Title: Attack Piece In Canadian Newspaper
Description: and Canada Foreign Policy Newsletter
Description: and Canada Foreign Policy Newsletter
coop - March 7, 2007 03:15 PM (GMT)
Hamilton Ontario Newspaper article
letters@thespec.com
Canada Foreign Policy Newsletter
and some positive spin as well
New Mexican Readersblog
letters@thespec.com
Canada Foreign Policy Newsletter
and some positive spin as well
New Mexican Readersblog
look-up - March 7, 2007 04:17 PM (GMT)
my response to the Hamilton Herold.
=====================
To whom it may concern,
I would like to voice my concerns over journalistic integrity concerning Gwynne Dyer's article entitled "Don't fall for this loony logic: Gripping film on 9/11 is slick -- but sick".
The author has chosen to simply attack what in reality is hundreds of millions of people around the world, who question the truth of the official 9/11 fairytale.
She has offered no rebuttals to the various points made by the film "Loose Change". She only described her personal opinion as to how unbelievable the story actually is.
Just as the germans in Nazi times were very surprised to see that the death camps were in fact real, and that Jews were not simply being deported as the government proclaimed, Americans and the rest of the world is going to have to face the facts.
There are just too many coincidences invovling the circumstances surrounding 9/11.
For your benefit, I will list some of the most explosive "coincidences". I would add that I am not someone who easily believes that everything is a conspiracy. I do not deny, as the afore-mentioned author does, that we can NEVER be victims of a horrible hoax or conspiracy that involves U.S. officials or a secret society.
For the author, and all like-minded individuals (a shrinking majority), it is simply a matter of pride. They don't wish to cast doubt on their own ability to see the world as it truly is.
1. ) In 2001, NORAD intercepted over a hundreds flights which exibited only one or two signs of a hijacking within minutes. On 9/11/2001, they somehow failed to perform this task four times. The reason for this supposed "incompetence" and the timeline which would allow for such circumstances, changed several times until the 9/11 Commission re-wrote it so that it would finally appear to be incompetence.
2. ) Osama Bin Laden denied responsibility for the 9/11 Attacks a few days after they occured. This was hidden by U.S. mainstream media, and the Bush administration told those media outlets specifically that they should not report that for national security reasons. (the message may have contained a secret code) Since when does a terrorist deny responsibility for their acts? I have never heard of a single case. THEY WANT YOU TO KNOW IT WAS THEM AND THE REASON!
3. ) Later, after the U.S. invasion into afghanistan had been launched, somehow, among hundreds of thousands of homes in a particular city, and probably millions of video tapes found in those homes, U.S. forces miraculously found a tape which alledgedly depicts Bin Laden talking to a friend about the attacks and how happy he was about their success, supossedly admiting to the crime. The problem is that the man looks nothing like Osama Bin Laden. He was much heavier (videos prior and since show him much thinner), writing with the incorrect hand, and wearing a gold ring, which is forbidden in Islam.
4. ) The World Trade Center towers (three of them) have been proven to have been acted on by an outside force in order to make total collapse possible. That outside force was NOT the plane strikes. The two towers were constructed with 200+exteriror steel columns, and 47 massive core columns. If you view videos of the collapses, especially in slow motion, you can clearly see the explosions happening far ahead of the collapse wave. You will also notice that they fell at nearly free-fall speed. The only way that this is physically possible, is if the core of the buliding had suffered weakening from explosives. Eyewitness accounts at the scene, including highly decorated officers of the law, firemen, and other HEROES, give very detailed accounts of explosions going off in the buildings befroe the plane strikes, after the plane strikes, and immediately prior to collapse. The only way to have no resistence as the upper section fell onto the lower section, is to have the lower section detroyed simultaneously. DO THE MATH if you don't believe me. Get some physicists to do the math and quote them if you really think this is all bullshit.
5.) Bush signed executive orders as soon as he was in office barring the FBI from following any of the Bin Laden family and detaining any terror suspects linked to Al-CIA-da.
6.) many of the hijackers were trained at military fascilities, not just public flight schools.
7.) WTC Building 7, which was not hit by a plane, also fell at free-fall speed later that day. This building suffered only mild damage from falling debris, but fell, even though it had very modest fires and by all video and photo accounts, only emitting large amounts of smoke - no fire. Other buildings directly below the falling debris suffered much larger fires, and much more physical damage, but remained standing until they were purposely "pulled" a few days later.
