with? Argument instead of silly name calling would be appreciated.
Comment by Dan Phillips | January 14, 2008
Dan:
It's not silly name calling that you should be concerned with, it's your analysis. Weak would be one description.
Comment by hvance | January 14, 2008
Dan:
This is really simple. You enter conversations, shoot off your mouth about True Conservative principles, but never seem to have a practical policy suggestion to accompany the slogans.
When you are challenged you repeat your slogans, and say they are “policies”. [Note: “End the War” is a slogan. “Bring 50,000 troops home in 30 days” is a policy action. You won’t state a policy action because then you’ll be questioned about exactly how to do this, and the strategic/political implications of doing it.]
Finally, when it becomes embarrassingly clear to all that you have nothing but slogans to offer, you either go away to slogan again another time; or, as you did in September 2007, you insist that you actually HAVE paleo-inspired policy prescriptions to share with us, but you just need a little time to write them all down.
Now maybe the people you’re used to conning have short attention spans, but I don’t. I’ve called you an “empty suit” for a reason. You have absolutely nothing of any real substance to offer, and this is all the more apparent when you won’t even honor a commitment that you yourself made!
Our last conversation didn’t end on September 3, 2007. It was put on hold awaiting the substantive comments you said you were capable of producing. If you don’t have anything of substance to offer just admit it, and we’ll go on to pointing out the next slogan you offer. But I’m not going to pretend that the issue isn’t there just to spare your feelings at being caught making a thoroughly stupid comment that there is a kith and kin-based “natural hierarchal social order”.
If you don’t have anything to be ashamed about for viewing the world this way, then let’s see some clear, concrete policies that arise from it on the subject you originally picked: immigration.
I said before that “You have no guts to state your case forthrightly.” And it’s obvious that you don’t.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 15, 2008
"It’s not silly name calling that you should be concerned with, it’s your analysis. Weak would be one description."
Then counter it if you can? I would be particularly interested in knowing how support of a big government security/warfare state with Wilsonian/Jacobin delusions of making the world safe for democracy is conservative.
Comment by Dan Phillips | January 15, 2008
Yeah hvance — Be very specific about your policy options. Just don't expect Dan to do the same. If it involves more than mouthing a political slogan, he's at a complete loss for words.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 16, 2008
How long were you expecting Hitler to live? He was a grown man during WW2 ('30s-'40s) so I seriously doubt he could have lasted this long even if he wasn't captured alive. Heard he killed himself in his bunker but even if he escaped & moved to South America he wouldn't have lived this long. If the Japs hadn't attacked Pearl Harbour, we might have been spared involvment in WW2. It's over at any rate, which is better than can be said of the war in Iraq.
Comment by Cooltruth | January 23, 2008
"How long were you expecting Hitler to live?"
Er, it's a joke. It only seems like a real analysis to some people. Loosen the timfoil a bit more.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 23, 2008
Some of us haven't got these 'timfoils' to loosen & we are starting to wonder if yours is fitted on too tight… (whatever?)
Comment by Cooltruth | January 24, 2008
No tinfoil? Then the problem is more serious than any exterior remedy can fix.
By the way, it’s a sign of class not to point out typos in a comment section, which is why I never said anything about the planned “demolishon” you wrote about in comment 21 in “Ron Paul Can Still Win …”
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 24, 2008
I'd just thought that it was some sort of new neocon 'fashion statement'. I'm still happy with the hats I've already got… The first two towers were destroyed by planes hitting them. WT7 (that third building) was what is called a 'controlled demolition'. I've seen crews bringing down these tall buildings with explosives that dropped exactly the same way. Usually I'll try to spell words in my postings right but sometimes it comes out spelled the way it sounds instead of how it is supposed to be spelled. The corrected spelling would be 'demolition' which is what it was… (a demolition)
Comment by Cooltruth | January 24, 2008
Not to prolong the discussion, but Ron Paul publicly asked the 9/11 Truthers two weeks ago to stop linking their ideas to him, and you appear to be both a RP supporter and a 9/11 Truther. He did this because it’s a fundamentally flawed view of reality — like “fire can’t melt steel”. Ever seen how steel is created in the smelting process? Fire melts it. Or more recently, the highway overpass that buckled from the heat of a burning tanker when the steel beams melted it?
