9/11 Anniversary Part One

http://www.911truth.org/

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

110+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials
200+ Engineers and Architects
New Section! 50+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals
150+ Professors Question 9/11
190+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members

Hope everyone is entitled to their opinion without the usual barrage of tasteless comments!

format_quote Originally Posted by Science101

Same scapegoats. Same religion fueled bigotry.

http://www.hitler.org/speeches/

And what happened when president Bush offered to help the Palestinians form their own productive state? Their leaders refused it!

Don't kid yourself. This is what the USA is fighting against:

http://nymag.com/images/news/02/03/9...days10_200.jpg
http://nymag.com/news/articles/wtc/gallery/

If you want to try justifying that, then you joined the ranks of the enemy.

seems you'll rather justify this:



Civilian Death Toll In Iraq Exceeds 100,000

New Scientist | October 29 2004

The invasion of Iraq in March 2003 by coalition forces has lead to the death of at least 100,000 civilians, reveals the first scientific study to examine the issue.

The majority of these deaths, which are in addition those normally expected from natural causes, illness and accidents, have been among women and children, finds the study, released early by The Lancet on Thursday.

The most common cause of death is as a direct result of violence, mostly caused by coalition air strikes, reveals the study of almost 1000 households scattered across Iraq. And the risk of violent death just after the invasion was 58 times greater than before the war. The overall risk of death was 1.5 times more after the invasion than before.

The figure of 100,000 is based on "conservative assumptions", notes Les Roberts at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, US, who led the study.

That estimate excludes Falluja, a hotspot for violence. If the data from this town is included, the study points to about 200,000 excess deaths since the outbreak of war.

Public health

"These findings raise questions for those far removed from Iraq - in the governments of the countries responsible for launching a pre-emptive war," writes Richard Horton, the editor of The Lancet in a commentary accompanying the paper.

"In planning this war, the coalition forces - especially those of the US and UK - must have considered the likely effects of their actions for civilians," he writes.

He argues that, from a public health perspective, whatever "planning did take place was grievously in error".

"The invasion of Iraq, the displacement of a cruel dictator, and the attempt to impose a liberal democracy by force have, by themselves, been insufficient to bring peace and security to the civilian population. Democratic imperialism has led to more deaths, not fewer," he asserts.

He also praises the "courageous team of scientists" for their efforts, and notes the study's limitations.

GPS sampling

The team of US and Iraqi scientists recorded mortality during the 15 months before the invasion and the 18 months afterwards. They carried out the survey of 988 Iraqi households in 33 different areas across Iraq in September 2004.

Using a GPS (global positioning system) unit, the interviewers randomly selected towns within governates. They then visited the nearest 30 houses to the GPS point randomly selected.

Families living under one roof were asked about deaths in their household before and after the war. "Confirmation was sought to ensure that a large fraction of the reported deaths were not fabrications," write the team. The interviewers did ask for death certificates, but only in two cases for each cluster of houses. This was because of concerns that implying the families were lying could trigger violence.

But the team believes that lying about deaths is unlikely and, if anything, "it is possible that deaths were not reported" because families might want to conceal them.

Horton acknowledges the potential for recall bias among those interviewed and also the relatively small sample size. "The research was completed under the most testing of circumstances - an ongoing war. And therefore certain limitations were inevitable and need to be acknowledged right away," he says.

But he also calls for an "urgent political and military response".


who shares more in common with hitler now? speaking of figures

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/oct...4deathtoll.htm

Top Bin Laden Expert: The Tapes are Fakes
Kevin Barrett

As a PhD in Islamic and Arabic Studies, I hate to say this, but I’ll say it anyway. The events of 9/11 had nothing to do with Islam. The war on terror itself is as phony as the latest “Bin Laden tape.” (Guardian 04)

It’s tough to admit because I know on which side my bread is buttered - and dropping Islam from the 9/11 equation is like dropping my bread butter-side-down. The myth that 9/11 had something to do with has poured millions into Arabic and Islamic studies. I finished my PhD in 2005, so all I have to do is keep my eyes in my pocket and my nose to the ground, parrot the party line, and I’ll be on the fast track to tenure.

