Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
As 'they' say, "Hear, hear!"
|
At the top of the page, I posted the curious spectacle of a web page on the U.S. State Department's website that purports to tell the public how to "identify misinformation". Why would "State" compose and post an elaborate anonymous rebuttal to points made in a book that explores the holes in the U.S. government's official 9-11 "story"? Did the book <b>911 Revealed</b>"hit a nerve" with the Bush administration? If not....why didn't the Bush State Dept. simply ignore the book instead of posting such a clumsy and unconvincing attempt to diminish the points made by the book's authors?
I've highlighted in bold the observation of the authors of "911 Revealed":
(Insert "Ustwo or "stevo" or "Mojo_PeiPei" in place of "The Bush Administration)__________ is unable to understand the difference between a book <b>(...or a thread)</b> which examines sceptic theories and a book which espouses such theories."
Why is a Politics forum thread that does the reverse of last years Popular Mechanics "examination" of points made by 9-11 official story sceptics; an article that was tainted by the contributions of a Popular Mechanics "senior researcher" who was the cousin of DHS head, Michael Cherthoff, "greeted" with such a visible and repetitive "chorus" of empty, protest posts?
Quote:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0511/S00127.htm
UQ Wire: 911 Revealed's 1st, A State Dept Critique
Wednesday, 9 November 2005, 1:54 pm
Press Release: www.UnansweredQuestions.org
Distribution via the Unanswered Questions Wire
http://www.unansweredquestions.org/ .
PRESS RELEASE
911 Revealed ACHIEVES NEW FIRST.
.....911 Revealed is published by Constable and Robinson in the UK and Carol and Graf in the USA and Canada. It examines a range of theories about the 911 attacks, which fall into three areas: the official story, a US government false flag operation based on the Pentagon's Operation Northwoods plan, or an Al Qaeda plan that was allowed to go ahead and embellished with events like the anthrax attacks.
Co-author Ian Henshall said today:
<b>"The Bush administration is unable to understand the difference between a book which examines sceptic theories and a book which espouses such theories.</b> We hope that the lies and distortions in this review are not having the effect of persuading TV studios to operate an embargo on an important book.
A more accurate description of 911 Revealed was expressed by terrorism writer Nick Fielding in the Sunday Times. He wrote that we "have subjected the official version of what happened to intense scrutiny and found huge gaps". Is this what the US administration finds objectionable?
No-one has signed the State Department's highly misleading review, no-one has asked us for a comment and of course no-one has given us the opportunity to make a rebuttal......
|
Quote:
http://www.911dossier.co.uk/rebuttal.html
<b>Rebuttal of US State Department's anonymous attack on 911 Revealed.</b>
by Ian Henshall and Rowland Morgan, 27 October 2005
We are flattered that, of all the alleged misinformation around in the world today, the US State Department has selected our book as the top of its list. We have rushed out this rebuttal, subject to corrections. For their opinion see
http://usinfo.state.gov/media/misinformation.html
with detailed criticisms of our book at
http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archiv...16-241966.html
There are errors of fact in the State Department's attack on our book, the primary one being that they ascribe to us positions that we do not hold.
The anonymous author starts off carefully by saying we "give credence to" unfounded rumors, but by the second paragraph the message has changed. We are now "claiming" that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. It's true that we examine the allegation that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, but that is not the same thing as accepting the allegation.
This leap of false logic is a recurrent pattern of the Bush administration: if you are not with us you are against us. If you examine theories we don't want you to examine, it must be that you believe them.
Perhaps our book has been singled out for the straw-man treatment because, as the Sunday Times has acknowledged, it is a powerful examination of the facts and does not jump to conclusions. It simply establishes that the official story cannot be true on key issues and that there has been a cover-up. It also examines a range of alternative theories to the official conspiracy theory.
There are three other fundamental themes of our book that the State Department ignores. These are the LIHOP (Let It Happen On Purpose) issue, the Al Qaeda issue and the process issue. We suspect that they ignore these issues either because they cannot refute the points we make, or because they know that these are the issues which most disturb mainstream America, or both. (see note)
To address the State Department’s arbitrarily selected points:.........
....Regarding the unprecedented WTC tower collapses, NIST's dismissal of explosives seems to have been conjured up at the last minute and does not suggest a thorough investigation of that aspect. It remains undeniable that the collapses were symmetrical although the damage was asymmetric, collapse was almost at free fall speed in apparent defiance of the conservation of energy principle as concrete was converted to rubble and dust. Furthermore, the FBI denied in February 2002 that any significant aircraft debris had been retrieved from the ruins, although significant pieces are on the evidential record. The collapse of WTC 7 remains unexplained and no steel debris was retained for examination.
On this web site we offer an argument by Ian Henshall that does not depend on the uncertain engineering arguments but on the unchallengeable principle of the conservation of energy and momentum: if the assumptions as to timing are correct, the Towers must have been brought down by a massive extra input of energy consistent with the hypothesis of explosives.
The State Department addresses owner Larry Silverstein's famous comment that he ordered WTC to be "pulled" with an unconvincing argument that in fact he meant the firefighters should be "pulled". This is the State Department’s interpretation, not Silverstein’s.
Silverstein’s office is quoted stating that Silverstein talked to NYFD chiefs about fire-fighters who were inside WTC 7. In contrast to this statement it's on the public record that the NYFD abandoned the fires in WTC 7 shortly after the twin towers collapsed:
"By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons." - New York Times (11/29/01)
FEMA agrees that NYFD did not fight the fires in WTC 7: "In addition, the fire-fighters made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires... the development of the fires was not significantly impeded by the fire-fighters because manual fire-fighting efforts were stopped fairly early in the day” - FEMA (05/02)
Silverstein’s explanation also contradicts the evidence of Deputy Fire Chief Peter Hayden (quoted in our book) who told Firehouse magazine in April 2002: "by about two o'clock in the afternoon we realised the thing was going to collapse". Is a contingent of fire-fighters really going to enter such a building three hours later?.......
|