Conspiracy Theories Implicating President at Hearing on Capital Hill.
this one's for you deano
______________________________________
McKinney reopens 9/11
Conspiracy theories implicating president aired at 8-hour hearing
By BOB KEMPER
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 07/23/05
Washington — Revisiting the issue that helped spur her ouster from Congress three years ago, Rep. Cynthia Mc_Kinney led a Capitol Hill hearing Friday on whether the Bush administration was involved in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
The eight-hour hearing, timed to mark the first anniversary of the release of the Sept. 11 commission's report on the attacks, drew dozens of contrarians and conspiracy theorists who suggest President Bush purposely ignored warnings or may even have had a hand in the attack — claims participants said the commission ignored.
Rep. Cynthia McKinney (upper right) chairs Friday's hearing, reopening the issue that brought her criticism and her 2002 ouster.
_
"The commission's report was not a rush to judgment, it was a rush to exoneration," said John Judge, a member of Mc_Kinney's staff and a representative of a Web site dedicated to raising questions about the Sept. 11 commission's report.
The White House and the commission have dismissed such questions as unfounded conspiracy theories.
McKinney first raised questions about Bush's involvement shortly after the attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania, generating a furious response from fellow Democrats in Washington and voters in Georgia, who ousted her in 2002.
"What we are doing is asking the unanswered questions of the 9/11 families," McKinney, a DeKalb County Democrat who won back her seat in 2004, said during the proceedings.
She rebuffed a reporter's repeated attempts to ask her why she would so boldly embrace the same claims that led to her downfall.
"Congresswoman McKinney is viewed as a contrarian," panelist Melvin Goodman, a former CIA official, said. "And I hope someday her views will be considered conventional wisdom."
Though she left the testimony and questioning of panelists to others, McKinney was the main attraction, presiding over more than two dozen participants, including the author of a book that claims the U.S. government had advance knowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack and allowed it to happen, and Peter Dale Scott, who wrote three books on President John F. Kennedy's assassination.
Georgia peanuts, Cokes and coffee were available to more than 50 attendees, whose casual dress was a decided change from the gangs of blue-suited lobbyists who usually crowd Capitol Hill hearings.
McKinney herself offered witnesses bottled water and found additional trash cans to place around the room.
Nearly a dozen 9/11 enthusiasts lined one side of the room, camcorders at the ready, broadcasting the hearing live over the Internet or recording it for later release. C-SPAN cameras documented the hearing, and a DVD recording of the proceedings will soon be available.
Ten people sat in a section reserved for family members of 9/11 victims.
"Nine-eleven could have been prevented," said Marilyn Rosenthal, a University of Michigan professor who lost a son in the attacks, echoing the premise of the hearing.
Panelists maintained that Bush ignored numerous warnings from the CIA, the Federal Aviation Administration, foreign governments and others who told him before 9/11 that Osama bin Laden was planning to attack the United States and that terrorists were likely to use hijacked airliners as weapons.
But why would the president or his administration want the 9/11 attacks to occur? Power, the panelists agreed.
In the wake of the attacks, the administration was able to greatly expand the president's power and the reach of the federal government, they said, but whistle-blowers and other potential witnesses who could have testified to the Sept. 11 commission about such things were either prevented from speaking or ignored in the commission's final report. Panelists called the commission's report "a cover-up."
"The American people have been seriously misled," said Scott.
i have always believed that bush turned a blind eye toward the 9-11 attacks.
i dont know if it was out of complete reckless abandon, an unwillingness to do his job, a want for such an attack to boost his power, or all thee.
i know that the thread will be filled with the 'demolition charge' theory, but having a mere elementary knowledge of physics, i refuse to subscribe to that.
since it was made clear to the press that condi rice recieved a memo accurately predicting the attacks and no priority at all was made of it, the attacks have always reeked of gross negligence to me. whether the ignorance was purposeful (i doubt it) or a result of complete lack of interest (i'd bank on it) i firmly believe that there was a complete lack of function in our executive branch and defence department with regards to this situation, and that these attacks could have been prevented if warnings had been taken seriously, or even considered at all.
f course 9/11 could of been prevented. The point is that they didnt want it to be prevented.
we've been through this all before
it was either deliberately orchestrated by the people behind the scenes, or they just allowed it to happen, those who believe a little **** from a cave is responsible for such attacks, then theres no hope
its just another step in a long-term program to enslave humanity in a world dictatorship run by the Illuminati (London-based monopoly capital.)
