1. “A thousand architects and engineers demand we open our eyes on 9/11
Before rejecting the conspiratorial views of these architects and engineers as crazy, however, one might reflect on an on-screen statement from Albert Einstein that began the conference: “Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.”
It might be far easier on our national psyche to deny the vast amount of evidence pointing to inside collaboration on the 9/11 attacks. The implications of an inside job are horrific. How could traitors among us do such a thing? Could we ever admit that we initiated two wars and gross violations of our national values, including torturing suspects and spying on our own citizens, all because of a lie? If the WTC towers were exploded, as the San Francisco group of architects and engineers boldly contend, how have our media, our leaders and we American citizens been so blind?
Yes, to discover the truth about 9/11 would be extremely painful indeed. But not facing the truth and swallowing our government’s current lies about the attacks requires that we deny a mountain of powerful, incriminating evidence. “
http://www.dailytidings.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100313/OPINION03/3130303/-1/NEWSMAP
2. “For Some, the Search for What Happened on 9/11 Isn’t Over
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) started its investigation on August 21, 2002. When their 10,000-page-long report came out three years later, the spokesman said there was no evidence to suggest a controlled demolition. But Steven E. Jones also says that molten metal found underground weeks later is proof that jet fuel couldn’t have been all that was responsible. I visited the site about three weeks after 9/11, with Governor Pataki and my wife Terry. It didn’t mean anything to me at the time, but they had to suspend digging that day because they were running into heat pockets of huge temperatures. These fires kept burning for more than three months, the longest-burning structure blaze ever. And this was all due to jet fuel? We’re talking molten metal more than 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit.
Probably the most conclusive evidence about a controlled demolition is a research paper (two years, nine authors) published in the peer-reviewed Open Chemical Physics Journal, in April 2009. In studying dust samples from the site, these scientists found chips of nano-thermite, which is a high-tech incendiary/explosive. Here’s what the paper’s lead author, Dr. Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen’s chemistry department, had to say about the explosive that he’s convinced brought down the Twin Towers and the nearby Building 7:
“Thermite itself dates back to 1893. It is a mixture of aluminum and rust-powder, which react to create intense heat. The reaction produces iron, heated to 2500 degrees Centigrade. This can be used to do welding. It can also be used to melt other iron. So in nano-thermite, this powder from 1893 is reduced to tiny particles, perfectly mixed. When these react, the intense heat develops much more quickly. Nano-thermite can be mixed with additives to give off intense heat, or serve as a very effective explosive. It contains more energy than dynamite, and can be used as rocket fuel.”
Richard Gage is one of hundreds of credentialed architects and structural engineers who have put their careers on the line to point out the detailed anomalies and many implications of controlled demolition in the building collapses. As he puts it bluntly: “Once you get to the science, it’s indisputable.”
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18100
3. “
There’s a great paradox in the American political landscape: the word that is used most frequently to justify everything from invasions and bombings to torture, indefinite detention, and the sprawling Surveillance State — Terrorism — is also the most ill-defined and manipulated word. It has no fixed meaning, and thus applies to virtually anything the user wishes to demonize, while excluding the user’s own behavior and other acts one seeks to justify.
Of course, “the War on Terror” era has made this manipulation even more blatant and destructive — attacks by Muslims even when aimed at purely military targets (Fort Hood or even armies invading their own countries) are automatically deemed “Terrorism,” while attacks designed by the U.S., Israel and their allies with the clear purpose of terrorizing civilian populations into submission are not (nor is it Terrorism when a non-Muslim American flies his plane into the side of a government building or randomly shoots Pentagon police for political ends).
But the deceit inherent in that inconsistent application has been going on for several decades — from the Israeli attempt in the 1970s to universalize their local disputes under the rubric of that term, to America’s arming of the Nicaraguan contras, El Salvadoran death squads and even the Iranian regime in the 1980s, to the decades-long and ongoing games of who is (and is not) declared a “state sponsor of terror.” Interestingly, while many leading Senate Democrats and many establishment media outlets routinely and publicly accused the U.S. of being a “state sponsor of terrroism” in the 1980s (primarily by virtue of its actions in Central America), the very mention of such a possibility is now one of the greatest taboos.
…
It is that lack of definition that is the source of most of the mischief. The reason no clear definition of Terrorism is ever settled upon is because it’s virtually impossible to embrace a definition without either (a) excluding behavior one wishes to demonize and thus include and/or (b) including behavior (including one’s own and those of one’s friends) which one desperately wants to exclude. As Brulin explains, this dilemma is often “resolved” by countries trying to create definitions that simply bar the possibility that they themselves could ever engage in Terrorism (as exemplified by the long-standing efforts of the U.S. to insist that Terrorism is, by definition, something that only non-state actors can engage in, even as they both label other governments “state sponsors of terrorism”). But media outlets such as Newsweek shouldn’t be parties to those propagandistic efforts; if they’re going to use the term — and they do, promiscuously — they ought first to decide what it means and then apply it consistently (as Reuters, rare among Western media outlets, has commendably attempted to do).”
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/radio/2010/03/14/terrorism/index.html