The trouble is, it’s all based on a big lie. Take the recent “Bin Laden tape,” - please! That voice was no more Bin Laden than it was my late Aunt Corinne from Peoria. I recently helped translate a previously unknown Bin Laden tape, a real one from the early 90’s, back when he was still alive. I know the guy’s flowery religious rhetoric. The recent tape certainly wasn’t him.

The top American Bin Laden expert agrees. Professor Bruce Lawrence, head of Duke University’s Religious Studies Department, has just finished a book of translations of Bin Laden’s speeches. He says the recent tape is a fake and that Bin Laden has been dead for years. (ABC 2004).

Ersatz Bin Laden tapes “verified” by the CIA are nothing new. Every Bin Laden statement since 2001 has been blatantly bogus. The last we heard from the real Bin Laden were the following words recorded by Pakistani journalists: “I stress that I have not carried out this act, which appears to have been carried out by individuals with their own motivation . . . I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks on the United States . . . I had no knowledge of these attacks. . .” (Wiki 2004)

Then, on December 13, 2001, as George Bush was whining about the “outrageous conspiracy theories” that were spreading like wildfire, the first and shoddiest of the “Bin Laden Speaks from the Grave” tapes appeared. The video’s sound and picture quality were horrible. It showed a big guy with a black beard, doing a passable imitation of Bin Laden’s voice, claiming foreknowledge, if not responsibility for the 9/11 attacks and chortling over their success. The trouble was, the big guy was clearly not Bin Laden. He was at least 40 or 50 pounds heavier and his facial features were obviously different. (911Res 2005)

The “Fatty Bin Laden tape” was widely ridiculed and I have yet to meet an informed observer who considers it authentic. (If you haven’t figured this out yet, go back and look at the images from the tape and compare them to other images of Bin Laden.) But the media let the fraud pass without asking the hard questions. Why was the US government waving this blatantly fake “confession” video in our faces?

Perhaps due to the widespread hilarity evoked by Fatty Bin Laden, the next Ousama-from-beyond-the-grave message had no images: It was an audio tape delivered to al-Jazeera in the fall of 2002. The CIA verified it as “authentic,” but ended up with egg on its face when the world’s leading voice identification experts at IDIAP in Switzerland reported that “the message was recorded by an impostor.” (Guardian 2002)

Every Bin Laden message since then has been equally phony. They are released at moments when the Bush regime needs a boost - and the American (mainstream) media go along with the fraud. Remember the bogus Bin Laden tape that made headlines right before the 2004 elections? If you didn’t figure out that it was a CIA-produced commercial for George Bush, I have some great bridges to sell you. Walter Cronkite, bless his heart, opined that Karl Rove was behind that tape. (CNN ) But the rest of the media just kept pretending that the Emperor was clothed.

And the fraud continues. Last week’s [need a date if you don’t want this article to age prematurely] Bin Laden tape has been ridiculed by America’s top Bin Laden expert, yet the US media gamely held its tattered fig leaf over the Emperor’s loins. Professor Lawrence believes that the tape was designed to distract world opinion from the horrific massacre of Pakistani civilians by an errant CIA drone. But it may have another, more sinister purpose: To prepare public opinion for another false-flag 9/11-style attack designed to trigger a US-Israel nuclear attack on Iran. (AC 2005)

As our top Bin Laden expert Professor Lawrence says, the real Bin Laden, who insisted that he had nothing to do with 9/11, has been dead since 2001. The fake messages have been fabricated by al-CIA-duh to support the Bush regime and its phony “war on terror.” It is time for Americans to rise up against the masters of synthetic terror who have been looting the US taxpayer, torching the Constitution, demolishing the economy, and threatening a nuclear Armageddon.

About the author

Dr Barrett holds a PhD in Arabic, with a focus on Islamic studies, from the University of Wisconsin at Madison. He is cofounder of the Muslim-Christian-Jewish Alliance for 9/11 Truth: http://mujca.com

References

(Guardian 04) The Making of the Terror Myth. The Guardian, Oct 10 2004.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/...327904,00.html

(ABC 04) A. Rupinta. Duke Professor Sceptical of Bin Laden Tape. ABC News, Jan. 19, 2006.

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?%2...=local=3828678

(Wiki 2004) Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 Attacks. Wikipedia, 2004.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respons...,_2001_attacks

(911Res 2005) “Fatty” bin Laden. 911 Research. 2005.

