Scholars Question Cheney's Role in 9/11

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

noto12ious

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2001
1,131
0
0
Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
ahah, i found it.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

now read it and say buhbye.


They don't address molten steel, or the numerous explosions recorded on camera :)

You should know that Popular Mechanics has been ridiculed / debunked / contradicted by many people :) You realize Popular Mechanics has heavy ties to the government and the CIA, right?

Here are some great investigative reports that challenge your Popular Mechanics article, especially with regards to the explosions that occurred at WTC (Notice how Popular Mechanics DOES NOT ADDRESS THE EXPLOSIONS ON THE LOWER FLOORS / Earthquake type rumblings which hundreds of people have gone on record saying....nor do they address how the steel on the lower levels MELTED while the steel from the upper floors DID NOT melt)


Let's start off with the Popular Mechanics propaganda machine:

Senior researcher , Benjamin Chertoff of the Popular Mechanics 911 debunking article is none other than first cousin of Michael Chertoff, our secretary of the department of Homeland Security. Hey, what a coincidence! Funny how he wouldn't admit it:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2005/070305chertoffscousin.htm




So, how else is Popular Mechanics connected to our government, you ask? Well, let's do some investigating. I've taken this directly from another site... so I take no credit whatsoever.

***************************************************************************************************
'Popular Mechanics' & Other CIA Front Organizations
From Peter Wakefield Sault
sault@cyberware.co.uk
2-11-5

I have just read Jim Hoffman's response to Popular Mechanics 9/11 article that tries to debunk the truth about 9/11 by the use of the 'straw man' tactic. Although everything in his response is quite correct and exposes the straw man for what it is, I feel Mr Hoffman was dealing with this particular issue at the wrong level. Approached from a different angle the article tells us who really was behind 9/11 and who is still desperately trying to cover it up. This is how it works:-


'Popular Mechanics' is published by the Hearst Corporation, proprietor (chairman of the board). George R. Hearst grandson of William Randolph Hearst, sometime would-be builder of large aeroplanes.
http://www.business-magazines.com/prd1350.php
http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/hearst.asp
http://www.hearstcorp.com/biographies/corp_bio_hearst.html

The president and CEO of Hearst Corporation is one Victor F. Ganzi, since June 1st, 2002. Mr Ganzi is also an officer/director of the Hearst Foundation.

http://img64.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img64&image=ganzi20032bw1py.jpg


http://www.hearstcorp.com/biographies/corp_bio_ganzi.html
http://www.oaklandwib.org/Images/ImageUploads/F82200432537.pdf

A close look at the titles of the books on the shelf behind Mr Ganzi in the photo (GANZI_2003_2_BW.jpg) reveals that some part of Mr Ganzi's early career was spent working for the owners of the Atlantic City Boardwalk and associated hotels and casinos; sometime friends of a certain Mr Frank Sinatra, as I recall.

Victor F. Ganzi is on the board of directors of The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University (CASA), alongside Columba Bush, wife of Jeb Bush, Governor of Florida, brother of George W. Bush, President of the USA and son of George H.W. Bush, former DG of the CIA.
http://www.nationalfamilies.org/prevention/casa.html


Victor F. Ganzi is a member of B.E.N.S. - "Business Executives for National Security" wherein we learn that "When it came time to evaluate In-Q-Tel, the CIA's innovative technology development enterprise, Congress turned to BENS"
In October 2002, B.E.N.S. received a "CIA Agency Seal Medallion" for its work on the In-Q-Tel program.

In-Q-Tel? It is described as "A new partnership between the CIA and the ?private sector?(my apostrophes),? making it a classic front for traditional fascism and other American-style old-fashioned family values
http://www.in-q-tel.org/

A look at the names involved in In-Q-Tel quickly reveals it as a front for Zionism Central.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/inqtel

So, we should all be most grateful to 'Popular Mechanics' and its new editor James Meigs for indirectly telling us who the real perpetrators of 9/11 were by its rather long-winded "blind 'em with science" attempt to suppress the truth of behalf of those perpetrators.

