Larry Flynt

Posts Tagged ‘9/11’

NOT ALL 9/11 SKEPTICS ARE KOOKS

Tuesday, August 5th, 2008

by Paul Craig Roberts

Francesco Cossiga, president of Italy from 1985 to 1992, said in a November 2007 interview with the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera: “The video of Osama bin Laden’s confession of responsibility for the September 11 attack on the Twin Towers is a fake. All of the democratic circles of America and of Europe, with the Italian center-left in the forefront, now know well that the disastrous attack was planned and realized by the American CIA and Mossad with the help of the Zionist[s] to put under accusation the Arab countries and to persuade the Western powers to intervene in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

Cossiga’s statement was not reported by U.S. print or TV media. The only references to it were online, where bloggers have disputed whether or not Cossiga is serious. Some argue that the former president is pouring sarcasm over doubters of the official 9/11 story. Others point out that Cossiga has the rare reputation of being a politician who speaks frankly. For example, he had previously revealed his involvement in the creation of Gladio, a clandestine NATO Cold War organization accused of conducting false flag bombings—attacks engineered by government agencies but publicly attributed to terrorist groups. A longtime upper-echelon official, Corriga served as Minister of the Interior, Prime Minister and President of the Senate before winning Italy’s presidency on the first ballot with more than two-thirds of the vote.

The current dispute—whether Cossiga believes his statement or is poking fun at skeptics—is a red herring. Notice how wide Cossiga’s net is cast. He includes all democratic circles in Europe, his nation’s political center-left and its intelligence community. In other words, even if Cossiga had been speaking sarcastically in the controversial interview, he acknowledges that there is a vast number of 9/11 skeptics in European political circles.

If there were only a few doubters, there would be no point to Cossiga’s statement, whatever his intent. In the U.S. an array of former high-level government officials, intelligence professionals, military officers, air traffic controllers, commercial and Air Force pilots, architects, engineers, physicists and university professors have expressed disbelief in the official story and have called for an independent investigation. The desperate fervor the establishment uses to brand these intelligent and experienced people as “conspiracy theorists” gives good reason to wonder if the 9/11 Commission delivered a coverup.

•U.S. Senator Max Cleland (D-Georgia) resigned from the 9/11 Commission in 2003, telling the Boston Globe, “This investigation is now compromised.”

•Former FBI Director Louis Freeh wrote in the Wall Street Journal (November 17, 2005) that there are inaccuracies in the 9/11 Commission’s report and “questions that need answers.” Freeh sides with the 9/11 families calling for a new commission to conduct a real investigation.

•Colonel Robert Bowman, Director of Advanced Space Programs under Presidents Ford and Carter, has stated that “the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is a bunch of hogwash.” He points his finger at Vice President Cheney as the likely person who orchestrated a 9/11 coverup.

•Raymond L. McGovern, onetime high-ranking CIA analyst, says, “I think at simplest terms there’s a coverup. The 9/11 report is a joke.”

•Scott Ritter, former U.S. Marine Corps intelligence officer and Chief Weapons Inspector for the U.N. Special Commission in Iraq from 1991 to 1998: “I, like the others, am frustrated by the 9/11 Commission Report, by the lack of transparency on the part of the U.S. government, both in terms of the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch when it comes to putting out on the table all facts known to the 9/11 case.”

•William Christison, 29-year CIA veteran, national intelligence officer and Director of the CIA’s Office of Regional and Political Analysis: “I now think there is persuasive evidence that the events of September [2001] did not unfold as the Bush Administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe.”
These doubts and those of many other former government officials can be found on 9/11 Truth sites on the Internet, in particular WantToKnow.info/OfficialsQuestion911 CommissionReport.
A number of highly experienced foreign dignitaries have also expressed their doubts of the U.S. government’s official 9/11 story.

•Dr. Andreas von Buelow, former Minister of Technology and former state secretary in the Defense Ministry in the German government, said in a 2002 interview with Tagesspiegel that 9/11 was being used to brainwash the Western democracies in order to promote a new enemy, Islamic terrorism, to take the place of the Soviet Union. As for the 9/11 attack: “[T]he planning of the attacks was technically and organizationally a master achievement. To hijack four airplanes within a few minutes and within one hour to drive them into their targets, with complicated flight maneuvers! This is unthinkable, without years-long support from secret apparatuses of the state and industry.”

•General Leonid Ivashov, Chief of Staff of the Russian Armed Forces on September 11, 2001: “Only secret services and their current chiefs—or those retired but still having influence inside the state organizations—have the ability to plan, organize and conduct an operation of such magnitude. Generally, secret services create, finance and control extremist organizations. Without the support of secret services, these organizations cannot exist, let alone carry out operations of such magnitude inside countries so well protected. Planning and carrying out an operation on this scale is extremely complex. Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda cannot be the organizers nor the performers of the September 11 attacks. They do not have the necessary organization, resources or leaders. Thus, a team of professionals had to be created, and the Arab kamikazes are just extras to mask the operation.”

