Sunday, 3 September 2006

911 Cover up?

I am not one for conspiracy theories.

So many people died and were terrified in the events of 9/11, and so many more across the world since then as a direct consequence of 9/11. That is a fact and without a doubt.

I have just watched 911 Cover Up - 2nd Edition Recut which is online on Google video and is one hour 29 minutes. It is a compelling documentary.

On their website it honours and respects those that have died. It encourages you to do your own research and to come to your own conclusions.

My thoughts after watching are:

  • how many people must be involved if there was a conspiracy and perhaps you can keep 20 people quiet but the number to be involved in planning and planting explosives in one of the World Trade Centre towers alone must be enormous - someone must have a conscience
  • there will always be different descriptions of what was seen, or different views after the events of what was possible, and that discrepancies of reports can not be seen as evidence one way or the other
  • sometimes the bizarre happens in life such as the flight recorders being irrecoverable whilst a paper passport survives
  • the 6 second collapse of WTC building 7 is beyond bizarre
  • the fact that three buildings collapsed with almost perfect precision is almost unbelievable but that is what they did
  • if those planes with passengers that flew into the Pentagon; and Flight 93 that was brought down; were not the ones then where are the passengers now
  • it is most irregular that there is no consistent plane debris at the Pentagon nor the other crash site

Original Comments:

Doris said...

There may be problems posting - could be to do with having upgraded to Beta Blogger that has an impact on some others. I certainly had problems myself. Some have managed to post OK so hopefully it will resolve soon enough.

Sunday, September 03, 2006 3:30:00 PM

Anonymous said...

Another question is this:
If the planes did not hit their targets, then what became of the passengers?

How were they removed from the equation? If the theory of missiles being used instead of planes is true, then whats to stop a whole contingent of 'soldiers' being eradicated the same way?

Mad B in hope

Monday, September 04, 2006 4:13:00 PM

Anonymous said...

yay I can comment on a beta blog as long as I call myself a nonny mouse.

Monday, September 04, 2006 4:14:00 PM

Doris said...

You can also call yourself Other and put in a link to your blog.


The matter of the people on the planes is either a major flaw in the "conspiracy theory" or else too horrific to contemplate their fate.

I am not sure, but there seems to be enough evidence from families that civilians were on those flights and that they did not survive/come home.

There are too many loose ends to support the conspiracy theories but there are also too many questions over the events.

Monday, September 04, 2006 6:09:00 PM

Curly K said...

Doris, must play catch-up with all your posts but just wanted to say love your new look, how good are you to get is looking so good so quick when the rest of us have simply stuck with basically the same format. Clever old you !

Tuesday, September 05, 2006 12:44:00 AM

Anonymous said...

You can get almost all the answers to your questions on this matter by going here and reading the 8-9 pages. This is a respected publication.

Tuesday, September 05, 2006 2:07:00 AM

Doris said...

This is the Popular Mechanics link posted by Anon above.

Tuesday, September 05, 2006 9:59:00 AM

Atyllah said...

Great new link and will follow the link so I can provide a chicken's perspective. I wonder if I will be able to post as a blogger here or not... have had problems on other blogs switching to beta blogger - have decided not to switch yet despite invitation - I think I'll wait for all the bugs to be ironed out!

Answer to own question, Atyllah cannot post as a blogger. Sigh. I hope they get this fixed soon!

Tuesday, September 05, 2006 2:06:00 PM

Atyllah said...

Damn, I meant great new LOOK!
PS doesn't help to post as "other and include name and web page" - still provides no link - you have to link your name as you would create a link in your blog.
Double sigh.

Tuesday, September 05, 2006 2:08:00 PM

Doris said...

Regarding links: I don't understand what is happening. I use the *Other* option on other blogs but for some reason I have managed to log in here on my own blog OK so didn't know you can't do that here.

I've taken off the word verification thingy in case that helps for the moment. It will be back quicker than that if spam starts hitting here.

Tuesday, September 05, 2006 3:21:00 PM

Sue said...