Kind Regards Peter Sault
******************************************************************************************************

Good stuff, eh?





Now let's get to the debunking / challenges:


http://911review.com/pm/markup/index.html
Scroll to the very bottom of this article: ("PM claims that its article is backed up by these experts. However, the article is not footnoted, and cites only the persons whose listings are highlighted with background colors. Of those, only the ones highlighted in yellow argue against claims made by 911review.com)


http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/index.html


http://rense.com/general62/popp.htm


http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html


 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Originally posted by: noto12ious
Uh huh...you can keep denying the facts...if it will allow you to sleep peacefully at night.

Doing nothing? The media is beginning to acknowledge these facts:) The Miami Herald, and Utah's Deseret News have already picked up the story as of February, 2006.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/columnists/13760721.htm

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635179751,00.html


An affiliate of Fox News has also picked up the story to Loose Change 2nd Ed. The truth is coming out, whether you like it or not. :)

Fox News 40 coverage on Loose Change 2nd Edition:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=1dKdt3kedaE&search=fox%20news%20loose%20change (part 1 of 2)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=AKbIjvo_TVI&search=fox%20news%20loose%20change (part 2 of 2)


What happened to the doubters? CrackRabbit, jagec, MIKEMIKE, alchemize?

Once presented with the facts ... you refuse to address them...proceed make broad generalizations ... then you decide to dissappear? Don't tell me you're running away from the thread...especially you alchemize :) I'm calling you boys out.

Tsk tsk.

Hey tinfoil-king, I've addressed the issues with you. I'm treating this as if it is a court of law, or a scientific proof. But I'll cover it again. And you can respond with a slew of links and not a single original thought.

1) You need physical evidence. You have none.
2) You need a confession from one or more involved in the "conspiracy". You have none.
3) In absence of #2, you need DIRECT implication by witnesses in sworn testimony. You have none.
4) You also need to explain ANY evidence that contradicts your assertion. You have not done so
5) You also have to present MOTIVE and back that up with evidence You've presented nothing any reasonable person would consider as motive, and presented no evidence to support your asserted motives

Your tinfoil ass would be laughed out of any science lab or courtroom. Basically you're parading forth grainy photos as your "evidence", and partisan hacks as your "expert witnesses".

So you have no facts. You have wild specultation and innuendo. If you want to try and call me out again, I suggest you address my points and stop posting your stupid websites.
 

myusername

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2003
5,046
0
0
Originally posted by: FoBoT
In fact, the photo reveals only the Boeing's right fairing, a pronounced bulge that contains the landing gear. He concludes that sunlight glinting off the fairing gave it an exaggerated look. "Such a glint causes a blossoming (enlargement) on film," he writes in an e-mail to PM, "which tends to be amplified in digital versions of images--the pixels are saturated and tend to 'spill over' to adjacent pixels."

I don't know anything about airplanes, but I do know imaging and I do know what blooming is. The "bulge", whether normal for that plane or not, is decidedly NOT a result of blooming.
 

MikeMike

Lifer
Feb 6, 2000
45,885
66
91
Originally posted by: noto12ious
Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
ahah, i found it.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

now read it and say buhbye.


They don't address molten steel, or the numerous explosions recorded on camera :)

You should know that Popular Mechanics has been ridiculed / debunked / contradicted by many people :) You realize Popular Mechanics has heavy ties to the government and the CIA, right?

Here are some great investigative reports that challenge your Popular Mechanics article, especially with regards to the explosions that occurred at WTC (Notice how Popular Mechanics DOES NOT ADDRESS THE EXPLOSIONS ON THE LOWER FLOORS / Earthquake type rumblings which hundreds of people have gone on record saying....nor do they address how the steel on the lower levels MELTED while the steel from the upper floors DID NOT melt)


Let's start off with the Popular Mechanics propaganda machine:

Senior researcher , Benjamin Chertoff of the Popular Mechanics 911 debunking article is none other than first cousin of Michael Chertoff, our secretary of the department of Homeland Security. Hey, what a coincidence! Funny how he wouldn't admit it:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2005/070305chertoffscousin.htm




So, how else is Popular Mechanics connected to our government, you ask? Well, let's do some investigating. I've taken this directly from another site... so I take no credit whatsoever.

