and maybe they were melted and crushed by 100's of tons of melted concrete and steel...

Not possible as they are made from adamantium

http://shine.yahoo.com/parenting/9-11-coloring-book-features-terrorist-trading-cards-204300629.html







About time, they are finally teaching the children what really happened at 9-11....

and maybe they were melted and crushed by 100's of tons of melted concrete and steel...

and maybe the planes that it the towers were not flights 11 and 77 in the first place.

Black boxes have survived may plane crashes that were burned up and fallen from the sky a lot further than 99 stories and were still recovered.

Unless you want to agree that a secret microwave weapon that could turn steel beams into dust also turned the black boxes into dust.

Yeh, that's what probably happened to them. Dustification.

Julian Assange? Thats funny, lol.

OMG that is abominable.

That book should have the faces of George Bush, Chaney, J.P Morgan, David Rothchild and family, Hilary Clinton, and I could go on and on forever.

What shameless propaganda crap to be teaching children.

Nothing funny about the sexual devient Assange.

I saw the second plane hit the twin tower in real time on the live news feed. It couldn't have been faked. It wasn't a missile, ball, or spacecraft.

A flash of light was seen in that video just before the plane hit the tower. Before the plane made contact with the building. This flash was captured by quite a number of videos.

Also, no one could identify what plane hit the tower and it could have been a drone.

During the past 10 years I have not met a single individual who, after doing research on the subjectpen, switched from questioning the official narrative of the events of 9/11/2001 to believing the official narrative of those events.. It is always the other way around. Why do you think that is? There are good reasons for this, and I will try to explain this phenomenon right now.

The term "conspiracy theorist", perhaps the most misapplied description in our vernacular, is often used to describe 9/11 truthers. Perhaps that term does apply to a segment of the 9/11 truth movement. But in most cases a more accurate description of 9/11 truthers is probably "expert", or "scholar", or "researcher." You see, much of the doubt cast on the official narrative of the events of 9/11 has not come in the form of speculated accusations, or "theories." In fact, it has come in the form of questions that have been raised after a careful study of the official and undisputed events and details.

Ten years have passed since the infamous events of September 11th, 2001 took place, and the majority of people still don't know a damn thing about the actual details of that event. They don't know what was going on in the country with regard to our military that day. They don't know the history or the activities of key members of our government, defense establishment or intelligence community, on, or during the weeks, and in some cases the years leading up to that day. They don't know what took place during or immediately following the events of that day. And they don't know what actions were taken by those key people following that event.

As is the case with so many issues, people tend to stand strong and argue a position or voice an opinion about an event like 9/11. But, when questioned about the many details surrounding that event they have no answers. They are clueless. And they are, in the end, dumbfounded.
I can not tell you how many times I have discussed the events of 9/11 with an outraged citizen who can not believe that I would "accuse our own government" of such a terrible thing as conducting a false flag operation, only to hear the phrase "no, I did not know that, is that true?" repeated over and over as I "educate" them about those little things called DETAILS. I can not count the pale-faced stunned looks on people's faces as I exposed them to some of the "official facts" they never suspected, and never knew. I have walked away from many a confrontation with newly educated "patriotic Americans", only to worry about whether or not they would again resume breathing correctly.

They would never do such a thing

A common start and end to any intelligent discussion about the events of 9/11 is prefaced by the assumption that no American would betray his or her country by allowing or conducting an attack on the American people. Well, the people who take this position know nothing about history, let alone human nature. They also don't know about the public positions, declarations, speeches and published documents written by the people who ran our nation on that day.

False flag operations have taken place for generations, in this nation and nations around the world. Many of these operations have been exposed, but proof of many of these activities is probably hidden away in secret documents that may one day come to light. You can however, start your exploration on the topic by researching one plan for American self-inflicted terrorism that became public, Operation Northwoods. Do I detect my first "I did not know this, is it true?" May I suggest you also peek into the neoconservative teachings of the principles involved in running our nation at the time of the "new Pearl Harbor" that took place in 2001.

But the 9/11 Commission did not find anything wrong

I can not believe how many people do not know the genesis or mission of the 9/11 Kean Commission. From the initial appointment of one of America's most nefarious political figures as its original leader, Henry Kissinger, - to its executive director whose area of expertise and education were in the creation and maintaining of public myths, Philip D. Zelikow,- people have no idea as to who comprised or what the mandate was for this commission.