I always thought that the people who 'masterminded' the whole thing must have sat there dumstruck at the impact they made. "Holy Wotsits - who'd ever have expected the Towers to have imploded in that way."

And they're still shaking their heads about it today feeling that Allah had surely vindicated their aims for making it all work out so well 'beyond their wildest dreams'.

But I don't suppose they were sitting, watching either. They were onto the next thing, dugout in some hole somewhere, making sure they didn't get traced and caught.

I've expressed this colloquially to get my meaning across succinctly. No disrespect intended.

Wednesday, September 06, 2006 8:59:00 PM

Sue said...

As far as I can see, it only likes Google accounts, not blogger ones.

Wednesday, September 06, 2006 9:03:00 PM

Doris said...

Sue I'm sure that there were more than a few people who felt the outcome was beyond their wildest 'dreams' though I can't imagine that regular Muslims' Allah would have condoned this atrocity.

I am not saying that this was perpretrated by anyone other than fanatics but having a major catastrophe does take ones attention off other matters or makes it easier to push forward various laws. Laws that would not have ordinarily been accepted. So, besides the terrorists, I bet that there were some people in power who found it extremely useful that the destruction was as categoric as it was.

In the UK there was a famous outcry with a government official advising another that 9/11 was a good day to bury bad news and they very nearly got away with it except the memo was leaked. Sadly, that is the way some politicans work.

Thanks for your views on this.

Here in the UK we are having programmes each evening about 9/11. Tonight's programme was about the after effects of the compensation money on some of the widows. It must only be a few so badly affected but to have families torn apart and family members denying unmaried spouses any rights to the compensation money is horrific. So sad that after the terrible events of 9/11 others could not act more kindly. Still, it is a TV program and I can't believe everything I hear.

Anon Thanks for that link to Popular Mechanics. I thought the explanation for the puffs of smoke/explosions during the collapse of the towers was most plausible that it was caused by the pressure of the floors falling down.

Also, I would have thought that if it was a triggered explosion that all those witnesses would have heard a lot more.

However, there are other areas I still don't understand. Such as how can the plane that went into Pentagon have almost dematerialised and yet there wasn't more smoke damage on the exit hole in the centre of the Pentagon.

Wednesday, September 06, 2006 10:48:00 PM

Pookie said...

As always, Dear Doris, you offer something to get me thinking -- but before my morning coffee??? I just started watching the film and am trying to stay completely objective. But I will say that there always has been a lot of contradiction regarding this event.

Let me grab some coffee and keep on reading. I love the new look! And hopefully I'll be able to comment.



Thursday, September 07, 2006 12:53:00 PM

Doris said...

Oh my goodness.....

This is an interview by Charles Goyette, on 9/11 Syncronicity (the 007 Episode) with Popular Mechanics' Davin Colburn.

Apparently.... the part of the Popular Mechanics article that "explains" the collapse of Trade Centre 7 (some hours after the Trade Centres collapsed) relies on classified government photographs that shows the building partly damaged in the way that Popular Mechanics describe. Otherwise, it seems there are no other photos or film which shows this damage that later led to the complete collapse of the building.

I find it most extraordinary that these photos are not released. Or some explanation as to why they are classified .... perhaps if it shows too many dead bodies then that is understandable.

There is also discussion as to how can DNA prove the hijackers were on the planes (the DNA that was found amongst the molten steel) because what DNA did they have to compare to show it was the hijackers.

Very interesting. Radio programme lasts 21 minutes.

By the way, I am still not saying I am pro-conspiracy theory on this.

Thursday, September 07, 2006 10:37:00 PM

Anonymous said...