***************************************************************************************************
'Popular Mechanics' & Other CIA Front Organizations
From Peter Wakefield Sault
sault@cyberware.co.uk
2-11-5

I have just read Jim Hoffman's response to Popular Mechanics 9/11 article that tries to debunk the truth about 9/11 by the use of the 'straw man' tactic. Although everything in his response is quite correct and exposes the straw man for what it is, I feel Mr Hoffman was dealing with this particular issue at the wrong level. Approached from a different angle the article tells us who really was behind 9/11 and who is still desperately trying to cover it up. This is how it works:-


'Popular Mechanics' is published by the Hearst Corporation, proprietor (chairman of the board). George R. Hearst grandson of William Randolph Hearst, sometime would-be builder of large aeroplanes.
http://www.business-magazines.com/prd1350.php
http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/hearst.asp
http://www.hearstcorp.com/biographies/corp_bio_hearst.html

The president and CEO of Hearst Corporation is one Victor F. Ganzi, since June 1st, 2002. Mr Ganzi is also an officer/director of the Hearst Foundation.

http://img64.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img64&image=ganzi20032bw1py.jpg


http://www.hearstcorp.com/biographies/corp_bio_ganzi.html
http://www.oaklandwib.org/Images/ImageUploads/F82200432537.pdf

A close look at the titles of the books on the shelf behind Mr Ganzi in the photo (GANZI_2003_2_BW.jpg) reveals that some part of Mr Ganzi's early career was spent working for the owners of the Atlantic City Boardwalk and associated hotels and casinos; sometime friends of a certain Mr Frank Sinatra, as I recall.

Victor F. Ganzi is on the board of directors of The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University (CASA), alongside Columba Bush, wife of Jeb Bush, Governor of Florida, brother of George W. Bush, President of the USA and son of George H.W. Bush, former DG of the CIA.
http://www.nationalfamilies.org/prevention/casa.html


Victor F. Ganzi is a member of B.E.N.S. - "Business Executives for National Security" wherein we learn that "When it came time to evaluate In-Q-Tel, the CIA's innovative technology development enterprise, Congress turned to BENS"
In October 2002, B.E.N.S. received a "CIA Agency Seal Medallion" for its work on the In-Q-Tel program.

In-Q-Tel? It is described as "A new partnership between the CIA and the ?private sector?(my apostrophes),? making it a classic front for traditional fascism and other American-style old-fashioned family values
http://www.in-q-tel.org/

A look at the names involved in In-Q-Tel quickly reveals it as a front for Zionism Central.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/inqtel

So, we should all be most grateful to 'Popular Mechanics' and its new editor James Meigs for indirectly telling us who the real perpetrators of 9/11 were by its rather long-winded "blind 'em with science" attempt to suppress the truth of behalf of those perpetrators.

Kind Regards Peter Sault
******************************************************************************************************

Good stuff, eh?





Now let's get to the debunking / challenges:


http://911review.com/pm/markup/index.html
Scroll to the very bottom of this article: ("PM claims that its article is backed up by these experts. However, the article is not footnoted, and cites only the persons whose listings are highlighted with background colors. Of those, only the ones highlighted in yellow argue against claims made by 911review.com)


http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/index.html


http://rense.com/general62/popp.htm


http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html

so because my uncles kids best fried is the director of the CIA i now have ties, and was told by the CIA to help debunk it???
 

