Comments for The Science of 9/11

Comment on Witnesses refute CIT by Frank Legge

Frank Legge — Tue, 15 May 2012 01:23:04 +0000

No. The people who assert the plane passed north of the service station appear sincere. I do not think they are lying, just mistaken. The problem is that CIT has not performed an investigation of witnesses but has performed a selection of witnesses, only publishing those who were mistaken. On top of that they selected particular words of some south path witnesses to make them appear to be north path witnesses. This is cherry-picking at its finest.

Comment on Witnesses refute CIT by upon_injustice

upon_injustice — Mon, 14 May 2012 13:12:28 +0000

hm. wouldn’t one simple way around this is to track our eyewitnesses down and subject them to a polygraph test? Wouldn’t the evidence then speak for itself?

Comment on Home by marvin sannes

marvin sannes — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 22:53:46 +0000

I certainly do intend to call for a new and open investigation of the events of
9/11; an elephant is growing in our living room – so very many young people,
who have learned of 9/11 via the www, have lost trust in our rule-of-law, we
are sowing the seeds of rot in democratic government.

No secrets, no lies, nothing is that important!

Comment on Witnesses refute CIT by Frank Legge

Frank Legge — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 07:18:09 +0000

I don’t have to call these people. Most of the witness reports include information about where they were and what they saw. Most saw the plane on approach to the Pentagon and before it hit. At that time there had not been an explosion so there was nothing to deceive them. Close on 100 witnesses saw the impact and of these over 50 saw the approach. Ranke is grasping at straws.

Comment on Home by Frank Legge

Frank Legge — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 07:14:08 +0000

Hi Marvin, I see you are standing to represent your state (Oregon). I also see that you are expert in dealing with the problem of drug addiction. It seems to me there is a similarity between drug addiction for a person and the empire building addiction of the USA. Are you willing to campaign for a new investigation into 9/11 as part of your position as a candidate?

Comment on Witnesses refute CIT by anastasia

anastasia — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 04:57:30 +0000

Craig Ranke says that witnesses who say they saw an plane impact do not refute his witnesses, as these people saw a low flying plane and saw an explosion, and put two and two together in a presumptuous and non-exacting way, which is the deception the government was trying to create. He also says that the damage to the light poles also do not refute his witnesses as the downed light poles could have been taken down before this happened for the same reasons, i.e. trying to create a deception. If you wish to refute his witneses, you must call the above people and ask them where they were and where they saw they first saw the plane when they saw it.

Comment on Contact by Dick Croy

Dick Croy — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:34:19 +0000

Your readers might be interested in this link emailed to me by Fred Burks.

As you may be aware, Fred was a long-time Washington insider whose website, wanttoknow.info, is one of the best available in providing a combination of need-to-know political info and consciousness-raising mentoring.

Thanks to the Internet and an increasing number of enterprising and courageous individuals, the information now available on a 9/11 cover-up is voluminous and convincing. But my perception is that the audience for acting on it is a small fraction of what it could and needs to be. And I suspect that even the most damning, irrefutable additional evidence won’t grow it substantially. The choir is being preached to with brilliance and passion, but it’s time to enlarge the congregation. Exponentially.

The fictional dramatic screenplay FALSE FLAG draws heavily on two primary sources to tell the story of the 9/11 cover-up. One is the brilliant “Miracles” essay by David Ray Griffin, who read the script and provided additional invaluable feedback. The other is a heavily researched and footnoted 58-page essay by E.P. Heidner which “ties together many previously unexplained threads in the 9/11 mystery that are most compelling,” in the words of Fred Burks, on whose website the essay appeared. Following is the script’s premise:

FRANK lost his 26-year-old daughter LISA. ANNA lost her husband ARTURO, a cook anticipating promotion to sous-chef at Windows on the World. ANITA’s husband ALEX was one of 658 employees of Cantor Fitzgerald who lost their lives in the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers. Through the eyes and the stories of these fictional characters, we gain new compassion for the victims, and new perspective on the events, of 9/11.

Thanks to Fred and his many contacts, this is now in the process of going viral globally. If you’re inclined to help spread the news, that would be great. Again, here’s the link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/80934810/False-Flag.

Thanks!

Dick Croy

Comment on Debris witnesses by Flegge

Flegge — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 05:05:22 +0000

Hi Mark, thanks for the comment. You are right that we should be looking into the fact that much evidence about the Pentagon attack has been withheld. That is very sinister. However I do not agree that Jeff Maynor’s testimony is without value simply because his observation started the next day. He says: “I remember making paths though all the wreckage – twisted metal everywhere…thoughts of it not being a plane never crossed my mind.” Can you imagine enough plane debris being trucked in to fool all the workers without anyone noticing? It would be about 8 loads of a ten ton truck. And it is not as though there was any shortage of debris in videos taken within minutes of the attack.

Your use of the word “explosion” rather than “event” suggests you have a preconceived idea of what happened. I am writing a letter setting out the hard evidence we have available to refute the plane overfly claims. I will send you a draft shortly. I would appreciate your comments on it. Anyone else interested can have a copy if they send me a request.

Regards
Frank

Comment on Debris witnesses by Mark Snyder

Mark Snyder — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 02:16:55 +0000

Mr Maynor’s email, being presented here as “debris witness” testimony, by virtue of his not being on the location on Sept. 11, 2001, but rather on the following day, leaves an awful lot to speculation as to what could have occurred from the time of the explosion at the Pentagon and the time when this witness was actually on the scene. To say he saw plane parts on the following day does not verify in any way the presence of those parts on the day before. Whether the parts were planted or not, Mr Maynor would not have been there to see it. Mr Maynor’s question regarding the release of the many videos confiscated from around the Pentagon immediately following the alleged plane impact is extremely valid and needs to be answered.

Comment on News by Mark Snyder

Mark Snyder — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 00:56:54 +0000

This is to announce the release of a new DVD featuring Dr David Ray Griffin speaking in Seattle, 2011. The title of the talk and DVD is “9/11: Why Do Bill Moyers and Robert Parry Accept Miracles?”. For more details please visit http://911ts.org
Please post this announcement on your website.
Thank you for your time and efforts to reveal the truth.