The Illuminati start wars to increase their wealth and power and to control, reshape and brutalize society. The "War on Terror" is intended to make us forfeit civil rights and engage in yet another unnecessary war, this time against Islam.
Most politicians (Churchill, Bush, Blair etc.,) are flunkies, con men, traitors and criminals, packaged and sold by (banker-owned) mass media and universities.
Nothing in history happens by accident. The Illuminati's purpose in World War Two was economic, political and occult: to enrich themselves while destroying the nation states of Europe (including England) and sacrificing millions of lives .
We are entering an era like Orwell's "1984," characterized by fear and turmoil, viruses and bombs, propaganda and surveillance. The war of terror, like all wars, is against humanity. The security measures are designed for use against us after they crash the stock market or hit us with pestilence or nuclear weapons. I'd love to be 100% wrong but rarely is wealth associated with powerlessness. Our power is based on individual freedom, a real press and genuine democracy.
The value of history is to remember that nothing is as it seems. It's all being orchestrated according to a plan that is centuries old. Mankind appears to be edging toward an abyss.
one world goverment here we come, thanks to the generous citizens of the world
__________________
"How about this? Shut your mouth...Or I'll kick your teeth down your throat and shut it for you."
PVS, Clinton had the same information Bush had. He also turned a blind eye. This would cast doubt on a power play, because Clinton stopping it would have created a legacy unmatched by any other President. I honestly don't believe Bush and Clinton knew of the impending attack. Everything was so clogged in the various departments, and as the 9/11 report stated, all the information was never in one place at the same time. This McKinney is insane. She was unpopular from the start and did nothing to boost her popularity among her constituents.
Now you have Deano off on his new world order rants. Thank you.
Deano- controlled collapse of WTC 7? Here's another eye witness that debunks that claim:
"I arrived at the World Trade Center moments after the second collapse. I personally searched WTC building No. 7 no more than thirty minutes before it collapsed for victims that might have been trapped in there. I can personally attest that there was NOBODY in that building on at least 7-10(I can't remember exactly) floors of building 7 at that time and that being the case...there was NO WAY that was a "controlled collapse" as suggested. I was on the corner of Broadway just down the block when 7 came down(we all knew it was coming down...so we were watching for it)...and I heard NO explosions beforehand that would support the "demolition" theory. That building came down with one roar and I booked it into a building to take cover. I have photos(from another firefighter who was on West Street) of the building coming down. There are no blowouts from demolition charges...just a building standing there one second and then sliding down the next.
"I guess me being there....especially in building No. 7 makes it much more POSITIVE for me to be unshakeable in my belief that No. 7 was not rigged up for demolition. What you don't see from that video is that the building was
a. structurally damaged from the strikes and collapses of buildings 1 and 2(definitely not enough to cause a collapse on it's own, IMO, but a contributing factor) and that
b. there were 4 or 5 lower floors that were burning uncontrolled for hours and hours.....
Myself and one of the guys I wound up working with for that day found it very difficult to search that building. As it stands....we had to wait for the fire to "burn itself out"(it was still going for most of the day) and once we(and the officers and chiefs) got a look at the building, you could tell that it was unsound. We were told to check what we could and get out. The block was taped off and we were told to stay off of the street itself. Less than a half hour later the collapse occurred. There is no way that they SNUCK people into that building with demolition explosives(I was on the corner standing on Broadway waiting for further instructions) without anyone seeing it and pulling that building in that short amount of time. When I was in there...I saw nobody except some other fireman searching and saw no explosives in that building.
Take it for what it's worth. That's my take on the building No. 7 conspiracy and since it's the only one I was actually in....it's the only one I can give an account on."
"I don't quite understand how you could even give any credence to any of this B.S. in the state it is presented.
Get real."