Conky

Lifer
May 9, 2001
10,709
0
0
Originally posted by: FoBoT
Originally posted by: noto12ious
You realize Popular Mechanics has heavy ties to the government and the CIA, right?

w0w! you are amazing, you must have anti-tinfoil in your hat
I always knew that Popular Mechanics was simply a mouthpiece for the government but nobody ever questions Reader's Digest? Coincidence? I think not. :laugh:
 

MikeMike

Lifer
Feb 6, 2000
45,885
66
91
Originally posted by: Crazyfool
Originally posted by: FoBoT
Originally posted by: noto12ious
You realize Popular Mechanics has heavy ties to the government and the CIA, right?

w0w! you are amazing, you must have anti-tinfoil in your hat
I always knew that Popular Mechanics was simply a mouthpiece for the government but nobody ever questions Reader's Digest? Coincidence? I think not. :laugh:

what about Consumer Reports!!!!

ZOMG they are allowing us to buy brainwave microwaves and washers!
 

Conky

Lifer
May 9, 2001
10,709
0
0
Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
Originally posted by: Crazyfool
Originally posted by: FoBoT
Originally posted by: noto12ious
You realize Popular Mechanics has heavy ties to the government and the CIA, right?

w0w! you are amazing, you must have anti-tinfoil in your hat
I always knew that Popular Mechanics was simply a mouthpiece for the government but nobody ever questions Reader's Digest? Coincidence? I think not. :laugh:

what about Consumer Reports!!!!

ZOMG they are allowing us to buy brainwave microwaves and washers!
I heard they purposely ignored how cellphones give out brain toomas. ;)

 

MikeMike

Lifer
Feb 6, 2000
45,885
66
91
Originally posted by: Crazyfool
Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
Originally posted by: Crazyfool
Originally posted by: FoBoT
Originally posted by: noto12ious
You realize Popular Mechanics has heavy ties to the government and the CIA, right?

w0w! you are amazing, you must have anti-tinfoil in your hat
I always knew that Popular Mechanics was simply a mouthpiece for the government but nobody ever questions Reader's Digest? Coincidence? I think not. :laugh:

what about Consumer Reports!!!!

ZOMG they are allowing us to buy brainwave microwaves and washers!
I heard they purposely ignored how cellphones give out brain toomas. ;)

what about how you cant put dawn in the dishwasher, i dont think CR ever warned ANYONE about that, the gov't obviously wants the country covered in soap bubbles.
 

noto12ious

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2001
1,131
0
0
Hey tinfoil-king, I've addressed the issues with you. I'm treating this as if it is a court of law, or a scientific proof. But I'll cover it again. And you can respond with a slew of links and not a single original thought.

Good, you aren't running away like you did the other thread. I'm glad you've changed. I can't say the same for everyone else...they're still stuck on "I refuse to look at the evidence" mode.

1) You need physical evidence. You have none.
Due in large part to the government illegal removing debris from a crime scene. Federal offense anyone? There are also pieces of molten steel laying around somewhere...and the st911.org group are petitioning to have that evidence made available for examination :)

2) You need a confession from one or more involved in the "conspiracy". You have none.
Confessions aren't always needed in a court of law.

3) In absence of #2, you need DIRECT implication by witnesses in sworn testimony. You have none.

The explosions / eyewitness accounts have all been captured on video ... and other witnesses have placed the 9/11 Commission on negligence with failing to report the facts :)

Oh, and then there's Mineta's testimony to the Commission which basically screws Cheney... or screws the official story...however you want to look at it.

4) You also need to explain ANY evidence that contradicts your assertion. You have not done so
What contradicting evidence? The evidence of Mineta's testimony supports the assertion that our government has lied (assuming he was telling the truth to the commission).

The Popular Mechanics article? Already addressed in the post above yours.

5) You also have to present MOTIVE and back that up with evidence You've presented nothing any reasonable person would consider as motive, and presented no evidence to support your asserted motives

LoL. You really want motive? PNAC's own words ... they needed a "New Pearl Harbor" to speed up their goals...it's stated on their website somewhere.


Your tinfoil ass would be laughed out of any science lab or courtroom. Basically you're parading forth grainy photos as your "evidence", and partisan hacks as your "expert witnesses".