Doris said,"I am not saying that this was perpretrated by anyone other than fanatics but having a major catastrophe does take ones attention off other matters or makes it easier to push forward various laws. ...I bet that there were some people in power who found it extremely useful that the destruction was as categoric as it was."
Doris, I agree with you completely. I wrote this on another person's blog, and if it's too long I apologize, but I thought you would appreciate this sentiment from me, an American who did NOT vote for Bushes --any of them --and who was among those complaining at the outset that this Iraq war was a lie.
"...Please forgive my rambling here if it's not terribly cohesive, but I would like to tell you that I awoke this morning to a Wisconsin Public Radio hour that was disturbing (Public Radio is our normally well-rounded radio that looks at all viewpoints). Seems a small number (growing?) of ignoramusses here are insisting the 9/11 planes were a planned thing by the govt. and that one of them was actually a missile. Horse hockey.
A sicko called into the radio program, in which the host was interviewing a guy from Popular Mechanics magazine. The interviewee was talking about all the scientific evidence (the physics, the mechanics, the structural integrity of steel, the architecture,etc.) regarding the collapse of the buildings...what caused it, etc...we've all seen the science TV and read the articles explaining such.
So anyway, this ignorant sicko called in (I was half awake) and ranted about how the attack was a govt. plot and he ended his tirade (actually he was cut off) by accusing the interviewee of being guilty of the mass murder of those in the twin towers that day five years ago! The poor guy writes science articles for Popular Mechanics magazine (or he was the editor, I don't know) and you can imagine how much it shook him up. The interviewer asked him if he gets many people like that responding to his articles...he shakily said, No, not like that on live radio. There's no reason for the guy to have been attacked like that in a free society, and it's a shame that such encounters might hamper him doing his job well.
I've got no moral for you here, but I just wanted to share this early-morning experience. Ignorant people--and even more educated people--are feeling so out of control regarding everything that's happening in this confusing, complicated world that it's easy to start looking for demons everywhere.
Spreading fear for political purposes: yes, it happens all the time, and that guy who called in is the ideal mark for the conmen.
Doris, I listened to most of the radio link you provided here, and I am sorry that the interviewer was so confrontational to the poor Popular Mechanics researcher. This was NOT the guy to rag on...the guy to rag on is the President of the US and his cronies. Don't blame the poor science writer who's trying to do his best.
Would you like me to see if there is a link to the Wisc. radio programme, which was much more informative and less confrontational?

Friday, September 08, 2006 6:28:00 AM

Kurt Reply said...

Well, I hope I haven't overstayed my welcome here, but I went ahead and found the radio link for you.
After going to the link, scroll down to program 08/22C. The man being interviewed is a little more knowledgeable than the one in the radio interview you cited above. He was the head of the original Popular Mechanics investigative team.

Friday, September 08, 2006 6:39:00 AM

Doris said...

Thank you Kurt for that link which I have reproduced here

I have just listened to the full 50 minutes of the interview. There may well be hot-headed and crazy people out there ready to phone in and accuse Popular Mechanics writers of being part of the conspiracy but that is no reason to stop any questioning over the matter of 9/11.

Indeed, comparing this interview with the other one - both people being interviewed were "co-authors" this interview is less aggressive (which is good) but also less probing. Much of what was said was pretty much what can be read on the Popular Mechanics website.

I was looking across the web for some images of the WTC 7 building and in amongst it found a website or two that shows UFOs at 9/11 and pictures of the devil in the smoke.

But I also found this fascinating page that shows other demolitions and it is fascinating.

If we are to stand away from the arguments over semantics, or the conflicting statements and look at the bigger picture there are three buildings that completely collapsed on 9/11. When it comes down to it the terrorists are responsible for what they did and caused the events but I don't hear any furore about checking the integrity of all our tall buildings across the world. Are our buildings really that vulnerable?

Friday, September 08, 2006 10:19:00 AM

Kurt Reply said...

I concur with you on all counts, Doris.
What I worry most about is the inordinate amount of time that this nitpicking regarding photos, lack of photos, evidence, lack of evidence, etc., is causing us to spend on it, over and over's wasting my time, it's wasting your time, it's wasting everyone's time, and it takes our minds (and our time) away from addressing the bigger issues that caused the attacks in the first place. What a shame, I say.
As for the safety of buildings, while you can increase security, you simply cannot make them physically "safer" when it comes to an airplane flying into them at 550mph or explosives detonated at their four corners. Every single one of us takes our daily risks and hope we ourselves won't be in the wrong place at the wrong time. In the end that's all we can do.
BTW, as a science person I've watched some good television specials here in the US regarding building demolitions by a well-known family business that's hired around the country to do these controlled demos. Indeed, it's fascinating. You might try looking for it this week on TV, perhaps on the Discovery Channel or a science channel (if you get something like that in the UK.)