To give you some kind of idea as to why the "findings" of this commission can NOT be used to back up any talking points on the topic of 9/11, let me remind you what the official task of this commission was. The Kean Commissions was told to document the official story and make national security recommendations based on that story. The only information that was to be included in the official report had to match the official story. If any one member of the committee objected to any testimony or finding, that piece of information was to be left out of the report For some examples of this you can talk to the thousands of people who became 9/11 truthers as a result of their testimony being omitted from and contradicted by the final report.

Start with the WTC worker credited with being the last man out of the WTC William Rodriguez. See if he can tell you why, after being invited to the White House and meeting with George W. Bush, his testimony about witnessing explosions in the sub basement of the WTC moments prior to the first plane hitting the building was omitted from the Kean report. And for more details you can read David Ray Griffin's book called The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions. It pretty much translated the Kean report into a stack of rather harsh and useless toilet paper. Are the "I did not know this, is it true?" responses piling up yet?
Are you even qualified to discuss the issue?

What people don't understand when discussing issues like 9/11 is that not everyone is qualified to join the discussion, let alone impose an "opinion" on the topic. 9/11 is not really a topic that is open to opinion. The conclusion you draw from the facts are open to opinion, but what many people don't realize about the 9/11 truth movement is that its opinions are based on facts, and grounded in the reality that its members know more of the facts than the average person. If you have a discussion with a doctor about medicine your opinions and views on the subject don't exactly merit the same consideration as do those of a group of physicians..

Similarly, someone like me (and many 9/11 truthers), has the equivalent of 3 PhD's on topics such as 9/11. I am a full time journalist. I research this kind of stuff every single day and I have been doing so since 2003. Not everyone is qualified to debate me on an issue like 9/11. We can discuss it. You can ask a great number of questions and perhaps inform me about aspects of the issue of which I am not aware. But you can't impose your "opinions" on me, nor can you do that to a majority of 9/11 truthers. And by the way, when it comes to opinions vs. facts, facts win. FOX News watchers don't seem to be able to grasp this concept.

People have to realize that what separates the unsuspecting mainstream masses from the 9/11 truth movement are factual information and details. Forget the claims and accusations. You don't need to go that far to understand that there is something fishy going on here. Just look at the official body of evidence. It's all there and it will make your head spin. Don't listen to the accusations, just examine the evidence.You'll understand so much if you really take a good look. In time, if you do your research thoroughly you may just compile a list of suspects, as have many of the 9/11 truthers. I have. But we are not there yet. We really have enough official evidence to lead to quite a few criminal indictments, and I am not kidding about this. But for now let's just talk about the facts and hope that some day we will have the real answers declared by juries in courtrooms. Chances are that many truthers would be proven correct in their accusations - but again, for now, just look at the facts and understand that there are a lot of questions that need to be answered. And, find out that it's okay to say, "I did not know this, is it true?"

So, are you qualified to take part in a discussion with a 9/11 truther?

If you don't know about the "coincidental" military drills taking place on September 11, 2001, or about the interesting little political cabal known as PNAC or the Project for a New American Century, or if you don't know what WTC7 is, or the 1,500 plus architects and engineers who have serious questions about how and why it dropped like a pancake on 9/11, or if you don't know about the fact that up until his supposed murder, the FBI did not list Osama bin Laden as wanted for the events of 9/11 because, in their own words, they had no proof of his involvement, then you are not qualified to enter a discussion about the event. You have a lot of homework to do before you can chime in. So on you go...study...but finish this article first. I'll bet the ranch that you'll be saying, over and over, "I did not know this, is it true?"

Why don't we accept the official story?

Here is a question that you should really think about. Don't just chime in with your own uninformed opinion because I am going to give you the answer to this question; the real honest answer. Why do you think I, Jesse Richard, founder of TvNewsLIES.org, have drawn the conclusion that the official narrative of the events of 9/11 is a crock? The answer to that is this...I did not always feel that way. As a matter of fact ,within hours of the event I emailed to all my friends a blistering attack on Islamic fundamentalism. And while some things that happened that day, or did not happen that day, (and week I should say,) seemed odd, I was not immediately suspicious of the "story" being told on TV about the event.