8. ) News agencies such as BBC, CNN, and NBC reported that WTC 7 had collapsed, and added that they knew it was "Due to fire" a full 20-30 min early. They received word that it would collapse, even though no one should have known this. The BBC conveniently claims they have lost all of their tapes from 9/11. LOST THEM!!!! But hundreds of researchers around the globe uploaded the video feed from that day so that others could witness the BBC scandal unfold. The minute one of the videos was uploaded, a consorted effort by "someone" had them removed. As you know, news footage can be published anywhere without copyright infringement. That was not the issue. They wanted to cover up their mistakes.
9. ) Since 9/11, we have heard every excuse used in Orwell's 1984 for taking away freedoms, slowly, but surely. Every time an elected official gets pressured about something they've done wrong, there is suddenly a "foiled terror plot" publicised by the media to remind us all of why we need those leaders.
Please do the whole world a faver, and do you job investigating this issue. If we are wrong, then you will not have wasted your time. But if you approach this issue with objectivity, and no pre-conceived notion of insanity on the part of the Truth Movement, then you will uncover some very startling phenomena, which will ultimately lead you to the truth.
For your children and mine, investigate 9/11. Ask questions. Demand answers.
Sincerely,
(ommited)
=====================
=====================
To whom it may concern,
I would like to voice my concerns over journalistic integrity concerning Gwynne Dyer's article entitled "Don't fall for this loony logic: Gripping film on 9/11 is slick -- but sick".
The author has chosen to simply attack what in reality is hundreds of millions of people around the world, who question the truth of the official 9/11 fairytale.
She has offered no rebuttals to the various points made by the film "Loose Change". She only described her personal opinion as to how unbelievable the story actually is.
Just as the germans in Nazi times were very surprised to see that the death camps were in fact real, and that Jews were not simply being deported as the government proclaimed, Americans and the rest of the world is going to have to face the facts.
There are just too many coincidences invovling the circumstances surrounding 9/11.
For your benefit, I will list some of the most explosive "coincidences". I would add that I am not someone who easily believes that everything is a conspiracy. I do not deny, as the afore-mentioned author does, that we can NEVER be victims of a horrible hoax or conspiracy that involves U.S. officials or a secret society.
For the author, and all like-minded individuals (a shrinking majority), it is simply a matter of pride. They don't wish to cast doubt on their own ability to see the world as it truly is.
1. ) In 2001, NORAD intercepted over a hundreds flights which exibited only one or two signs of a hijacking within minutes. On 9/11/2001, they somehow failed to perform this task four times. The reason for this supposed "incompetence" and the timeline which would allow for such circumstances, changed several times until the 9/11 Commission re-wrote it so that it would finally appear to be incompetence.
2. ) Osama Bin Laden denied responsibility for the 9/11 Attacks a few days after they occured. This was hidden by U.S. mainstream media, and the Bush administration told those media outlets specifically that they should not report that for national security reasons. (the message may have contained a secret code) Since when does a terrorist deny responsibility for their acts? I have never heard of a single case. THEY WANT YOU TO KNOW IT WAS THEM AND THE REASON!
3. ) Later, after the U.S. invasion into afghanistan had been launched, somehow, among hundreds of thousands of homes in a particular city, and probably millions of video tapes found in those homes, U.S. forces miraculously found a tape which alledgedly depicts Bin Laden talking to a friend about the attacks and how happy he was about their success, supossedly admiting to the crime. The problem is that the man looks nothing like Osama Bin Laden. He was much heavier (videos prior and since show him much thinner), writing with the incorrect hand, and wearing a gold ring, which is forbidden in Islam.
4. ) The World Trade Center towers (three of them) have been proven to have been acted on by an outside force in order to make total collapse possible. That outside force was NOT the plane strikes. The two towers were constructed with 200+exteriror steel columns, and 47 massive core columns. If you view videos of the collapses, especially in slow motion, you can clearly see the explosions happening far ahead of the collapse wave. You will also notice that they fell at nearly free-fall speed. The only way that this is physically possible, is if the core of the buliding had suffered weakening from explosives. Eyewitness accounts at the scene, including highly decorated officers of the law, firemen, and other HEROES, give very detailed accounts of explosions going off in the buildings befroe the plane strikes, after the plane strikes, and immediately prior to collapse. The only way to have no resistence as the upper section fell onto the lower section, is to have the lower section detroyed simultaneously. DO THE MATH if you don't believe me. Get some physicists to do the math and quote them if you really think this is all bullshit.
