http://www.wtc7.net/index.html

[bustr]

Since the evidence has been destroyed it will be impossible to say what hit the pentagon, what collapsed the twin towers and who piloted those planes. Experts on both sides can make strong cases. Here is, IMHO, one of the more suspicious parts that the neocon apologists can't easily explain and thus avoid.

http://www.wtc7.net/index.html

This and the secrecy surrounding the the case is where the debate needs to center. Theories about missles, thermite and cell phone calls are just poison in the well.

We should also look at who benefited from the attack. Larry Silverstein, The Carlyle Group, Halliburton and big oil.

[eXcessiveForce]

Um it was aliens dude, but THEY don't want you to know about them yet.


Also my friends office was above where the PLANE hit the pentagon. Some of the people he works with were in those offices when it hit and had to run from one stairwell to another trying to escape.

Don't buy into bogus conspiracy theories, that it was anything more than some guys and some airplanes.

[bustr]

re

From http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html

Larry Silverstein, the controller of the destroyed WTC complex, stated plainly in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY decided jointly to demolish the Solomon Bros. building, or WTC 7, late in the afternoon of Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001.
In the documentary "America Rebuilds", aired September 2002, Silverstein makes the following statement;

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." [wmv download]

In the same program a cleanup worker referred to the demolition of WTC 6: "... we're getting ready to pull the building six." [mp3 download]

There can be little doubt as to how the word "pull" is being used in this context.



Consider the facts:
The fires in WTC 7 were not evenly distributed, so a perfect collapse was impossible.
Firemen anticipated the building's collapse (even though fire had never brought down a fire-protected steel building prior to 9/11).
Silverstein said of the building "the smartest thing to do is pull it."
WTC 7 subsequently collapsed perfectly into its footprint at freefall speed.
Molten steel and partially evaporated steel members were found in the debris.
When you add to the above the fact that Madrid's Windsor Building remained standing after an 18+ hour 800°C fire there can be only one conclusion as to what happened to WTC 7: it was demolished.


The fires in WTC 7 were supposedly started by the collapse of WTC 1 meaning there would have been no time the rig the building for demolition on 9/11, therefore this had to have been done whilst the building was still occupied prior to 9/11.


http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IM...L_wtc-7_1_.gif

Take a close look at the manner in which WTC 7 collapses straight down. For the building to collapse in this fashion, all of the load bearing supports would have had to fail at exactly the same time.
The claim that the collapse was the result of a fire requires the fire be equally distributed throughout the entire floor of the building, providing equal heat for an equal amount of time, so that all the load bearings members would fail at the exact same moment.

[eXcessiveForce]

Bustr, please provide a cite for the quote you are attributing to George Bush.

[aseepish]

Come on! It was the Russians! Nothing more than a cheap commie plot to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids!

[Garland]

Come on! It was the Russians! Nothing more than a cheap commie plot to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids!

Russia? Naw man...we need to keep an eye on those goddamned icelanders.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoP7YNBUWHM

If this doesn't challenge everything America stand for...I don't know what does...an icelandic homosexual pimp kidshow.

First Bjork, now this shit? WHY?! SWEET MOTHER OF GOD!

[bustr]

re

Bustr, please provide a cite for the quote you are attributing to George Bush.

It was published in Capitol Hill Blue magazine last year.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml

[bustr]

I was mistaken. The NORAD standdown is another issue that needs to be emphasized in the search for the truth about 9/11.

http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-1.htm

U.S. air safety and air defense emergency systems are activated in response to problems every day. On 9-11 they failed despite, not because of, the extreme nature of the emergency. This could only happen if individuals in high positions worked in a coordinated way to make them fail.

Such operatives would almost surely have failed if they tried to disrupt and abort routine protection systems without top-level support. The failure of the emergency systems would be noticed immediately. Moreover, given the catastrophic nature of the attacks, the highest military authorities would be alerted. Acting on their own, the operatives could expect that their orders would be countermanded and that they themselves would be arrested.

The sabotage of routine protective systems, controlled by strict hierarchies, would never have been contemplated let alone attempted absent the involvement of the supreme U.S. military command. This includes at least U.S. President George Bush, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the then-Acting Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force General Richard B. Myers.

[eXcessiveForce]

so this article that was updated in 3006. that cites three people, one who was present who won't confirm it, and two others who weren't present for it.
Nice propaganda piece.

Just for those who want to read about it. Here is the article.



Capitol Hill Blue is a not-for-profit, non-commercial experiment in on-line journalism published as an information resource for our readers. All material is © 2006 Capitol Hill Blue. For more information, please check out our FAQ. We take your privacy seriously at Capitol Hill Blue.
Home / The Rant / ReaderRant

The Rant
Bush on the Constitution: "Just a goddamned piece of paper"
By DOUG THOMPSON
Dec 9, 2005, 06:39
Email this article

Printer friendly page

(WRITER'S NOTE: When this story was written, three sources told me they personally heard President Bush call the Constitution a "goddamned piece of paper." I have since learned that two of the sources were not present for the meeting and were, in fact, passing on second-hand information. The third now refuses to either confirm or deny the report. That leaves us with a decision. Do we kill the story or add this explanation? I originally killed the story but decided later to restore it to the database because there is still enough information floating around that suggests the President of the United States did make the statement. His actions through warrantless wiretapping, abuse of "signing statements" and attacks on civil liberties suggest such a statement reflects how he feels about the document that is supposed to define our country. I leave it to the reader to decide. At this point, two of the story's sources say they are repeating what they heard happened. It may be true. It may not. But we feel is worth consideration as part of the national debate. I have edited the column to reflect what the sources now claim.)

Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act.

Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal.

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."

"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

I've heard from two White House sources who claim they heard from others present in the meeting that the President of the United States called the Constitution "a goddamned piece of paper."

The record shows the Bush Administration, the Constitution of the United States is little more than toilet paper stained from all the shit that this group of power-mad despots have dumped on the freedoms that "goddamned piece of paper" used to guarantee.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel, wrote that the "Constitution is an outdated document."

Put aside, for a moment, political affiliation or personal beliefs. It doesn't matter if you are a Democratic, Republican or Independent. It doesn't matter if you support the invasion or Iraq or not. Despite our differences, the Constitution has stood for two centuries as the defining document of our government, the final source to determine - in the end - if something is legal or right.

Every federal official - including the President - who takes an oath of office swears to "uphold and defend" the Constitution of the United States.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says he cringes when someone calls the Constitution a "living document."

""Oh, how I hate the phrase we have-a 'living document,'" Scalia says. "We now have a Constitution that means whatever we want it to mean. The Constitution is not a living organism, for Pete's sake."

As a judge, Scalia says, "I don't have to prove that it's perfect; I just have to prove that it's better than anything else."

President Bush has proposed seven amendments to the Constitution over the last five years - a record for any modern President, including a controversial amendment to define marriage as a "union between a man and woman." Members of Congress have proposed some 11,000 amendments over the last decade, ranging from repeal of the right to bear arms to a Constitutional ban on abortion.

Scalia says the danger of tinkering with the Constitution comes from a loss of rights.

"We can take away rights just as we can grant new ones," Scalia warns. "Don't think that it's a one-way street."

And don't buy the White House hype that the USA Patriot Act is a necessary tool to fight terrorism. It is a dangerous law that infringes on the rights of every American citizen and, as one brave aide told President Bush, something that undermines the Constitution of the United States.

But why should Bush care? After all, the Constitution is just "a goddamned piece of paper."

(Updated July 29, 3006)