It took me almost two years before I saw enough "official" information to make me realize that there was something, actually many things, that were very wrong. I came across so many disturbing, yet official and undisputed facts that I started asking others about it. Most people did not know what I was talking about. Nobody knew the details. So your answer is this...I don't believe the official story because I know the official story! I don't believe the conclusion, and the little tale of 19 buffoons overtaking our national defense all by themselves. The official position on that by the way, is that they, the FBI, have no proof of the identity of the so-called hijackers or that there were any hijackers at all. They are not listed on the passenger lists, but you would not know that.

BUT...the official story and facts are what made me realize something was very wrong with the public perception of what took place that day, and who was responsible for what took place that day. The official story, when accepted and believed, morphs by any logic into a total and absolute fabrication!

So if you believe the conclusion to the official story, you had better know that story from start to finish. Don't approach this they way the Kean Commission approached it, by starting out accepting the explanation as truth. Study the events, study the officially acknowledged body of evidence and study the people who told you the story in the first place...and I bet it won't be long before you have as many questions as do I about that infamous day and about the people who control our government. And, of course, you'll be saying, "I did not know this, is it true?"

Okay, then, who really was behind the attacks on 9/11?

9/11 truthers make the mistake of starting their discussions with conclusions...I am not doing that. All I am saying is that there are a lot of questions about what happened that day that are not answered by the official conclusion or explanation. I would like some answers that add up. I did the math myself and I have my own "theories", but I am a journalist, and I deal in the facts, not the fables.

The official story, as fed to the American public is filled with unsupported and implausible explanations designed to convince a gullible public that they should ask no questions and trust their leaders to take revenge on those who hated us for our freedom. Volumes can be, and have been written about so many of them. For the most part, you have not read any of them.

In this article, I've posed many questions and have provided links to their answers - so that you will more clearly understand that there is SO much we have not been told about the attacks that took place a decade ago. But, those facts are the tip of a very well hidden iceberg, because there are so many questions that still remain unanswered.

So, I will end this article with a sampling of the questions that must be answered, or in the very least, investigated by impartial truth seekers.. They must NOT be ignored, or accepted simply because they were offered to a frightened nation by an administration defined by its lies. They are legitimate questions, based on legitimate suspicions. They are not, for a single moment, conspiracy theories"

Why did the news agencies report that WTC 7 collapsed almost 1/2 hour before it did, even though it was not hit by a plane, only had a few floors on fire, and gave no indication that it was in any serious danger?
Why do we still believe the tale of the 19 hijackers when so many of the accused hijackers showed up ALIVE within days? And why do we sill believe the fable of the 19 hijackers when the FBI admitted that they are not sure about either the identity of the hijackers or if there were any hijackers at all?
Why was WTC 7 rebuilt, reopened and reoccupied with no press attention? Wouldn't this be an important victory in American resolve and perseverance?
Why were the NORAD rules changed for the first time several weeks prior to 9/11, taking responsibility/authority for shooting down hijacked lanes away from NORAD military command for the first time in its history, and given to a civilian, Donald Rumsfeld, and then returned to NORAD the day after 9/11?
Why would hijackers planning on attacking NY and Washington DC drive from Florida, pass both DC and NY, and drive all the way to Maine and hinge this huge operation on a connecting flight from Maine to Boston, where we are told they hijacked their plane? Why wouldn't they fly out of any of the airports that are visible from their targets, like Newark, La Guardia or JFK...or even some of the smaller local airports that would have given them a clear easy path to their target and reduce the amount of time that our air defense systems would have to stop them?
Who placed all of those put options on the airlines just prior to the event, as if they knew that the stock prices on those specific airlines would lose a huge amount of value?
Why did George W. Bush's Secret Service detail not rush the president to safety when it was evident that the nation was under attack? If the nation was under attack, and they did not know the scope of the attack, and the president's location was known, how did they not worry about being attacked in Florida?. Why did they act as if they knew that there was no threat? And why, when our nation was under attack, did the president not rush into action? If you say he was concerned about upsetting the children, you are the ultimate apologist. He could have told them that his mommy was on the phone and he had to see what she wanted. Our county was supposedly being attacked and he/they waited 20 minutes before they moved. This is the smoking gun of smoking guns.
Why did the FBI never list Osama bin Laden as being wanted for 9/11? Actually, we know this one...because they admitted that they had no evidence linking him to the event.
Why was their molten metal flowing under the wreckage of the WTC for months? No jet fuel can melt metal, and nothing explainable could melt that much metal and keep it hot enough to remain molten for a month.
How did a passport of one of the so called hijackers make it through the huge fireball and end up on the street?
Why have photos from the 80+ cameras confiscated at the Pentagon never been released?
Why did the airplane that supposedly crashed at Shanksville vaporize so that nothing remained, not bodies, not luggage, not metal, - nothing - for the first time in aviation history? However, we are told that even though the plane vaporized at Shanksville, a hand-written note from a hijacker was found.