Friday, September 08, 2006 2:49:00 PM

Doris said...

But is it wasted time Kurt? I agree it is an inordinate amount, and it is questionable as to what can be achieved from it but on the other hand "what if".

On the basis of 9/11 Afghanistan was invaded to get Bin Laden but "what if" the perpertrators were a completely different faction?

"What if" the War on Terror was really a smoke screen for a sort of modern day imperialism? And so forth.

Questions are good. It keeps everyone on their toes but that is a little naive of me to hope that was the outcome.

As for safety of buildings I still wonder.

In the past I have seen some of those demolition programmes on the cable channels and actually watch them by choice as they are fascinating. I've seen the care, time and planning needed to do their work which is one of my first points against any sort of conspiracy that the WTC was brought down by controlled explosion. And then I stand back and watch the WTC buildings fall.

Friday, September 08, 2006 4:26:00 PM

Gerald Ford said...

This reminds me of those wonderful conspiracy theories about how the US never actually went to the moon. Instead it was all an elaborate hoax to fool the Soviets.

Screwballs. ;p

Monday, September 11, 2006 1:53:00 AM

jane said...

"In a Scripps poll in 2006, 35% of American adults believe it is very or somewhat likely that federal officials either took no action to stop the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon or actively participated in them "because they wanted the United States to go to war in the middle east."

I tend to go along with this train of thought. Besides the 2,996 lives lost, America has gained the most from this. I'm not saying this to dishonor any of the victims.
I don't think we'll ever know the real truth because our gov't lies. This is a good topic, Doris. It's funny cuz in the USA where "freedom" reigns & we brag about having freedom of speech. If you sa anything against the gov't. regarding 9/11 or the war in Iraq, you're considered nonpatriotic and a traitor. Isn't that just lovely?

Monday, September 11, 2006 12:35:00 PM

Kurt Reply said...

Hi, Doris,
I just stopped in again to see if this discussion continued a bit, and it the right direction. Gerald and Jane are correct.
Except, Jane, I think a few more Americans are seeing the light with regards to the blind patriotism crap. Or, maybe I am just hoping too much.
Doris, there are lots of people who didn't vote for Bush in the last election, but their votes didn't get counted because of fraudulent practices. This is not conspiracy theory, not fiction. I feel you should know that.
One more interesting radio show happened this morning which you might want to listen to if you are at all interested in what the mess is over here regarding our problems in government. This guy summed up the complicated state of affairs we have over here in the US right now. It will take years if not decades to fix--if it can be fixed.
This is that same radio link as above, but go to program 9/11C (Mark Crispin Miller). Doris, the program isn't just about election fraud as the link description suggests. It's also about a crooked government, the awful war they got us into, and the damage it's done. This is what a good percentage of Americans are thinking. I really want your British readers to know we are not all pro-war and pro-Bush.
Anyway, thanks for "listening" to me!

Tuesday, September 12, 2006 2:54:00 AM

Kurt Reply said...

Oh, I forgot to paste the link into my comment. Again, go to program 9/11C.

Tuesday, September 12, 2006 2:56:00 AM

Doris said...

Sorry this isn't a reply to various points brought up - just no time at the mo, but I did want to say Kurt THANKYOU for telling me about the latest radio show. I've just listened to it as I worked. If you hear any more shows that might be of interest then I would welcome you taking the time to drop me a note on this post or any latest post.

Best wishes.

Tuesday, September 12, 2006 12:56:00 PM

kurt said...

Doris, it's good of you to ask me for an occasional bit I find good. My cousin just sent me this one. The conmmentary within the blog is pretty good too. This is the type of reporter we need to have again in this country.