Actually, science is on my side as well, as indicated by many people, including engineers.

For instance:

Video of MIT Engineer disputing the "truss theory" given by the government (time frame 25:31 - 39:15)
video link: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1951610169657809939&q=11+revisited

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html
http://911research.com/wtc/analysis/official/trusses.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_demolition_init.htm

So you have no facts. You have wild specultation and innuendo. If you want to try and call me out again, I suggest you address my points and stop posting your stupid websites.

Video evidence and testimonies aren't facts? I'm calling you out...address the evidence I've presented. So far you've countered with NOTHING.
 

MikeMike

Lifer
Feb 6, 2000
45,885
66
91
you will get laughed out of court if your ONLY despute of the PM article is "they have ties to the gov't"
 

noto12ious

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2001
1,131
0
0
Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
you will get laughed out of court if your ONLY despute of the PM article is "they have ties to the gov't"

Actually, the PM article fails to address molten steel and the numerous explosions / eyewitness accounts of explosions caught on tape. The article also fails to account for Cheney's "orders", as given by Mineta.

Oh, engineers have also contradicted the official government version for the collapse :)

So no, this case wouldn't be laughed at / dismissed in a court of law. Sorry to dissappoint you.
 

MikeMike

Lifer
Feb 6, 2000
45,885
66
91
Originally posted by: noto12ious
Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
you will get laughed out of court if your ONLY despute of the PM article is "they have ties to the gov't"

Actually, the PM article fails to address molten steel and the numerous explosions / eyewitness accounts of explosions caught on tape. The article also fails to account for Cheney's "orders", as given by Mineta.

Oh, engineers have also contradicted the official government version for the collapse :)

how do you know his "account" will hold up in a legal court of law under oath???
 

noto12ious

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2001
1,131
0
0
Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
Originally posted by: noto12ious
Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
you will get laughed out of court if your ONLY despute of the PM article is "they have ties to the gov't"

Actually, the PM article fails to address molten steel and the numerous explosions / eyewitness accounts of explosions caught on tape. The article also fails to account for Cheney's "orders", as given by Mineta.

Oh, engineers have also contradicted the official government version for the collapse :)

how do you know his "account" will hold up in a legal court of law under oath???

How do you know it won't? I guess we'll find out if his testimony makes it that far.

He'll probably be "silenced" before that, however.
 

noto12ious

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2001
1,131
0
0
Originally posted by: Crazyfool
I want to see this steel that is still molten after all this time.

The reactions will have already taken place, which researchers can examine.

Science = win :)
 

MikeMike

Lifer
Feb 6, 2000
45,885
66
91
Originally posted by: noto12ious
Originally posted by: Crazyfool
I want to see this steel that is still molten after all this time.

The reactions will have already taken place.

Science = win :)

yup, theorists who blame the gov't for everything, 9/11, fake moon landing, JFK assasination, other stuff FTL.

sorry, no way in the court of law will ANY jury on circumstantial evidence allow this to procede.
 

noto12ious

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2001
1,131
0
0
yup, theorists who blame the gov't for everything, 9/11, fake moon landing, JFK assasination, other stuff FTL.

sorry, no way in the court of law will ANY jury on circumstantial evidence allow this to procede.

That's your opinion. I guess we'll have to sit and watch it unfold.

 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Originally posted by: noto12ious
Hey tinfoil-king, I've addressed the issues with you. I'm treating this as if it is a court of law, or a scientific proof. But I'll cover it again. And you can respond with a slew of links and not a single original thought.

Good, you aren't running away like you did the other thread. I'm glad you've changed. I can't say the same for everyone else...they're still stuck on "I refuse to look at the evidence" mode.

1) You need physical evidence. You have none.
Due in large part to the government illegal removing debris from a crime scene. Federal offense anyone? There are also pieces of molten steel laying around somewhere...and the st911.org group are petitioning to have that evidence made available for examination :)

2) You need a confession from one or more involved in the "conspiracy". You have none.
Confessions aren't always needed in a court of law.