Of course, there are so many more. We deserve the answers. We deserve the right to ask these questions in public forums like the corporate media....who will not touch them with the proverbial ten foot pole. We have gate keepers on the Internet who actively ridicule and dismiss anyone who dares to raise these questions. Will you be one of them? Or, after really thinking about them, will you hope that one day, when we know what went on before, during and after the attacks on 9/11, - we can all say: "I did not know this, but I'm now absolutely convinced that it is true."

Think about it...it's really time to think about it.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26340

Booly - Cah-Cah!

Just imagine how this planning session between Bush, Rummy and Cheney must have gone:

BUSH: So, what's the plan again?

CHENEY: Well, we need to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. So what we've decided to do is crash a whole bunch of remote-controlled planes into Wall Street and the Pentagon, say they're real hijacked commercial planes, and blame it on the towelheads; then we'll just blow up the buildings ourselves to make sure they actually fall down.

RUMSFELD: Right! And we'll make sure that some of the hijackers are agents of Saddam Hussein! That way we'll have no problem getting the public to buy the invasion.

CHENEY: No, Dick, we won't.

RUMSFELD: We won't?

CHENEY: No, that's too obvious. We'll make the hijackers Al Qaeda and then just imply a connection to Iraq.

RUMSFELD: But if we're just making up the whole thing, why not just put Saddam's fingerprints on the attack?

CHENEY: (sighing) It just has to be this way, Dick. Ups the ante, as it were. This way, we're not insulated if things go wrong in Iraq. Gives us incentive to get the invasion right the first time around.

BUSH: I'm a total idiot who can barely read, so I'll buy that. But I've got a question. Why do we need to crash planes into the Towers at all? Since everyone knows terrorists already tried to blow up that building complex from the ground up once, why don't we just blow it up like we plan to anyway, and blame the bombs on the terrorists?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, you don't understand. It's much better to sneak into the buildings ourselves in the days before the attacks, plant the bombs and then make it look like it was exploding planes that brought the buildings down. That way, we involve more people in the plot, stand a much greater chance of being exposed and needlessly complicate everything!

CHENEY: Of course, just toppling the Twin Towers will never be enough. No one would give us the war mandate we need if we just blow up the Towers. Clearly, we also need to shoot a missile at a small corner of the Pentagon to create a mightily underpublicized additional symbol of international terrorism -- and then, obviously, we need to fake a plane crash in the middle of ****ing nowhere in rural Pennsylvania.
CONT

RUMSFELD: Yeah, it goes without saying that the level of public outrage will not be sufficient without that crash in the middle of ****ing nowhere.

CHENEY: And the Pentagon crash -- we'll have to do it in broad daylight and say it was a plane, even though it'll really be a cruise missile.

BUSH: Wait, why do we have to use a missile?

CHENEY: Because it's much easier to shoot a missile and say it was a plane. It's not easy to steer a real passenger plane into the Pentagon. Planes are hard to come by.

BUSH: But aren't we using two planes for the Twin Towers?

CHENEY: Mr. President, you're missing the point. With the Pentagon, we use a missile, and say it was a plane.

BUSH: Right, but I'm saying, why don't we just use a plane and say it was a plane? We'll be doing that with the Twin Towers, right?

CHENEY: Right, but in this case, we use a missile. (Throws hands up in frustration) Don, can you help me out here?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, in Washington, we use a missile because it's sneakier that way. Using an actual plane would be too obvious, even though we'll be doing just that in New York.

BUSH: Oh, OK.

RUMSFELD: The other good thing about saying that it was a passenger jet is that that way, we have to invent a few hundred fictional victims and account for a nonexistent missing crew and plane. It's always better when you leave more cover story to invent, more legwork to do and more possible holes to investigate. Doubt, legwork and possible exposure -- you can't pull off any good conspiracy without them.

BUSH: You guys are brilliant! Because if there's one thing about Americans -- they won't let a president go to war without a damn good reason. How could we ever get the media, the corporate world and our military to endorse an invasion of a secular Iraqi state unless we faked an attack against New York at the hands of a bunch of Saudi religious radicals? Why, they'd never buy it. Look at how hard it was to get us into Vietnam, Iraq the last time, Kosovo?

