Who Benefits?

Majority opinion

 

John, see attachment and letter from Rick Fletcher regarding the previous email regarding the “proof” of conspiracy in 9/11.

T.

 

From: Rick Fletcher

Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2014 6:53 AM

To: 'Thomas Lee Abshier, ND'

Subject: RE: 9/11 Conspiracy

 

 

The 9/11 “truthers” crack me up.

 

Why would Christians and Pagans, Democrats and Republicans get shocked into complete non-partisanship and display such moral indignation to the point of losing relationships with family and friends, risk and suffer jail-time, or in some cases apparently risk getting suicided or accidented for being a key witness that would materially threaten the Official Story. Maybe this issue is a little more important than 'crack me up'. It is not funny.

 

 

Not sure which of the 21 proofs he is laughing at. Perhaps he has read the book that these miniscule summary points came from before he risks his capital perjury? Or why he says he is using himself for the references -- are there no footnotes in the book? Referring to the FBI published information that contradicts the official story doesn't sound like "uses himself" to me. From the page:

 

 

 

 

Not so sure there is evidence that the structural steel for WTC 7 was tested/analyzed before it was hauled away. Rumor has it that it was claimed no one died in the collapse, thus it was not regarded as a significant crime scene, I mean, what's a few hundred million dollars worth of property damage, insurance will cover it. I heard the NIST reporter said steel was not tested for explosives residue since there was no reason to suspect explosives were used. Just because this was the first time in human history steel skyscrapers were brought down by small, oxygen-starved fires doesn't mean it couldn't happen to anyone.

 

I wonder if he has noticed the 2,200 architects and engineers that see enough physic-al contradictions such that they have ventured their public careers enough to sign on to the petition to call for another real, objective investigation that they are never going to get. It's true, I have never read anyone in all my research who has had complete confidence about exactly what destroyed all the WTC buildings (Bldg 6 in some ways was more weird than 1,2, & 7). There does seem to be sufficient evidence that nano-thermite was extremely likely as at least part of what made the simultaneous collapse by all steel supports at the same time a reality. That everything collapsed symmetrically, at free-fall speed, through the line of expected greatest resistance (instead of toppling over) is not in question because everyone can watch the videos.

 

 

Their analysis and computer modeling both proved that the heat generated by the fires softened the steel columns, leading to a pancaking of the upper floors, which then caused subsequent pancaking on the way down. 

 

Or you can note that the NIST report listed here in the email was a 2005 version. It wasn't until Nov/2008 that they released the report on WTC 7, and even then it only dealt with the explanation of how the collapse initiated, not how it happened. It doesn't take much research to show that it is a political-driven farce and not an objective scientific evaluation.

 

The physics of all three towers collapsing is an obvious contradiction to the official stories. There is no time in the free-fall for lower floors to resist or decelerate the upper floors. To crush concrete you need resistance. You need 'hammer & anvil' effect. Even if you instantly vaporized 3 or 4 15' stories of the building so that the entire upper portion had that much head-start to accelerate, you could not get the effect you see in the video. Instead, there would be slowing and buckling instead of dustification and free-fall, and the top part would try to topple instead of disappear into dust.

 

On the South Tower, you can watch the top portion rotate, as if it was suddenly severed from the lower portion, and it starts to tilt, but then it just pulverizes into dust instead of falling in one or several pieces to the buildings below, or toppling wider away from the base. All these actions defy the lays of physics if this would have been a oxygen-starved, black-smoke, kerosene fire weakening steel for pancaking.

 

On softening steel columns, when you check the physical properties, there is neither enough time nor enough heat-energy out of such oxygen-deficient burning of jet fuel (even if there had been enough left around after the first 'bloom') to sufficiently weaken steel. Then there are the many reports of molten steel, either in the air, or in the pile for weeks afterward noticed during cleanup. Check the properties. You cannot melt steel with jet fuel. Also mostly ignored is that in the core columns which primarily bore the weight of WTC 1,2, were not only seriously-thick steel, but that they were encased with inches of concrete which would not communicate heat that well. Say what you want about the floor-steel, or the outside-steel, you cannot begin to get at the core-columns steel supports to warm them up because of their concrete encasement. Did anyone check this out?

 

As for pancaking, did anyone look at the pictures afterward? Where is the visual on the pancaked floors? Many blogs showed big buildings that did pancake, like during earthquakes, and the floors are pretty intact. You would have found the office equipment all squished. You would have found the black boxes and something of the 6-ton titanium engines. Why did cleanup workers exclaim that everything was pulverized and they found 1 scrunched file cabinet and not much else bigger than a phone dial pad (except for the steel girders and aluminum cladding)?

 

Their reports disclosed something that wasn’t often repeated by the ‘mainstream’ media; that being that, our government’s long ago ban of asbestos left us with nothing to wrap the columns that could withstand that heat.  Previously, columns in skyscrapers were wrapped in asbestos to shield them from heat which we’ve long known could lead to a structural failure like we saw on 9/11.

 

See above on the obvious concrete sheathing.

 

More frequently than the collapse of the north and south towers, I’ve seen “truthers” use the collapse of building 7 as the ‘ultimate’ proof that controlled explosives brought it down.  Again, pure nonsense, as the attached PDF analysis shows.  NIST was not “hijacked” by government operatives (another false ‘proof’ using one unproven conspiracy theory to ‘prove’ another); in fact, it largely consisted of outside experts from private engineering and university engineering and physics departments.