•Paul Hellyer, former Canadian Minister of National Defense and Deputy Prime Minister of Canada: “I think the [9/11] inquiry has been very shallow, very superficial. I would like to see a much tougher, more in-depth inquiry. … I would like to see someone in a position of authority ask those questions and insist on getting answers. … We have to try and get the truth. I hope that somebody has the courage and persistence to keep at it until we get it.”

•Mohamed Hassanein Heikal, former Egyptian Foreign Minister, told the Guardian in 2002: “Bin Laden does not have the capabilities for an operation of this magnitude. When I hear Bush talking about al Qaeda as if it were Nazi Germany or the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, I laugh because I know what is there. Bin Laden has been under surveillance for years: Every telephone call was monitored, and al Qaeda has been penetrated by American intelligence, Pakistani intelligence, Saudi intelligence, Egyptian intelligence. They could not have kept secret an operation that required such a degree of organization and sophistication.”

•Fujita Yukihisa, a member of the Japanese legislature, raised serious questions in the House of Councillors in the Diet about the U.S. government’s 9/11 explanation. His presentation and direct questioning of Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda was broadcast live on Japanese NHK television on January 11, 2008, but was not reported by American print or TV media.

It is not only big shots who have dismissed the U.S. government’s 9/11 story. More than 100 firefighters, police officers and building maintenance personnel present in the Twin Towers just prior to their collapse report hearing a series of explosions both from floors above and basements below.

Skeptics argue that if 9/11 were an inside job, it would be impossible to keep it a secret. But think about it: The 9/11 Commission and the Bush Administration want us to believe that al Qaeda kept an intricate, international commando raid a secret from all the world’s intelligence agencies over months, perhaps years of planning. Yet the same voices tell us that the U.S. government—with all its resources—is somehow incapable of keeping a secret.

Moreover, there are people blowing the whistle: those 100 firefighters and police officers who reported hearing and experiencing explosions; Twin Towers employees who reported unidentified “repairmen” on the empty floors of the buildings weeks before the attack.

Why was their testimony ignored? Why did no government agency search for evidence of explosives? Only the physicist Steven Jones, operating as a private individual, searched for evidence of explosives. He reports finding evidence that thermate was used. Thermate, a high-powered derivative of the more familiar thermite, is an incendiary explosive that produces high temperatures capable of instantly slicing through thick steel.

Look again at the videos of the sudden collapse of the three World Trade Center buildings. The damage from the airplanes to the two towers was asymmetrical, and the fires were limited and of short duration. Finally, they each collapsed. You did not witness buildings breaking up and falling askew from asymmetrical damage, meeting resistance from intact structures below. You watched buildings being brought down evenly, perfectly and at free-fall speed by pre-rigged explosive charges.

Once you stop believing what the government claims and start observing and thinking, the event appears differently.

————————————–

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, an assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury during the Reagan Administration, is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal and coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.


Was 9/11 An Inside Job?

Thursday, May 3rd, 2007

Researchers may have proven that the official story of the collapse of the World Trade Center violates the basic laws of physics. Mark Johnson reports.

When Charlie Sheen made headlines in the spring of 2006 by saying he doubted the official story of 9/11, the actor sparked a frenzy on both sides of the issue. Right-wingers smeared him, while 9/11 skeptics applauded his courage. A CNN poll conducted amid the controversy showed that up to 82% of Americans asked were on Sheen’s side.

Since then, the 9/11 Truth movement has been under increasing criticism by the corporate media and Bush’s police-state cheerleaders. But for all of their bellowing about conspiracy nuts, there’s one thing the debunkers don’t like to talk about: the hard scientific proof.

A new organization of scientists and researchers called Scholars for 9/11 Truth is taking the CSI approach and scientifically examining the evidence that remains of the 9/11 attacks. They claim to have found that not only is the official story wrong, it is impossible. And whoever perpetrated the crime left smoking guns all over the place.

Earlier researchers such as Eric Hufschmid and physicist Jim Hoffman have long contended that the buildings’ free-fall collapse is tip-off number one. The government’s National Institute for Standards and Technologies (NIST) has admitted the South Tower came down in ten seconds and the North in nine. Judy Wood, a mechanical engineer, has observed that even objects in free fall, encountering only air resistance, would require at least 12 seconds to hit the ground, which means the buildings were actually destroyed at a speed faster than freefall.

New research supports Hoffman’s original claims that it is impossible for a progressive collapse, or “pancake collapse” (the official theory), to occur so fast without something below the collapsing debris—such as bombs—removing the building’s natural resistance.