Just out of curiosity, assuming that your WT7 conspiracy theory is correct, please give me a plausible scenario whereby someone could actually strategically install the necessary high explosives in WT7 (drill holes in walls, insert explosives, repair walls, connect all explosives, etc.) without being noticed. Tell me how this occurred both institutionally (which government agencies/individuals were most likely involved), and technically (you said you have knowledge of controlled demolitions). [We'll leave aside the implications for the moment that the government therefore had to be behind 9/11 to coordinate the attack on WT7].
I don’t want a bunch of links to conspiracy websites. I want a straightforward explanation from you.
Before you answer, you might want to check two things out. The WTC towers were built so that "controlled demolitions" could eventually pancake them when the time finally came to replace the buildings. There's a documentary on the History Channel made in the 1990s that showed how it was built and pointed this out, so it wasn't an after-the-attack justification.
And, in a similar vein, a cruiser at Pearl Harbor was sunk in 1941 not by being hit directly, but from the concussion of the hits against the battleship tethered next to it. A direct hit is not required to topple a structure. A concussion from the main explosion (in this case the WTC towers coming down), combined with fire that weakens the structure, works just fine.
Oh, and I used to run a tower company, so I’ve got some knowledge of how large structures are actually built and brought down. Exactly what is your expertise?
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 24, 2008
Phil:
"… please give me a plausible scenario whereby someone could actually strategically install the necessary high explosives in WT7 (drill holes in walls, insert explosives, repair walls, connect all explosives, etc.) without being noticed."
Another question he might try answering is how this alleged conspiracy was kept a secret after the fact when leaks to the Leftstream media are such a problem with any administration.
Comment by sedonaman | January 24, 2008
Sedona: I've already introduced one semblance of reality into the scenario. Now you're trying to compound the task by asking him to address another real-world issue!
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 24, 2008
Phil:
“Now you're trying to compound the task by asking him to address another real-world issue!”
So? Here http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html are 15 of the most persistent other-worldly “claims” that “prove” that 9-11 was a government (i.e., George Bush) conspiracy. We are asking him to answer only two real-worldly ones. Sounds fair enough.
Comment by sedonaman | January 25, 2008
Sedona — I'm out of town for a week beginning 1/26. I'll leave any follow up with CoolTruth to your capable hands; that is, if he actually responds. Take care, Phil
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 25, 2008
I've watched buildings that were brought down by what those doing the work called 'controlled demolitions' that looked like they came down exactly the same as WT7. I'm NOT one of those guys who were doing the work but they were aquaintances of friends who invited us to watch. The '9/11 Truthers' have done far more study on this issue than I have done. I've read some of their stuff & they mentioned WT7 being deliberately 'dropped'. That caused me to remember that it looked just like another tower building I saw being brought down some years earlier. Had to restart things on my network to get back online. I don't think it was President Bush that was behind 9/11 and not sure if the 'Truthers' think he is or not. I haven't read everything they have written about this. The 'official' story differed somewhat from what I saw so we may never know the real story. Again, the individuals who had taken out considerable insurance on the buildings would be the ones profitting from the buildings being dropped, NOT President Bush! Follow the money trail, not the trail to the White House. Bush has lost more than he gained in the aftermath of 9/11 unless he had just been looking for an excuse to get Saddam out of Iraq!
Comment by Cooltruth | January 25, 2008
Sedonaman, I'm not an avid '9/11 Truther' so I don't know all of their arguments or what parts of it might implicate Bush. I've seen a few of their videos & read some of their articles, some of which agrees with what I saw on TV the day of the attacks.Figured that 9/11 was the doings of insane people. Never figured it was worth a continuing war in Iraq even after Saddam's death! Who is making a profit off of continuing this war? Maybe they were involved in it instead of the President. Bush was in Florida reading to an elementary school class when it happened. The country can't afford continuing a war in Iraq. Ron Paul is intelligent enough to realize this but I don't think any of the other candidates have figured it out yet. That's one of many reasons for me to vote for him for President. Whoever was responsible for 9/11 isn't an issue for me when deciding who I want to vote for. I want somebody who is intelligent enough to get us out of Iraq instead of just letting it go on indefinately. Let's get a President who puts America First & gets the economy fixed better than what it has become. Republicans that are worse spenders than the Democrats aren't what I'm wanting to vote for.