A credible eyewitness Deano. Is he part of the conspiracy? He's lying? What idiotic logic can you use to refute his statement?
Deano- on the subject of steel's melting point and the controlled demolition of WTC 1 and 2.
"FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."
"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.
But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.
"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. 'It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down.'"
This is from Popular Mechanics, a mainstream news publication with plenty of sciene backing it up. They are simply wrong? They are lying to cover up the conspiracy? Now you conspiracy theorists want to change the laws of nature too just to prove your point.
Since jet fuel (kerosene) boils easily and its vapors ignite easily, it burns off rapidly. FEMA admits the fuel must have been used up within "a few minutes". Thereafter the fires burned fuels similar to those in ordinary office fires. The impact holes became dard shortly after each collision, and the smoke darkened over time -- a sign of oxygen-starved fires. After the South Tower had been hit, at least 18 people evacuated from above the impact zone down stairwells passing through it.
'There is no evidence that, even at their hottest immediately after the impacts, the fires approached the 700 degrees C required to significantly soften steel. Such temperatures would have caused regions of the building to glow red hot in broad daylight. The oxygen-starved fires likely remained below 400 degrees C, and would be harmless to the steel frame even in the absence of insulation. There is no evidence that the fires ever damaged the core structures. Note that softening of steel by high temperatures is reversible, and that steel is a good conductor of heat. If any structural steel had lost strength in the first minutes of the fires, it would have regained most of it as the fires cooled after consuming the jet fuel. ''
.............................................................
on wtc 7
# WTC-7 was unharmed by an airplane and had only minor fires on the seventh and twelfth floors of this 47-story steel building yet it collapsed in less than 10 seconds.
# WTC-5 and WTC-6 had raging fires but did not collapse despite much thinner steel beams (pp. 68–9).
# In a PBS documentary, Larry Silverstein, the WTC lease-holder, recalled talking to the fire department commander on 9/11 about WTC-7 and said, "…maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it," slang for demolish it.
# FEMA, given the uninviting task of explaining the collapse of Building 7 with mention of demolition verboten admitted that the best it could come up with had "only a low probability of occurrence."
# It’s difficult if not impossible for hydrocarbon fires like those fed by jet fuel (kerosene) to raise the temperature of steel close to melting.
........................................................................
''a. wtc 7 structurally damaged from the strikes and collapses of buildings 1 and 2(definitely not enough to cause a collapse on it's own, IMO, but a contributing factor) and that'' ??
WTC-5 and WTC-6 had raging fires but did not collapse despite much thinner steel beams. and plus they was closer to the twin towers than wtc 7
mainstream news?
everyone contradicts everyone else..
the point is that 9/11 was staged from behind the scenes..you can accept it or not
__________________
"How about this? Shut your mouth...Or I'll kick your teeth down your throat and shut it for you."
but they WERE notified of the specific threat of al qaida terrorists hijacking planes and crashing them into skyscrapers under the command of bin laden.
yet nothing was done. no precautions taken.
and yes, im pretty sure it wasnt a power play, but not 100% sure.
the fact is that the current administration has done nothing but benefit
from the aftermath of the attacks. more executive powers, ease in stripping
civil liberties, a war without question when there was plenty of room for questioning, and support ratings through the roof. bush has done nothing but exploit our fears, and blatently fail in logic in addresses to the american people and the world. most notably "you're either with us or you're with the terrorists".
i will repeat that i dont think he planned it, but i feel with certainty that he has done nothing but capitalise on this tragedy to push his own agenda, with no regard for the welfare of america, afghanistan, iraq....the world. for him it was a blessing in disguise. even today every speach evokes 9-11 and accuses all who question his agenda to be hindering the 'war on terror'. you know....supporting terrorism.
Funny Deano. I post a quote from someone inside WTC 7 that contradicts you, and you completely ignore it.
How come there is no mention of burning debris in your explanation? You've only focused on jet fuel not burning hot enough to melt steel. Of course there are going to be other fuel contributing to the fire.
It's amusing how any information that can be used to contradict these theories is always ignored.
KMC Community Forums
Jul 26th, 2005 12:45 PM