 

See above on the fact this 2005 report is not the final report on WTC 7. Now why, 13 years later are thousands of scientists suspecting fraud? Also, there is a human interest story in Barry Jennings. He was a city official inside WTC 7 during the collapse of WTC 1 & 2. He witnesses explosions on the lower floors sufficient to ruin the stairwell below the 6th floor, (apparently attested to by outside observers as well) enough to trap him and a fellow worker in the building. His testimony contradicted the NIST report both in content and in timing. Jennings died two days before the NIST Draft Final WTC 7 Report was issued in 2008. No explanation for his death has been issued. We can hope he and his family actually disappeared and were protected somehow from the reported death.

 

Many of the author’s other ‘facts’ are simply not true.  For example, Bush stayed at the school after the FIRST plane crashed into the WTC, but not after the SECOND plane, when it became clear this couldn’t be an accident.

 

You tell me if the president and vice president's behaviors were appropriate that day and after. Did they encourage a 'spare-no-expense' investigation to get answers for the aggrieved families, or did they retard and resist and sabotage the investigations? Why would they only testify for the Commission behind closed doors, together, with their lawyer present?

 

Another good example of such false claims is the author’s insistence that the planes would have been intercepted within 10 minutes of an “in-flight emergency” and that the absence of such a response clearly showed that the administration orchestrated 9/11.  The fact is that no emergency was indicated except eventually by radio silence; yet, even today, post 9/11, we see delays of an hour or more before fighters are scrambled after loss of radio contact with an airplane.  The privately owned turboprop that recently crashed into the Atlantic north of Jamaica wasn’t intercepted by F-15s until a full hour and a half after the loss of comms with the aircraft.

 

Tell us about all the multiple FTX military exercises that day that were supposedly planned to practice response to the "terrorists flying aircraft into buildings" that they told us they have never even imagined could happen. Do you suppose anyone got confused between drill and real while they were in the middle of it? Perfect disguise.

 

His insistence that at least one of the pilots would have “squawked” that he’d been hijacked (code:  “7500”) is also false.  At that time, the rules were to cooperate with a hijacker and let the negotiators talk him down.  Even the passengers that day initially believed that their plane’s hijackings would eventually end with their release.  The rules have been changed since with pilots instructed to NEVER give up control of their airplane and, of course, cabin doors have since been reinforced so that hijackers can no longer force their way into the cockpit.

 

Why would cooperation with a hijacker preclude hitting the button? Why not do both? I don't know about this procedure, but I am increasingly convinced, proportionate to my research. that there were no commercial airliners with commercial passengers inside that hit either of the towers, Shanksville's hole-in-the-ground, nor the Pentagon.

 

As for phone communications between some of the passengers and family members, they mostly occurred using the fee-based in-flight mobile phone service (remember the phones in the back of the seat in front of you?)  At lower altitude, some were also able to use their cell phones.  The author fails to mention ALL the facts in this area, no doubt intentionally, since he hopes to sell lots of his bullshit book.

 

Better make sure of your evidence that the inflight mobile phones were even installed and operative on this airframe that year. I have read someone researching it, and they did not have these. There has been lots of research on the phones issue. Better check it out some more if you are going to witness in a capital-crime mass murder case.

 

I’m not going to waste my time debunking the entire piece because it doesn’t deserve it; in fact, it’s one of lamest attempts I’ve seen in a while.  All such attempts do share one thing in common:  They fail to come up with a good and believable reason as to why our government would do this.

 

Rick

 

WHY: It helps to review the financial aspect of this. You really should read a couple documents showing some connections beside just the Puts on the Airline stock right before the destruction.

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/17233336/September-11-Commission-Report-Revised-December-2008

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/9442970/Collateral-Damage-U-S-Covert-Operations-and-the-Terrorist-Attacks-on-September-11-2001-28062008

 

The bulk of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, some of them amused and indignant at the reports of their premature deaths. So we attacked Iraq and Afghanistan (with pipeline associated issues) both of which figure into competition with the Saudi's in the oil business. Curious that the heroin business had been wiped out by the Taliban before we sent our soldiers in there to bring it back up to full production.

 

When you study the pilot's perspective you find that these hijackers probably couldn't fly the planes at all, much less go through the aerobatics to slice into the Pentagon on the official projectory or hit a 200ft wide building at sea level in the speed insisted upon. None of the experienced or non-experienced pilots could do it in the simulator (even w/o a box-knife to their throats) until they throttled back to landing-speed. Engines would blow up if you ran them at top speed at sea level, and the noise would have been so deafening 500 ft away that all the eyewitnesses would have reported the sound-blast exceeding Rock Concert proportions. Also, you would not have seen the fragile wingtips slicing through the outside steel w/o slowing down the momentum of the plane, nor leaving any wreckage outside the building.

 

Watch the videos again, please.

 

Notice how, in the last 13 years, countries that try to sell oil for something besides US Dollars get treated. Iran, Saddam, then Gaddafi. A little human sacrifice is worth not having the dominoes start to fall too soon, that is, the inevitable hyperinflationary crash/rush to get rid of the USD's before they are worthless. If you have billions of dollars in the pipeline of oil trade, you can't help getting ripped off by inflation first, then collapse of trust in this imaginary currency.

 

Watch some more, read some more. 9/11 only matches character with all the other false-flags and banker fomentations-to-war for the last centuries. Study Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tonkin, Lusitania, Battleship Maine. Nothing new about these things. The Side we are on, or the Cause is not near as important as that the populations of rich countries support war of some kind all the time. It is the best, foolproof way to keep the debts mounting for the Usurers.

 

From: Thomas Lee Abshier, ND [mailto:drthomas@naturedox.com]
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2014 8:25 AM
To: Rick Fletcher
Subject: 9/11 Conspiracy

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/september-11-2001-21-reasons-to-question-the-official-story-about-9-11/10145   

 

Rick, this was from my friend John Forster, who believes in the 9/11 conspiracy.

I hadn’t heard most of these points.

Any thoughts?