3) In absence of #2, you need DIRECT implication by witnesses in sworn testimony. You have none.

The explosions / eyewitness accounts have all been captured on video ... and other witnesses have placed the 9/11 Commission on negligence with failing to report the facts :)

Oh, and then there's Mineta's testimony to the Commission which basically screws Cheney... or screws the official story...however you want to look at it.

4) You also need to explain ANY evidence that contradicts your assertion. You have not done so
What contradicting evidence? The evidence of Mineta's testimony supports the assertion that our government has lied (assuming he was telling the truth to the commission).

The Popular Mechanics article? Already addressed in the post above yours.

5) You also have to present MOTIVE and back that up with evidence You've presented nothing any reasonable person would consider as motive, and presented no evidence to support your asserted motives

LoL. You really want motive? PNAC's own words ... they needed a "New Pearl Harbor" to speed up their goals...it's stated on their website somewhere.


Your tinfoil ass would be laughed out of any science lab or courtroom. Basically you're parading forth grainy photos as your "evidence", and partisan hacks as your "expert witnesses".

Actually, science is on my side as well, as indicated by many people, including engineers.

For instance:

Video of MIT Engineer disputing the "truss theory" given by the government (time frame 25:31 - 39:15)
video link: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1951610169657809939&q=11+revisited

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html
http://911research.com/wtc/analysis/official/trusses.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_demolition_init.htm

So you have no facts. You have wild specultation and innuendo. If you want to try and call me out again, I suggest you address my points and stop posting your stupid websites.

Video evidence and testimonies aren't facts? I'm calling you out...address the evidence I've presented. So far you've countered with NOTHING.
Hey look, another 40 links! Well, I've got a few minutes so I'll rip your logic apart.

1) You need physical evidence. You have none.
Due in large part to the government illegal removing debris from a crime scene. Federal offense anyone? There are also pieces of molten steel laying around somewhere...and the st911.org group are petitioning to have that evidence made available for examination :)Does it change the fact that you have none? Nope. You have no physical evidence.

2) You need a confession from one or more involved in the "conspiracy". You have none.
Confessions aren't always needed in a court of law.Nope, but they sure help. But you definitely got to have #3. Moving onto #3


3) In absence of #2, you need DIRECT implication by witnesses in sworn testimony. You have none.

The explosions / eyewitness accounts have all been captured on video ... and other witnesses have placed the 9/11 Commission on negligence with failing to report the facts :)

Oh, and then there's Mineta's testimony to the Commission which basically screws Cheney... or screws the official story...however you want to look at it.
The video falls into the category of "expert witness", for every expert witness that says "it's a bomb", you'll have one that says "no it isn't". Null and void for this.

"Negligence of the 9/11 comission" isn't sworn witness testimony implicating the criminal(s). The Mineta testimony deosn't show anything, it's pure speculation as to what Cheney did/didn't know. You have nothing for this probably most critical factor in "proving a case".


4) You also need to explain ANY evidence that contradicts your assertion. You have not done so
What contradicting evidence? The evidence of Mineta's testimony supports the assertion that our government has lied (assuming he was telling the truth to the commission).

The Popular Mechanics article? Already addressed in the post above yours.

Already addressed Mineta's testimony. Tying the popular mechanics article "to the cia" is hardly debunking it. Anyhow, "expert witness" category again.


5) You also have to present MOTIVE and back that up with evidence You've presented nothing any reasonable person would consider as motive, and presented no evidence to support your asserted motives

LoL. You really want motive? PNAC's own words ... they needed a "New Pearl Harbor" to speed up their goals...it's stated on their website somewhere.Hardly a motive, and untrue, I've reviewed the PNAC website. And how do you explain the motive for police, firemen, military members, FAA, pilots, demolition crews, rank and file government workers to participate in this grand cover up?

Case dismissed, with prejudice.
 

noto12ious

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2001
1,131
0
0
This is a test message...

I'm seeing alchemize as the "last post", but I'm not able to view his message