Comment by Cooltruth | January 25, 2008
Cooltruth — this is all I have time for before I leave.
I'm going to give you the benefit of being sincere in your beliefs, and not a kook, so I'll respond accordingly.
I've seen a lot of things in life that "look" like something else on the surface, but are completely different activities with different mechanisms involves. The "face on Mars" looks like a man-made object, but is a natural phenomenon. Water boiled in a microwave oven "looks" like it was heated by fire by the way it heats and bubbles, but an entirely different process is involved.
For your deliberate, controlled explosion to work, you must explain (or at least suggest with some credibility) how a multi-level building could be entered without anyone knowing it (probably repeatedly), rigged with explosives that would require holes being drilled in the walls and whole sections of wall removed for explosives to be placed, the walls then repaired and painted so no one could tell, and all the explosive charges connected throughout the building. A controlled detonation requires a carefully orchestrated firing sequence.
All this had to be done prior to 9/11, with foreknowledge that 2 planes would bring the twin towers down, so that the detonations could take place within a 5-6 hour window on the morning of 9-11.
None of this is even remotely plausible. The Watergate burglars were caught by a single security guard. That’s reality. What you envision is a team of people doing things that are a stretch even for Hollywood to envision. And then after they “did” it, everyone kept silent about their activities and still does to this day.
Look up the definition of Occam’s Razor. Your explanation is very convoluted, and addresses none of the details I and Sedona pointed out. It is not rational in the face of a more straightforward and plausible explanation that doesn’t require a suspension of belief or reality.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 25, 2008
"It is little matter that all the Muslim terrorists in the world couldn’t pose an existential threat to this nation if we abolished our entire military and relied on Joe Lunch Pail and his deer rifle to defend us, but no matter. There is fear to be mongered and hatred to be stoked."
Dan Phillips has a valid point here. It was a good thing for those 'terrorists' that they didn't try their little shenanigans with box cutters out here in the heartland or Joe Lunch Pail & similar guys would have exterminated them faster than Rudy Guiliani could say 9/11. Out here most people who own deer rifles could shoot the box cutters out of their hands & the towels off of their heads…
Comment by Cooltruth | January 25, 2008
Cooltruth: I can see you have absolutely no interest in dealing with any of the real world issues you yourself raised. It's much easier to mouth platitudes than try to make real sense of the world.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 25, 2008
Dan Phillips, Cooltruth:
Re: "Joe Lunch Pail"
You guys have been watching way too many movies.
Comment by sedonaman | January 26, 2008
In whose world is anybody with a loaded firearm afraid of anybody with boxcutters? If pilots in those planes had loaded pistols within reach, we could have had a much different outcome on 9/11 than what happened. Ditto if one or more passengers had been armed! I'm a woman & I'd shoot the terrorist that came at me with boxcutters if there was a loaded gun within reach. Send them right to Allah & their pathetic collection of virgins would be the best way to handle the situation. Much fewer people getting killed in the resulting stupid war if someone had shot the insane 'terrorists' before the planes hit the buildings.
Comment by Cooltruth | January 27, 2008
There’s a better way, and it was invented in 1911 – fight terrorism with terrorism.
“In 1911 … an American General, John L. Hansen Jr. … was in charge of the larger southern Philippine Island of Mindanao … Mindanao was overwhelmed with Islamic Jihad, creating destruction, murder, rape, looting, bombings, kidnappings, beheadings, etc. General Hansen was at his wits end and was loosing a lot of his men, with no sign of improvement, whatever plan he initiated. In July 1911, the general’s soldiers managed to capture eight Islamic terrorists. A subsequent trial found seven of the Islamic terrorists [guilty and] to be executed, and the eighth to 19 years in prison.