At the forefront of ST911’s research is former Brigham Young University physics professor Steven Jones. Originally a loyal Republican and skeptic of 9/11 conspiracy theories, he became intrigued by claims that the official story was physically impossible and set out to prove otherwise. The research, he says, soon led him to the sobering reality that the skeptics were right.

In his recent paper, “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?” Jones writes that “large quantities of molten metal were observed in the rubble piles of the WTC towers and WTC 7.” The professor adds that footage of the towers on 9/11 also “reveals yellow-to-white hot molten metal dripping from the South Tower just minutes before its collapse.” Its precise color and consistency, contends the professor, are good indicators of its chemical composition.

In peer-reviewed research and experimentation, Jones has shown that the molten metal could not be aluminum from the planes or the building’s structural steel. Even government reports admit the fires could not have been hot enough to melt steel. Jones hypothesizes that thermite (commonly used by the demolition industry) was used to weaken the huge steel supports, just before explosives finished the job.

Jones has also found evidence on preserved debris of chemical residue consistent with thermite and sulfur, pointing to the common demolitions practice of remotely triggering “superthermite matches” via radio signal. Jones points out that government reports note the presence of sulfur in the melted steel but do not explain it.

Jones’s colleagues Kenneth Kuttler and Gordon Ross, also Ph.D. professors, further argue that the government’s theory of a “progressive pancake collapse” is impossible for two main reasons: 1) it would be impossible for a pancake collapse to occur at free-fall speed (as argued by Hoffman, Wood and others) and 2) the steel supports below the impact points were not sufficiently weak to buckle under the weight of the upper sections of the buildings, meaning the collapse could not have continued beyond a certain point.

Gordon Ross has written a paper that carefully considers the roles of “conservation of momentum” and “conservation of energy”—two basic laws of physics that were ignored by government reports. He shows that even if the towers started to collapse due to fire and damage, they could not have continued all the way to the ground. “When conservation of energy and momentum are factored in as they should be, a gravity-driven collapse would be arrested by the impacted mass below it so that only a partial collapse would occur,” according to Ross’s argument. Other scientists remain doubtful.

NIST admits that its official conclusion “does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” As Jones puts it, “the government theory is actually a pre-collapse theory.”

According to ST911 founder James H. Fetzer—professor emeritus at the University of Minnesota, Duluth—WTC 7, which came down even though it wasn’t hit by any plane, suffered a conventional planned implosion. The Twin Towers, by contrast, were blown up from the top down. Judy Wood compared them to two gigantic trees “turning to sawdust” from top to bottom. This required a massive quantity of energy that the official account can’t possibly explain.

For more info, check out the many recent books and films on 9/11, such as Loose Change, 9/11 Mysteries and Improbable Collapse.


Charlie Sheen: Uncommon Courage

Tuesday, April 3rd, 2007

We are here today to begin draining the cesspool of lies and distortion we refuse to drown in any longer,” proclaimed actor Charlie Sheen at a recent 9/11 conference in Los Angeles. “We are here today to unleash a juggernaut of truth.” The fighting words proved that Sheen wasn’t about to back off on the questions he raised just weeks earlier.

In the spring of 2006, Sheen called Alex Jones’s Austin-based radio show and said on-air, “It seems to me like 19 amateurs with box cutters taking over four commercial airliners and hitting 75% of their targets, that feels like a conspiracy theory. It raises a lot of questions.”

It was a breakthrough moment for the 9/11 Truth movement and a personal triumph for Sheen. At the 9/11 conference in L.A., Sheen introduced Jones as “my friend, my comrade, my brother in arms.”

“I stand with Charlie Sheen,” says Jones. “I stand with his amazing courage. The American people responded to him going public because they realized he was putting a lot on the line, and that he had nothing to gain from this except his country’s freedom. Charlie Sheen went on my radio show and questioned the official 9/11 fable, knowing it would be a huge news story, knowing the stuff in his past, knowing he’d be a prime target. But he had been studying it for years, and it was tearing him up being silent.”

During the interview, Sheen said that from day one, he thought the collapses looked like controlled demolitions. He also called on the government to show the American people the confiscated surveillance tapes of the Pentagon attack.

As soon as Charlie went public, so did the hit pieces.

“It was an orchestrated attack,” says Jones. “And Charlie was told, ‘You need to shut up or you’re not going to like what happens.’ So Sheen went on The Jimmy Kimmel Show and said ‘I have a right as an American to do this.’ That’s when they dropped the hammer on him. And he just took it. It was one of the greatest examples of courage I’ve ever seen.”

“Fear is never a good reason to do nothing,” says Sheen. “Everybody’s making a big deal about what I did; I just felt like I was pursuing the truth.”


larry flynt's book