CHENEY: Like pulling teeth!

RUMSFELD: Well, I'm sold on the idea. Let's call the Joint Chiefs, the FAA, the New York and Washington, D.C., fire departments, Rudy Giuliani, all three networks, the families of a thousand fictional airline victims, MI5, the FBI, FEMA, the NYPD, Larry Eagleburger, Osama bin Laden, Noam Chomsky and the fifty thousand other people we'll need to pull this off. There isn't a moment to lose!

BUSH: Don't forget to call all of those Wall Street hotshots who donated $100 million to our last campaign. They'll be thrilled to know that we'll be targeting them for execution as part of our thousand-tentacled modern-day bonehead Reichstag scheme! After all, if we're going to make martyrs -- why not make them out of our campaign paymasters? ****, didn't the Merrill Lynch guys say they needed a refurbishing in their New York offices?

RUMSFELD: Oh, they'll get a refurbishing, all right. Just in time for the "Big Wedding"!
CONT


ALL THREE: (cackling) Mwah-hah-hah!

You get the idea. None of this stuff makes any sense at all. If you just need an excuse to assume authoritarian powers, why fake a plane crash in Shanksville? What the hell does that accomplish? If you're using bombs, why fake a hijacking, why use remote-control planes? If the entire government apparatus is in on the scam, then why bother going to all this murderous trouble at all -- only to go to war a year later with a country no one even bothered to falsely blame for the attacks? You won't see any of this explored in 9/11 Truth lore, because the "conspiracy" they're describing is impossible everywhere outside a Zucker brothers movie -- unbelievably stupid in its conception, pointlessly baroque and excessive in its particulars, but flawless in its execution, with no concrete evidence left behind and tens of thousands keeping their roles a secret forever.

We are to imagine that not one of Bush's zillions of murderous confederates would slip and leave real incriminating evidence anywhere along the way, forcing us to deduce this massive crime via things like the shaking of a documentary filmmaker's tripod before the Towers' collapse (aha, see that shaking -- it must have been a bomb planted by the president and his ten thousand allies!). Richard Nixon was a hundred times smarter than Bush, and he couldn't prevent leaks and cries of anguished pseudo-conscience from sprouting among a dozen intimately involved conspirators -- but under the 9/11 conspiracy theory, even the lowest FBI agent used to seal off the crime scene never squeaks. It's absurd.

I challenge a 9/11 Truth leader like Loose Change writer Dylan Avery to come up with a detailed, complete summary of the alleged plot -- not the bits and pieces, but the whole story, put together -- that would not make any fifth grader anywhere burst out in convulsive laughter. And without that, all the rest of it is bosh and bunkum, on the order of the "sonar evidence" proving the existence of the Loch Ness monster. If you can't put all of these alleged scientific impossibilities together into a story that makes sense, then all you're doing is jerking off -- and it's not like no one's ever done that on the Internet before.

Whenever anyone chooses to dismiss 9/11 conspiracy theorists, accusations fly; the Internet screams that you've aided and abetted George Bush. I disagree. To me, the 9/11 Truth movement is, itself, a classic example of the pathology of George Bush's America. Bush has presided over a country that has become hopelessly divided into insoluble, paranoid tribes, one of which happens to be Bush's own government. All of these tribes have things in common; they're insular movements that construct their own reality by cherry-picking the evidence they like from the vast information marketplace, violently disbelieve in the humanity of those outside their ranks, and lavishly praise their own movement mediocrities as great thinkers and achievers. There are as many Thomas Paines in the 9/11 Truth movement as there are Isaac Newtons among the Intelligent Design crowd.

There's not a whole lot of difference, psychologically, between Sean Hannity's followers believing liberals to be the same as terrorists, and 9/11 Truthers believing even the lowest soldier or rank-and-file FAA or NORAD official to be a cold-blooded mass murderer. In both cases you have to be far gone enough into your private world of silly tribal ******** that the concept of "your fellow citizen" has ceased to have any meaning whatsoever. It may be that America has become too big and complicated for most people to deal with being part of. People are longing for a smaller, stupider reality. Some, like Bush, sell a prepackaged version. Others just make theirs up out of thin air. God help us.
_______

About author

Matt Taibbi is a writer for Rolling Stone.