Thursday, September 14, 2006 3:19:00 AM

Doris said...

Thanks Kurt - much appreciated.
http://susiemadrak link

Thursday, September 14, 2006 8:06:00 AM

Doris said...

So that link commented on and linked to Bloggermann (Keith Oolbermann - A US TV host). Amazingly, he has quoted one of my favourite TV programmes from the past "The Twilight Zone" and an episode written by Rod Serling. Follow the links to read a brief outline of that episode in which is said:

"The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices, to be found only in the minds of men.

"For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own -- for the children, and the children yet unborn."

Thursday, September 14, 2006 8:18:00 AM

Doris said...

Offtopic! Correction: it was The Night Stalker I have fond memories of .... but I also watched some of The Twilight Zone. Rod Serling was responsible for writing the entire series of books that the TV series "The Twilight Zone" was based upon.

Thursday, September 14, 2006 9:41:00 AM

Kurt said...

I don't get cable so I never knew Olbermann til this week. Geez, even in print he's eloquent. Apparently he's all the talk around blogdom: saw this on a blog and thought you'd like to have the whole speech in this section for reference.
Good wishes,
and the MSN page it's on:

What Olbermann said... here it is in print:

Half a lifetime ago, I worked in this now-empty space. And for 40 days after the attacks, I worked here again, trying to make sense of what happened, and was yet to happen, as a reporter.
All the time, I knew that the very air I breathed contained the remains of thousands of people, including four of my friends, two in the planes and -- as I discovered from those "missing posters" seared still into my soul -- two more in the Towers.

And I knew too, that this was the pyre for hundreds of New York policemen and firemen, of whom my family can claim half a dozen or more, as our ancestors.

I belabor this to emphasize that, for me this was, and is, and always shall be, personal.

And anyone who claims that I and others like me are "soft,"or have "forgotten" the lessons of what happened here is at best a grasping, opportunistic, dilettante and at worst, an idiot whether he is a commentator, or a Vice President, or a President.

However, of all the things those of us who were here five years ago could have forecast -- of all the nightmares that unfolded before our eyes, and the others that unfolded only in our minds -- none of us could have predicted this.

Five years later this space is still empty.

Five years later there is no memorial to the dead.

Five years later there is no building rising to show with proud defiance that we would not have our America wrung from us, by cowards and criminals.

Five years later this country's wound is still open.

Five years later this country's mass grave is still unmarked.

Five years later this is still just a background for a photo-op.

It is beyond shameful.

At the dedication of the Gettysburg Memorial -- barely four months after the last soldier staggered from another Pennsylvania field -- Mr. Lincoln said, "we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."

Lincoln used those words to immortalize their sacrifice.

Today our leaders could use those same words to rationalize their reprehensible inaction. "We cannot dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground." So we won't.

Instead they bicker and buck pass. They thwart private efforts, and jostle to claim credit for initiatives that go nowhere. They spend the money on irrelevant wars, and elaborate self-congratulations, and buying off columnists to write how good a job they're doing instead of doing any job at all.

Five years later, Mr. Bush, we are still fighting the terrorists on these streets. And look carefully, sir, on these 16 empty acres. The terrorists are clearly, still winning.

And, in a crime against every victim here and every patriotic sentiment you mouthed but did not enact, you have done nothing about it.

And there is something worse still than this vast gaping hole in this city, and in the fabric of our nation. There is its symbolism of the promise unfulfilled, the urgent oath, reduced to lazy execution.

The only positive on 9/11 and the days and weeks that so slowly and painfully followed it was the unanimous humanity, here, and throughout the country. The government, the President in particular, was given every possible measure of support.

Those who did not belong to his party -- tabled that.

Those who doubted the mechanics of his election -- ignored that.

Those who wondered of his qualifications -- forgot that.

History teaches us that nearly unanimous support of a government cannot be taken away from that government by its critics. It can only be squandered by those who use it not to heal a nation's wounds, but to take political advantage.