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/...adinvideo.html

(Guardian 2002) B. Whittaker. Swiss Scientists 95% Sure that Bin Laden Recording Was a Fake. The Guardian, Jan 30, 2002.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/st...851112,00.html

(CNN 2004) Larry King Live. Bin Laden Releases New Videotape. CNN. Oct 24, 2004.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...29/lkl.01.html

Referred to in WRH. [hot link “WRH” to following URL:]

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bi..._cronkite.html

(AC 2005) Deep Background. American Conservative. Aug. 1, 2005.

http://www.amconmag.com/2005_08_01/article3.html

discussed in Antiwar.com [hot link to “Antiwar.com” to following URL.]

http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=6734

format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum

So the invasion of Iraq justifies 9/11?

which happened first?

format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia

Top Bin Laden Expert: The Tapes are Fakes
Kevin Barrett

As a PhD in Islamic and Arabic Studies, I hate to say this, but I’ll say it anyway. The events of 9/11 had nothing to do with Islam. The war on terror itself is as phony as the latest “Bin Laden tape.” (Guardian 04)

It’s tough to admit because I know on which side my bread is buttered - and dropping Islam from the 9/11 equation is like dropping my bread butter-side-down. The myth that 9/11 had something to do with has poured millions into Arabic and Islamic studies. I finished my PhD in 2005, so all I have to do is keep my eyes in my pocket and my nose to the ground, parrot the party line, and I’ll be on the fast track to tenure.

The trouble is, it’s all based on a big lie. Take the recent “Bin Laden tape,” - please! That voice was no more Bin Laden than it was my late Aunt Corinne from Peoria. I recently helped translate a previously unknown Bin Laden tape, a real one from the early 90’s, back when he was still alive. I know the guy’s flowery religious rhetoric. The recent tape certainly wasn’t him.

The top American Bin Laden expert agrees. Professor Bruce Lawrence, head of Duke University’s Religious Studies Department, has just finished a book of translations of Bin Laden’s speeches. He says the recent tape is a fake and that Bin Laden has been dead for years. (ABC 2004).

Ersatz Bin Laden tapes “verified” by the CIA are nothing new. Every Bin Laden statement since 2001 has been blatantly bogus. The last we heard from the real Bin Laden were the following words recorded by Pakistani journalists: “I stress that I have not carried out this act, which appears to have been carried out by individuals with their own motivation . . . I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks on the United States . . . I had no knowledge of these attacks. . .” (Wiki 2004)

Then, on December 13, 2001, as George Bush was whining about the “outrageous conspiracy theories” that were spreading like wildfire, the first and shoddiest of the “Bin Laden Speaks from the Grave” tapes appeared. The video’s sound and picture quality were horrible. It showed a big guy with a black beard, doing a passable imitation of Bin Laden’s voice, claiming foreknowledge, if not responsibility for the 9/11 attacks and chortling over their success. The trouble was, the big guy was clearly not Bin Laden. He was at least 40 or 50 pounds heavier and his facial features were obviously different. (911Res 2005)

The “Fatty Bin Laden tape” was widely ridiculed and I have yet to meet an informed observer who considers it authentic. (If you haven’t figured this out yet, go back and look at the images from the tape and compare them to other images of Bin Laden.) But the media let the fraud pass without asking the hard questions. Why was the US government waving this blatantly fake “confession” video in our faces?

Perhaps due to the widespread hilarity evoked by Fatty Bin Laden, the next Ousama-from-beyond-the-grave message had no images: It was an audio tape delivered to al-Jazeera in the fall of 2002. The CIA verified it as “authentic,” but ended up with egg on its face when the world’s leading voice identification experts at IDIAP in Switzerland reported that “the message was recorded by an impostor.” (Guardian 2002)

Every Bin Laden message since then has been equally phony. They are released at moments when the Bush regime needs a boost - and the American (mainstream) media go along with the fraud. Remember the bogus Bin Laden tape that made headlines right before the 2004 elections? If you didn’t figure out that it was a CIA-produced commercial for George Bush, I have some great bridges to sell you. Walter Cronkite, bless his heart, opined that Karl Rove was behind that tape. (CNN ) But the rest of the media just kept pretending that the Emperor was clothed.

And the fraud continues. Last week’s [need a date if you don’t want this article to age prematurely] Bin Laden tape has been ridiculed by America’s top Bin Laden expert, yet the US media gamely held its tattered fig leaf over the Emperor’s loins. Professor Lawrence believes that the tape was designed to distract world opinion from the horrific massacre of Pakistani civilians by an errant CIA drone. But it may have another, more sinister purpose: To prepare public opinion for another false-flag 9/11-style attack designed to trigger a US-Israel nuclear attack on Iran. (AC 2005)

As our top Bin Laden expert Professor Lawrence says, the real Bin Laden, who insisted that he had nothing to do with 9/11, has been dead since 2001. The fake messages have been fabricated by al-CIA-duh to support the Bush regime and its phony “war on terror.” It is time for Americans to rise up against the masters of synthetic terror who have been looting the US taxpayer, torching the Constitution, demolishing the economy, and threatening a nuclear Armageddon.

About the author

Dr Barrett holds a PhD in Arabic, with a focus on Islamic studies, from the University of Wisconsin at Madison. He is cofounder of the Muslim-Christian-Jewish Alliance for 9/11 Truth: http://mujca.com

References

(Guardian 04) The Making of the Terror Myth. The Guardian, Oct 10 2004.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/...327904,00.html

(ABC 04) A. Rupinta. Duke Professor Sceptical of Bin Laden Tape. ABC News, Jan. 19, 2006.

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?%2...=local=3828678

(Wiki 2004) Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 Attacks. Wikipedia, 2004.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respons...,_2001_attacks

(911Res 2005) “Fatty” bin Laden. 911 Research. 2005.

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/...adinvideo.html

(Guardian 2002) B. Whittaker. Swiss Scientists 95% Sure that Bin Laden Recording Was a Fake. The Guardian, Jan 30, 2002.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/st...851112,00.html

(CNN 2004) Larry King Live. Bin Laden Releases New Videotape. CNN. Oct 24, 2004.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...29/lkl.01.html

Referred to in WRH. [hot link “WRH” to following URL:]

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bi..._cronkite.html

(AC 2005) Deep Background. American Conservative. Aug. 1, 2005.

http://www.amconmag.com/2005_08_01/article3.html

discussed in Antiwar.com [hot link to “Antiwar.com” to following URL.]

http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=6734

is ayman al zawahiri also dead? or he never existed in the first place. Kevin Barrett, thats if hes not also a figment of someones mischievious imagination seems nothing more than a normal american seeking his fair share of 15 mins of fame

then you'll enjoy this as much as I did

format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum

Isn't it amazing what can be done with $120.00 worth of software. :confused:

It really works on people who will believe anything that suites there bias.

are you speaking of yourself here? or the tons of educated
Senior Military , Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials, Engineers and Architects, Pilots and Aviation Professionals, Professors, Survivors and Family Members? Only a merry andrew will pass of facts as bias. Anyhow this has been discussed here Ad nauseam , I doubt anyone is interested in what you have to say.. or is even listening... I guarantee people have done their research and have a satisfactory answer one way or the other.. chill ole man...learn some breathing and relaxing exercises..might help you think of new things to write when deluged with articles that express a different opinion!

taaaaa

format_quote Originally Posted by Science101

9/11/2001 was not the first attack on the WTC. It was only, the attack that succeeded in bringing them down.

We know who was out to do this, who was thrilled at their success. Don't need excuses from those with a motive to rewrite world history.

If you don't need excuses, forgive me, why are you partaking in this topic? This is exclusive for folks who seek some systematic investigation to establish facts! You can join the left cozened and be satisfied.. you will not impose 'your truth' on others, any more than they will on you.. the rest come ready equipped with an analytical mind as was bestowed you... I am sure everyone can reach the correct conclusion after proper consideration!

peace!

format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum

I speak for myself

you are indeed moderate to inferior in quality

You can speak for the tons of educated.

I believe they have spoken for themselves ( you may follow any of the thousands of links).. then if you have grievances I suggest you direct it to them individually and they come by the thousand, you'll have your work ahead of you.. you shouldn't really concern yourself with just one, I see it as a futile effort if it upsets you that much!

Shouldn't you quote sci 101 if you wish to speak of me circuitously? how nutty are you? over three thousand posts and oh so reduced to silence.. wow, they must have a muzzle around your mouth er fingers, to let you get away with so little?!