5.) Bush signed executive orders as soon as he was in office barring the FBI from following any of the Bin Laden family and detaining any terror suspects linked to Al-CIA-da.
6.) many of the hijackers were trained at military fascilities, not just public flight schools.
7.) WTC Building 7, which was not hit by a plane, also fell at free-fall speed later that day. This building suffered only mild damage from falling debris, but fell, even though it had very modest fires and by all video and photo accounts, only emitting large amounts of smoke - no fire. Other buildings directly below the falling debris suffered much larger fires, and much more physical damage, but remained standing until they were purposely "pulled" a few days later.
8. ) News agencies such as BBC, CNN, and NBC reported that WTC 7 had collapsed, and added that they knew it was "Due to fire" a full 20-30 min early. They received word that it would collapse, even though no one should have known this. The BBC conveniently claims they have lost all of their tapes from 9/11. LOST THEM!!!! But hundreds of researchers around the globe uploaded the video feed from that day so that others could witness the BBC scandal unfold. The minute one of the videos was uploaded, a consorted effort by "someone" had them removed. As you know, news footage can be published anywhere without copyright infringement. That was not the issue. They wanted to cover up their mistakes.
9. ) Since 9/11, we have heard every excuse used in Orwell's 1984 for taking away freedoms, slowly, but surely. Every time an elected official gets pressured about something they've done wrong, there is suddenly a "foiled terror plot" publicised by the media to remind us all of why we need those leaders.
Please do the whole world a faver, and do you job investigating this issue. If we are wrong, then you will not have wasted your time. But if you approach this issue with objectivity, and no pre-conceived notion of insanity on the part of the Truth Movement, then you will uncover some very startling phenomena, which will ultimately lead you to the truth.
For your children and mine, investigate 9/11. Ask questions. Demand answers.
Sincerely,
(ommited)
=====================
look-up - March 7, 2007 04:23 PM (GMT)
Also sent sent same email to Canadian Foreign Policy Newsletter's editor...
tmurphy - March 7, 2007 05:34 PM (GMT)
Voters say no to new 9/11 investigation
Published: Wednesday, March 7, 2007
By John Briggs
Free Press Staff Writer
Burlington voters Tuesday rejected a local group's call for a new investigation of the events of Sept. 11, 2001, by a nearly two-to-one ratio.
The vote was 3,150 to 1,817. The ballot question passed 39-17 in Lincoln, proponent Matthew Ennis said. The issue never generated much debate in Burlington.
"I'm very surprised," said Marc Estrin, spokesman for the Burlington group, which gained enough signatures to place the question on the ballot. "I was expecting the opposite direction."
The ballot item would have asked Vermont's congressional delegation to push for a new investigation. Sens. Patrick Leahy and Bernie Sanders and Rep. Peter Welch made clear in January that they weren't likely to move in that direction.
The question won approval in Wards 2 and 3 -- 71 percent in favor in the latter -- but lost in the city's remaining five wards, with more than 70 percent of voters in Wards 4, 6 and 7 voting no.
Word that the question would appear on Burlington's ballot spread quickly across the nation among proponents of a new investigation, and The Burlington Free Press received a number of e-mails applauding news that voters would, for the first time, be able to weigh in on the subject.
Proponents of a new investigation have argued that the official probe, reported in the "9/11 Commission Report," was deliberately narrowed and, as a result, inadequate.
"Clearly," Estrin said, "we have to get together and strategize -- decide where we go from here."
He said that while he was surprised by the vote in Burlington, the issue is "complex. It's a very off-putting idea," he said. "Very many smart people who follow the news and don't support George Bush don't want to go there."
Published: Wednesday, March 7, 2007
By John Briggs
Free Press Staff Writer
Burlington voters Tuesday rejected a local group's call for a new investigation of the events of Sept. 11, 2001, by a nearly two-to-one ratio.
The vote was 3,150 to 1,817. The ballot question passed 39-17 in Lincoln, proponent Matthew Ennis said. The issue never generated much debate in Burlington.
"I'm very surprised," said Marc Estrin, spokesman for the Burlington group, which gained enough signatures to place the question on the ballot. "I was expecting the opposite direction."
The ballot item would have asked Vermont's congressional delegation to push for a new investigation. Sens. Patrick Leahy and Bernie Sanders and Rep. Peter Welch made clear in January that they weren't likely to move in that direction.
The question won approval in Wards 2 and 3 -- 71 percent in favor in the latter -- but lost in the city's remaining five wards, with more than 70 percent of voters in Wards 4, 6 and 7 voting no.