Terrorists did not come and steal our newly-regained sense of being American first, and political, fiftieth. Nor did the Democrats. Nor did the media. Nor did the people.

The President -- and those around him -- did that.

They promised bi-partisanship, and then showed that to them, "bi-partisanship" meant that their party would rule and the rest would have to follow, or be branded, with ever-escalating hysteria, as morally or intellectually confused, as appeasers, as those who, in the Vice President's words yesterday, "validate the strategy of the terrorists."

They promised protection, and then showed that to them "protection" meant going to war against a despot whose hand they had once shaken, a despot who we now learn from our own Senate Intelligence Committee, hated al-Qaida as much as we did.

The polite phrase for how so many of us were duped into supporting a war, on the false premise that it had 'something to do' with 9/11 is "lying by implication."

The impolite phrase is "impeachable offense."

Not once in now five years has this President ever offered to assume responsibility for the failures that led to this empty space, and to this, the current, curdled, version of our beloved country.

Still, there is a last snapping flame from a final candle of respect and fairness: even his most virulent critics have never suggested he alone bears the full brunt of the blame for 9/11.

Half the time, in fact, this President has been so gently treated, that he has seemed not even to be the man most responsible for anything in his own administration.

Yet what is happening this very night?

A mini-series, created, influenced -- possibly financed by -- the most radical and cold of domestic political Machiavellis, continues to be televised into our homes.

The documented truths of the last fifteen years are replaced by bald-faced lies; the talking points of the current regime parroted; the whole sorry story blurred, by spin, to make the party out of office seem vacillating and impotent, and the party in office, seem like the only option.

How dare you, Mr. President, after taking cynical advantage of the unanimity and love, and transmuting it into fraudulent war and needless death, after monstrously transforming it into fear and suspicion and turning that fear into the campaign slogan of three elections? How dare you -- or those around you -- ever "spin" 9/11?

Just as the terrorists have succeeded -- are still succeeding -- as long as there is no memorial and no construction here at Ground Zero.

So, too, have they succeeded, and are still succeeding as long as this government uses 9/11 as a wedge to pit Americans against Americans.

This is an odd point to cite a television program, especially one from March of 1960. But as Disney's continuing sell-out of the truth (and this country) suggests, even television programs can be powerful things.

And long ago, a series called "The Twilight Zone" broadcast a riveting episode entitled "The Monsters Are Due On Maple Street."

In brief: a meteor sparks rumors of an invasion by extra-terrestrials disguised as humans. The electricity goes out. A neighbor pleads for calm. Suddenly his car -- and only his car -- starts. Someone suggests he must be the alien. Then another man's lights go on. As charges and suspicion and panic overtake the street, guns are inevitably produced. An "alien" is shot -- but he turns out to be just another neighbor, returning from going for help. The camera pulls back to a near-by hill, where two extra-terrestrials are seen manipulating a small device that can jam electricity. The veteran tells his novice that there's no need to actually attack, that you just turn off a few of the human machines and then, "they pick the most dangerous enemy they can find, and it's themselves."

And then, in perhaps his finest piece of writing, Rod Serling sums it up with words of remarkable prescience, given where we find ourselves tonight: "The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices, to be found only in the minds of men.

"For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own -- for the children, and the children yet unborn."

When those who dissent are told time and time again -- as we will be, if not tonight by the President, then tomorrow by his portable public chorus -- that he is preserving our freedom, but that if we use any of it, we are somehow un-American...When we are scolded, that if we merely question, we have "forgotten the lessons of 9/11"... look into this empty space behind me and the bi-partisanship upon which this administration also did not build, and tell me:

Who has left this hole in the ground?

We have not forgotten, Mr. President.

You have.

May this country forgive you.

Friday, September 15, 2006 11:58:00 PM

Anonymous said...

the problem is that the truth will never come out..
Well, anyways i really enjoyed reading your blog. In fact If I were you I would go to and submit this blog so thousands of tohers can see it for free. I look forward to all the updates. thanks again.


Tuesday, September 26, 2006 7:57:00 AM

No comments: