Much to my surprise I recently came across an article about 9/11 in the online edition of the right-wing newspaper, The Washington Times. It is entitled “Explosive News” Inside the Beltway–Washington Times about the 1,000 architects and engineers who are publicly questioning the official explanation for how three World Trade Center Buildings literally became dust (to this day, many don’t even know there was a third building). Also, recently released aerial photographs of the World Trade Center site show everything becoming dust, including the steel beams. A majority of the members of the official Bush-appointed 9/11 Commission, including the two co-chairs and the Commission attorney, have said that their own report was bogus because they had been lied to and information had been withheld from them throughout the entire investigation. You don’t have to believe all the alternative theories of what took place that day but, if after reading this article by Paul Craig Roberts (a former Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury and a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal) you do not crave to know the truth and insist on a real investigation, then I pity your level of willful denial. Read the full article below:
——————————————————
The Road to Armageddon
by Paul Craig Roberts for OpEdNews:
The Washington Times is a newspaper that looks with favor upon the Bush/Cheney/Obama/neocon wars of aggression in the Middle East and favors making terrorists pay for 9/11. Therefore, I was surprised to learn on February 24 that the most popular story on the paper’s website for the past three days was the “Inside the Beltway” report, “Explosive News,” about the 31 press conferences in cities in the US and abroad on February 19 held by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, an organization of professionals which now has 1,000 members.
I was even more surprised that the news report treated the press conference seriously.How did three World Trade Center skyscrapers suddenly disintegrate into fine dust? How did massive steel beams in three skyscrapers suddenly fail as a result of short-lived, isolated, and low temperature fires? “A thousand architects and engineers want to know, and are calling on Congress to order a new investigation into the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7,” reports the Washington Times.
flickr image by wallyg
The paper reports that the architects and engineers have concluded that the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Institute of Standards and Technology provided “insufficient, contradictory and fraudulent accounts of the circumstances of the towers’ destruction” and are “calling for a grand jury investigation of NIST officials.”
The newspaper reports that Richard Gage, the spokesperson for the architects and engineers said: “Government officials will be notified that “Misprision of Treason,’ U.S. Code 18 (Sec. 2382) is a serious federal offense, which requires those with evidence of treason to act. The implications are enormous and may have profound impact on the forthcoming Khalid Sheik Mohammed trial.”
There is now an organization, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth. At the main press conference in San Francisco, Eric Lawyer,the head of that organization, announced the firefighters’ support for the architects and engineers’ demands. He reported that no forensic investigation was made of the fires that are alleged to have destroyed the three buildings and that this failure constitutes a crime.
Mandated procedures were not followed, and instead of being preserved and investigated, the crime scene was destroyed. He also reported that there are more than one hundred first responders who heard and experienced explosions and that there is radio, audio and video evidence of explosions.
Also at the press conference, physicist Steven Jones presented the evidence of nano-thermite in the residue of the WTC buildings found by an international panel of scientists led by University of Copenhagen nano-chemist Professor Niels Harrit. Nano-thermite is a high-tech explosive/pyrotechnic capable of instantly melting steel girders.
Before we yell “conspiracy theory,” we should be aware that the architects, engineers, firefighters, and scientists offer no theory. They provide evidence that challenges the official theory. This evidence is not going to go away.
If expressing doubts or reservations about the official story in the 9/11 Commission Report makes a person a conspiracy theory kook, then we have to include both co-chairmen of the 9/11 Commission and the Commission’s legal counsel, all of whom have written books in which they clearly state that they were lied to by government officials when they conducted their investigation, or, rather, when they presided over the investigation conducted by executive director Philip Zelikow, a member of President George W. Bush’s transition team and Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and a co-author of Bush Secretary of State Condi “Mushroom Cloud” Rice.
There will always be Americans who will believe whatever the government tells them no matter how many times they know the government has lied to them. Despite expensive wars that threaten Social Security and Medicare, wars based on non-existent Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, non-existent Saddam Hussein connections to al Qaida, non-existent Afghan participation in the 9/11 attacks, and the non-existent Iranian nukes that are being hyped as the reason for the next American war of aggression in the Middle East, more than half of the U.S. population still believes the fantastic story that the government has told them about 9/11, a Muslim conspiracy that outwitted the entire Western world.
Moreover, it doesn’t matter to these Americans how often the government changes its story. For example, Americans first heard of Osama bin Laden because the Bush regime pinned the 9/11 attacks on him. Over the years video after video was served up to the gullible American public of bin Laden’s pronouncements. Experts dismissed the videos as fakes, but Americans remained their gullible selves. Then suddenly last year a new 9/11 “mastermind” emerged to take bin Laden’s place, the captive Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the detainee waterboarded 183 times until he confessed to masterminding the 9/11 attack.
In the Middle Ages confessions extracted by torture constituted evidence, but self-incrimination has been a no-no in the U.S. legal system since our founding. But with the Bush regime and the Republican federal judges, whom we were assured would defend the U.S. Constitution, the self-incrimination of Sheik Mohammed stands today as the only evidence the U.S. government has that Muslim terrorists pulled off 9/11.
If a person considers the feats attributed to Khalid Sheik Mohammed, they are simply unbelievable. Sheik Mohammed is a more brilliant, capable superhero than V in the fantasy movie, “V for Vendetta.” Sheik Mohammed outwitted all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies along with those of all U.S. allies or puppets, including Israel’s Mossad. No intelligence service on earth, or all of them combined, was a match for Sheik Mohammed.
Sheik Mohammed outwitted the U.S. National Security Council, Dick Cheney, the Pentagon, the State Department, NORAD, the U.S. Air Force, and Air Traffic Control. He caused Airport Security to fail four times in one morning. He caused the state-of-the-art air defenses of the Pentagon to fail, allowing a hijacked airliner, which was off course all morning while the U.S. Air Force, for the first time in history, was unable to get aloft intercepter aircraft, to crash into the Pentagon.
Sheik Mohammed was able to perform these feats with unqualified pilots.
Sheik Mohammed, even as a waterboarded detainee, has managed to prevent the FBI from releasing the many confiscated videos that would show, according to the official story, the hijacked airliner hitting the Penagon.
How naive do you have to be to believe that any human, or for that matter Hollywood fantasy character, is this powerful and capable?
If Sheik Mohammed has these superhuman capabilities, how did the incompetent Americans catch him? This guy is a patsy tortured into confession in order to keep the American naifs believing the government’s conspiracy theory.
What is going on here is that the U.S. government has to bring the 9/11 mystery to an end. The government must put on trial and convict a culprit so that it can close the case before it explodes. Anyone waterboarded 183 times would confess to anything.
The U.S. government has responded to the evidence being arrayed against its outlandish 9/11 conspiracy theory by redefining the war on terror from external to internal enemies. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said on February 21 that American extremists are now as big a concern as international terrorists. Extremists, of course, are people who get in the way of the government’s agenda, such as the 1,000 Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. The group used to be 100, now it is 1,000. What if it becomes 10,000?
Cass Sunstein, an Obama regime official, has a solution for the 9/11 skeptics: Infiltrate them and provoke them into statements and actions that can be used to discredit or to arrest them. But get rid of them at all cost.
Why employ such extreme measures against alleged kooks if they only provide entertainment and laughs? Is the government worried that they are on to something?
Instead, why doesn’t the U.S. government simply confront the evidence that is presented and answer it?
If the architects, engineers, firefighters, and scientists are merely kooks, it would be a simple matter to acknowledge their evidence and refute it. Why is it necessary to infiltrate them with police agents and to set them up?
Many Americans would reply that “their” government would never even dream of killing Americans by hijacking airliners and destroying buildings in order to advance a government agenda. But on February 3, National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair told the House Intelligence Committee that the U.S. government can assassinate its own citizens when they are overseas. No arrest, trial, or conviction of a capital crime is necessary. Just straight out murder.
Obviously, if the U.S. government can murder its citizens abroad it can murder them at home, and has done so. For example, 100 Branch Davidians were murdered in Waco, Texas, by the Clinton administration for no legitimate reason. The government just decided to use its power knowing that it could get away with it, which it did.
Americans who think “their” government is some kind of morally pure operation would do well to familiarize themselves with Operation Northwoods. Operation Northwoods was a plot drawn up by the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff for the CIA to commit acts of terrorism in American cities and fabricate evidence blaming Castro so that the U.S. could gain domestic and international support for regime change in Cuba. The secret plan was nixed by President John F. Kennedy and was declassified by the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Review Board. It is available online in the National Security Archive. There are numerous online accounts available, including Wikipedia. James Bamford’s book, Body of Secrets, also summarizes the plot:
“Operation Northwoods, which had the written approval of the Chairman [Gen. Lemnitzer] and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war.”
Prior to 9/11 the American neoconservatives were explicit that the wars of aggression that they intended to launch in the Middle East required “a new Pearl Harbor.”
For their own good and that of the wider world, Americans need to pay attention to the growing body of experts who are telling them that the government’s account of 9/11 fails their investigation. 9/11 launched the neoconservative plan for U.S. world hegemony.
As I write, the U.S. government is purchasing the agreement of foreign governments that border Russia to accept U.S. missile interceptor bases. The U.S. intends to ring Russia with U.S. missile bases from Poland through central Europe and Kosovo to Georgia, Azerbaijan and central Asia. U.S. envoy Richard Holbrooke declared on February 20 that al Qaida is moving into former central Asian constituent parts of the Soviet Union, such as Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Kazakhstan. Holbrooke is soliciting U.S. bases in these former Soviet republics under the guise of the ever-expanding “war on terror.”
The U.S. has already encircled Iran with military bases. The U.S. government intends to neutralize China by seizing control over the Middle East and cutting China off from oil.
This plan assumes that Russia and China, nuclear armed states, will be intimidated by U.S. anti-missile defenses and acquiesce to U.S. hegemony and that China will lack oil for its industries and military.
The U.S. government is delusional. Russian military and political leaders have responded to the obvious threat by declaring NATO a direct threat to the security of Russia and by announcing a change in Russian war doctrine to the pre-emptive launch of nuclear weapons. The Chinese are too confident to be bullied by a washed-up American “superpower.”
The morons in Washington are pushing the envelope of nuclear war. The insane drive for American hegemony threatens life on earth. The American people, by accepting the lies and deceptions of “their” government, are facilitating this outcome.
——————————————————
Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, has held numerous academic appointments. He has been reporting shocking cases of prosecutorial abuse for two decades. A new edition of his book, The Tyranny of Good Intentions, co-authored with Lawrence Stratton, a documented account of how Americans lost the protection of law, was published by Random House in March, 2008. His latest book, How The Economy Was Lost, has just been published by CounterPunch/AK Press

Stefan Kosikowski comments:
I agree with gk… morality doesn’t change, but society’s tolerance for immoral behavior sure does fluctuate from generation to generation over time. I can see how someone lacking a firm grasp of moral behavior can avoid this fundamental truth, for the sake of convenience.
callmeslick comments:
It is easy to condemn those who lived hundreds of years ago, but the facts remain:
what was acceptable in other times, and for that matter, what is acceptable in other cultures today, differs widely. I like to think we have gotten kinder, and more enlightened. That fact doesn’t give me, or anyone(imho)purchase on morality. Morality is NOT an absolute. Never was.
LT comments:
gk thomas, I see you like colloquialisms, here is one of my favorites.
Never approach a bull from the front, a horse from the back, or a fool from any direction.
LT comments:
callmeslick, I also had a collection of blazers.
Stefan Kosikowski comments:
I can’t find any comment here that claims morality is an absolute, despite your penchant for moral relativism.
I also find the differences between cultures to revolve around the little things, not the serious like murder, rape, aggrevated assault or arson. These are universally immoral within all the many cultures I have experienced while traveling the globe.
I also note that the people who insist on gradual change or incremental change are those who have much and fear losing it more than they desire justice in this world. It’s just a personal observation, not a point I intend to argue.
callmeslick comments:
LT:”callmeslick, I also had a collection of blazers.”
LOL!
what happened? They don’t fit any more?
callmeslick comments:
Stefan writes-I also find the differences between cultures to revolve around the little things, not the serious like murder, rape….
An astounding comment. The concept of honor rape eludes you? Are you unaware of the common practice in Hindu culture of torture and killing of women who fail to bear
male children? I am not practicing moral relativism, I am not seeking to NOT look at our forebearers in an honest light. I am arguing that they were well-intentioned men of their time, with notions that now seem brutish and archaic. Nonetheless, the founders came up with a system that has allowed for more progress in the realm of moral, ethical and personal freedoms being embraced than any other I can think of.
As for Columbus, he always struck me as a historical accident. Face it, the dude got
lost, thought he was in Asia, and went home, still confused. Celebrating his landing and life is still a fine reason to play bocce and eat a lot of really good food, so I’m all for it………
Stefan Kosikowski comments:
So you think rape can be honorable?
Is there no limit to your callous nature?
I have friends from India, yes Hindus, they told me last night they are unaware of this custom you speak of, murdering female children. Perhaps you are picking a tiny fraction of the Indian people and trying to bastardize it into a point? Some Americans kill people, I guess all Americans are immoral as a result?
I wonder, how many years has it been since you ever admitted you were wrong about something?
callmeslick comments:
dude, that practice has been chronicled, in the Indian press, and by women’s groups worldwide, for at least a decade(the time I’ve been aware of it).