“… General Hansen decided to use this opportunity to set Islam against Islam and devised a plan. In the wee hours of the morning, he had the seven condemned Islamic terrorists dig their own graves. The eighth terrorist was handcuffed and made to watch the American execution process. The seven Islamic terrorists were then tied to seven posts, but without blindfolds, so that they too could see the proceedings of their own execution.
Years of Islamic nurturing, taught the Muslims that if a pig contaminated their bodies, they would go direct to the fires of hell permanently; instead of paradise as martyrs to enjoy sex exclusively with 72 fair virgin maidens forever. The soldiers then slaughtered a live pig in front of them. The terrorists’ clothes and body were smeared with the pig's blood and fat. The pig was cut into seven portions with one [portion] placed in each grave.
On witnessing all this, the terrorists’ eyes almost popped out, and it terrified them. Some even urinated out of shear terror, and all went black and blue shouting and screaming for Allah to save them, but in vain. The terrorists were petrified of such a death and burial, and were left to beg, cry, bawl, plead, and scream their souls out … all day.
At sundown, the seven terrorists were shot and their bodies were placed in their graves, together with the chunk of pork. The eighth Islamic terrorist was ordered to fill up the seven graves and subsequently set free. This eighth terrorist fled for his life, and the news spread like wildfire. Immediately all Muslims became aware of the unique but very un-Islamic “American system of execution”, and just the thought alone, terrorized all the Muslims into a fit of total terror. The Islamic jihad vanished almost instantaneously.
“Thereafter, a sudden peace prevailed in every part of the Philippines, not a bullet was fired, thousands of lives of innocent men, women, and children, and property were saved, and the Islamic jihad was never heard of – 'til well after the Philippine independence, more than 50 years later.”
http://www.islamreview.com/articles/islamsweakness.shtml
For some reason I don’t understand, the Israelis bury the suicide terrorists’ body (parts) in a nice cemetery, or return it to the family. They should instead follow the example of General Hansen.
Comment by sedonaman | January 27, 2008
"Just out of curiosity, assuming that your WT7 conspiracy theory is correct, please give me a plausible scenario whereby someone could actually strategically install the necessary high explosives in WT7 (drill holes in walls, insert explosives, repair walls, connect all explosives, etc.) without being noticed. Tell me how this occurred both institutionally (which government agencies/individuals were most likely involved), and technically (you said you have knowledge of controlled demolitions). [We’ll leave aside the implications for the moment that the government therefore had to be behind 9/11 to coordinate the attack on WT7]."
My knowledge of demolitions consists of watching crews do them. Every demolition crew I've ever known of was all male. They drop the buildings just like WT7 went down. If fires from the first two towers had melted the steel in WT7, it should have dropped on the side closest to the fires before the furthest side dropped. Another possibility would be the melted side went down & pulled the other side until it dropped. I think they could have had whatever explosives in the building before 9/11. It wouldn't have been sensible to install explosives while the first two towers were burning. They could have set off previously installed explosives easily enough.
No doubt everybody involved DOES keep quiet about it! They could be charged with treason if they were guilty of such a conspiracy so they'd have to be really stupid to mention anything to the media about any involvment with it.
Comment by Cooltruth | January 27, 2008
Just checking in on the road —
I watch a lot of TV medical shows, and even have a "Dr." (Ph.D.) attached to my name, but I wouldn't offer a medical opinion worth any value. A man who doesn't know the limitations of his own knowledge can't be persuaded by the facts.
I think we're raising a lost generation. They watch something on TV or the movies, then think it's entirely plausible to sneak in and wire a whole building for demolition without anyone ever noticing the holes in the wall or fresh paint to cover their tracks — and they think this is "reality". They have no knowledge of engineering or structural dynamics, but feel qualified to offer a judgment on the science of building demolition.
Hillary and Obama have a ready-made electorate just waiting to be tapped.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | January 27, 2008