Word that the question would appear on Burlington's ballot spread quickly across the nation among proponents of a new investigation, and The Burlington Free Press received a number of e-mails applauding news that voters would, for the first time, be able to weigh in on the subject.
Proponents of a new investigation have argued that the official probe, reported in the "9/11 Commission Report," was deliberately narrowed and, as a result, inadequate.
"Clearly," Estrin said, "we have to get together and strategize -- decide where we go from here."
He said that while he was surprised by the vote in Burlington, the issue is "complex. It's a very off-putting idea," he said. "Very many smart people who follow the news and don't support George Bush don't want to go there."
TrueSoundHound - March 8, 2007 02:50 AM (GMT)
Dear coop,
hamilton spectator is owned by Toronto Star, whose integrity was bought and sold long time ago.
I am in Canada myself. The radio alarm clock I wake up to have been set on the CBC French station since 1995, same year I stopped watching TV.
I do not understand French. It's just a way to Tai-Chi the brain-washing signals.
hamilton spectator is owned by Toronto Star, whose integrity was bought and sold long time ago.
I am in Canada myself. The radio alarm clock I wake up to have been set on the CBC French station since 1995, same year I stopped watching TV.
I do not understand French. It's just a way to Tai-Chi the brain-washing signals.
antipodean - March 8, 2007 05:05 AM (GMT)
The same dumb article was also in today's paper down here, I'm just in the process of writing a letter to the editor about the dumbing down of it's readership.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/search/story.cfm...7CC83027AF1010E
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/search/story.cfm...7CC83027AF1010E
TrueSoundHound - March 8, 2007 05:22 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (antipodean @ Mar 7 2007, 09:05 PM) |
| The same dumb article was also in today's paper down here |
wow. The global brainwashing is very real.
They did this after JFK also - mis-information moving faster than your ability to process it in the direction of the other hemisphere, hence you projecting your reality from fed lies.
Comrade Gwynne Dyer's eyes look like an endless graveyard.
Tim Riches - March 9, 2007 12:59 AM (GMT)
WOW! Gwynne Dyer wrote that? H.F.S! Add expletive here! This guy is one of my heroes due to his strong anti-war position and deep knowledge of all things military. He produced a seven-part series in 1983 simply called "War," in which he analyzes two centuries of world military history and defines the milestones along the road to total war. One episode, "The Profession of Arms," was nominated for an Academy Award.
| QUOTE ("Gwynne Dyer") |
| It's a real problem. Because by linking their fantasies about 9/11 to the Bush administration's deliberate deception in order to gain support for the invasion of Iraq, they bring discredit on the truth and the nonsense alike. You almost wonder if they are secretly working for the Bush administration. |
Sad to see him writing such an article. It does prove to me, though, that you can be intelligent and still discount 9/11 Truth. :(
kupci - March 9, 2007 06:35 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Tim Riches @ Mar 8 2007, 07:59 PM) |
| WOW! Gwynne Dyer wrote that? |
| QUOTE |
| I don't believe that happened because I don't think that Tenet, Rice, Powell et al would have deliberately plotted the deaths of thousands of Americans. |
Dyer doesn't contest any of the facts, so he apparently hasn't even done much more research other than watch the video. His main arguments seem to be that (1) too many people would have to be in the know (2) it's a loony idea.
Albert Speer, firmly claimed he knew nothing of the holocaust _during_ the Nazi regime. He had heard rumours, but the idea, as David Lynch puts it, was probably so outrageous he gave it no more thought.
And he was Hitler's close personal friend, perhaps not the inner circle but close. Therefore, if he can be believed, as high up as he was (he probably did more to keep the Nazi machine going long after it should've fallen over), not only was he not involved, he claims he had no knowledge. He did say this wasn't an excuse, however and that he *should* have known, should have done the research.
The loony part - I think this throws many smart people. The mistake he makes is to assume that since it is a loony idea, it is impossible. He needs to separate out those two ideas, and revise his logic. Loony? Traitorous? Despicable? Yes. Is it thus impossible? No.
He neatly sums up everything as 2 conspiracy theories (1) govt was dangerously incompetent, it was the dirty reds entirely (2) govt did it, no foreign involvement - we have seen the enemy and it is us.
For (1), it certainly is questionable how the govt pulled the plug on a major project in tracking suspected terrorists in '01. This was called Able Danger, and interestingly enough, they had a wealth of info on Atta, for one.