You have to be as stupid as plastic if you could read what I wrote, at any point above, and think I feel rape is, to me, honorable. However, there is, in some cultures, such a thing as honor rape, a horrific practice of a family’s males raping a female family member accused of adultery. My point, and it’s almost embarrassing to have to explain it to a grown man, is that morality within cultures is massively variable, with practices in some cultures that are acceptable within those cultures that nearly the whole planet otherwise abhors. Thus, to hark back to the original point, the fact that men in 1780 practiced slavery, and viewed other races as inferior merely reflects the culture within which they lived. Without any other frame of reference, culturally, they cannot be held to standards of behavior they could not have possibly comprehended.
Stefan Kosikowski comments:
Dude… that sounds real nice and neat. I bet it even helps you sleep at night to believe that, but to say the people of that era didn’t know their actions were immoral is easily proven false. Read some of the personal papers of Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and others, who knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that slavery was immoral, but they did it anyway.
KNOWING SOMETHING IS WRONG, BUT DOING IT ANYWAY DOESN’T EQUATE TO YOUR ARGUMENT ABOUT DIFFERENT MORAL STANDARDS!!!!
Many of the Founders wanted abolition of slavery written directly into the Articles of Confederation and later the Constitution, but they dropped it to unite the states to ensure European nations didn’t pick us off one state (colony) at a time… and it sure is embarrassing to have to explain this to an allegedly educated man.
Stefan Kosikowski comments:
Furthermore; I believe there is little difference if any between the Elite today and the Elite of that era from a moral perspective. Both control the supposedly democratic electoral process then in turn, have favorable legislation enacted that guarantees their financial success, with little to no risk to themselves. Our history is replete with these examples throughout both centuries, the one constant to be found. I see no evolution of morality from these inhumane creatures and the undue suffering they are knowingly responsible for. Greed is ruling their thought processes.
Your argument about society in general having improved is grounds for evolution in moral standards isn’t really a moral change at all, because the People had to struggle and kill to gain these rights. Nothing was handed over because of some benign enlightenment by the decision makers in our governments. Acquiescent or submission to the reality of a power struggle doesn’t suggest improvement in moral standards either.
Stefan Kosikowski comments:
It is also intellectually dishonest to directly compare our culture’s morals with those of ancient cultures such as China or India, which are the two oldest cultures surviving today, when this dispute over morality was clearly focused on our nation, comparing the present day to the founding of this nation.
Stefan Kosikowski comments:
I am certainly no expert on India and the many cultures found there, so I don’t intend to argue this with you Slick; but my friend from India was appalled by your remarks and broad based condemnation of Hindi people (how he interpreted your remarks upon their culture) because of the acts of a small sect or what many would call a cult here in America. He feels you are unjustly describing his belief in a similar manner to that being perpetrated upon all Muslims, defining them as Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, or Islamic Jihad. India’s demographic showing the ratio of female to male in it’s population figures would be skewed against the natural order if that abhorred practice you cite were wide spread.
callmeslick comments:
if your friend feels that way, maybe he can read what I wrote in my own words. It has been decried by many in the Hindu community for years. My Indian friends and coworkers in this nation feel it is positively barbaric. I’m quite sure your friend is offended if he got the description of my words from you, as you have long shown
yourself unable to comprehend my sentence structure.
As for the rest of your points about ‘elites’ and all, not worth arguing the point.
I’ll agree to disagree, comforted by the knowledge that you and your point of view aren’t going to have any influence on general policy in the US. It is pointless attempting to debate someone who makes his mind up first and then twists clearly written words to suit his points. Sorry, Stefan, you have officially bored me out of this thread…….
Stefan Kosikowski comments:
For the record, I e-mailed a direct link to your comment in question on this page of this web-site. My friend responded to me since he doesn’t have an account to comment and doesn’t seem interested in participating in a hostile environment. If you can’t deal with the adversity you created through no help or harm from anyone else, then by all means run away with your tail tucked firmly between your legs; but don’t try and lay the blame on me. I am not the judgmental one trying to morally define entire cultures based on the actions of a sub-set of the larger whole.
I twist no words either. The whole argument originated out of change, the rate of change, progress as you like to call it HERE IN AMERICA. You are the one who wandered off to foreign cultures, whatever that has to do with “our progress” is a stretch.
There is nothing worth debating when it concerns the Elite… the evidence is staggering!
LT comments:
When using the word ‘elitist’, which of the meanings do you have in mind, Stefan?
Aristocracy
Classism
High culture
Ivy League
Limousine liberal
Mensa
Meritocracy
Model minority
Noble lie
Oligarchy
Popular culture
Rankism
Social Class
Social Darwinism
Social Evolution
Tall poppy syndrome
LT comments:
The word elitist can surely bring into play many different groups of people that would fall into that category. And one would assume that your present circumstances would help to determine your definition.
My fear of the political elitist, is the journey they seem to be arrogating us to their prevaricating actions, that will result in us becoming impecunious.