9/11 Scholars Forum

Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,
 
I was not aware that I was part of this forum. But as I remember, I surfed here on an occasion sometime after the attempted plane bombing in Detroit at Christmas. And you have contacted me now, so I will spend a bit of time talking about 9/11. The last thing I did about 9/11 was play Taps for the 24 Canadians who died in the WTC incidents while I was doing a gig in Toronto on 9/11/10. 
 
Besides being an international blues performer and recording artist, I am also a political investigator. You may obtain my History M.A. thesis, North American Fascism: Transmission of the Virus, which culminates in my independent investigation of the Murrah Bombing and its coverup aftermath, from the Oklahoma State University History Department. Call 405-744-5678 for shipping details, and be sure to talk to my thesis advisor Dr. Ronald Petrin. I had the Elohim City/NeoNazi/McVeigh connection right first.
 
I don't talk about 9/11/01 much, because I am well aware that the scope of a proper, independent 9/11 investigation is far beyond my own investigative or financial capabilities. I could probably conclude my investigation of Murrah for under $2 million, including paying a staff of investigative journalists and security personnel for at least a year's work. That's conceivable. The nationwide, indeed, worldwide scope of a 9/11 probe would require multiples of 10 times that. So, I have come to the point of saying, "let's move on, even if crimes were committed, and I am not convinced they weren't."
 
But here's what I think. Now I am not a conspiracy theorist. I am aware of the grander conspiracy theories associated with this complex of events, but I do not strongly believe any of them. I'm a phenomenologist, and (modestly) a historian. I observe, and I write about what I have seen. If you talk to Dr. Richard Rohrs at Oklahoma State, when you call that number, he will discuss with you the reasons one should not jump to historical conclusions. All history, as he will tell you, is interpretations. Facts-- real facts-- are very much harder to come by.
 
Hence, I will not declare that I believe any option below to be a "fact". I haven't spearheaded the investigation, or even been part of a constituted investigative team, so I will not presume to assert any more than my opinions.
 
For instance, I find it plausible that category 1, subc. a, parts i and ii, PLUS subc. b, part i., could all apply. In short, Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden could have been, simultaneously, players and patsies. Al Qaeda had motivation, and they had prior history, specifically in NYC.
 
In category 2: I am ignorant of all photographic technology, so I have no valid opinion.
 
Category 3: if planes did hit the two towers, then it is plausible that the damaged buildings could have collapsed in the pancake method. I am not sure that that is what happened, but I do find the lack of even a single low-level operative coming forward and saying that he helped prepare a Twin Tower for controlled demolition to incline me against scenarios involving the blowing up of the building in place, by conventional explosives, nanothermite or any other agent. I must agree with the naysayers that this scenario would have required months of preparation, and would almost certainly have been in some way noticeable to other people working in the buildings in some context. But that doesn't mean that it flat didn't happen.
 
Category 4: Here's my point of greatest skepticism. This building was not hit by a plane. It is my opinion that none of the collateral fires caused by the striking of the Twin Towers and fuel, or a fuel tank, or whatever, which spilling into or onto Building Seven, could have caused the collapse which all of us have watched ad infinitum. Secondly, the collapse is perfect. If this was not a controlled demolition (and the statements of whatshisname, Silverman or Silverberg, the real estate guy, sound like lies and CYA after the fact), then it was the most perfect natural collapse of a building in recorded history, to say nothing of the most perfect collapse of a STEEL-FRAMED building in history. And if lies are being told in one area of the Official Version, then we can not be sure that lies are not being told in other areas. Building Seven is the greatest single reason I do not accept the Official 9/11 Commission Report.
 
Category 5: What hit the Pentagon? The lack of any recovered baggage makes me think that it can not have been a plane full of passengers that hit it. The business about no wing impact areas also gives me pause. But to fully subscribe to something else hitting the building I would then have to subscribe to a MIHOP scenario, and I am not prepared to do it, even though my heart says Cheney and Rumsfeld are cold-blooded mass murderers walking free.
 
Category 6: I wasn't in Shanksville. Surely there were local witnesses who arrived on he scene before the authorities had it all secured, away from people's eyes. A plane did hit the ground, apparently. I don't know where the death certificates for all those people are, but if they're listed as dead, then only a grand conspiracy-- MIHOP again, involving mass kidnappings and detention for life of all the passengers-- perhaps a planned detail, perhaps merely a tactical loose end MIHOPers realized they had to tie up-- could account for their actually being alive. There was baggage in the debris plume from this plane, was there not?
 
Category 7: subc. a seems most likely for the Twin Tower and Shanksville crashes. You'd have to ask the survivors of all the dead in those crashes whether they ever received any remains. Even in the case of the NYC crashes, in which there were large fireballs, one might expect a smattering of not easily combustible but potentially identifiable objects-- diamond rings and the like-- to survive the impact, fire and collapse. But even if not, in Shanksville there was no huge fireball in a partially enclosed area, nor did the remains of the plane then fall another 90 stories to the ground, with 20 stories of building on top of them. Surely there is enough evidence extant from Shanksville to prove that there was a planefull of passengers on that plane, certain of whom called people on the ground to say what was happening, and that they were determined to stop the terrorists. If the famous "let's roll!" call was a fake, then the whole OV may be so. Are the Pentagon-plane passengers all accounted for? If not, theoretically, they could be being detained-- again and again, part of a MIHOP scenario.
 
I'm not aware that there is a movement. I think most people of sense and good will know that even if all of the Official Version was one Big Lie, the perpetrators have gotten away with it, with world-shaking military, diplomatic, social and security implications, save for a confession from SOMEONE of their participation in one or more aspects of MIHOP or LIHOP. So far no one has had the courage to step up and be such a tainted but undeniable hero.  
 
William P. (Bill) Homans,
Professionally known as Watermelon Slim
Clarksdale, Mississippi
 
 
 
 
(1) 9/11 was

(a) a terrorist act 

(i) involving 19 Islamic fundamentalists

(ii) directed by Osama bin Landen from his cave

(b) an inside job where

(i) the administration "let it happen"

(ii) the administration "made it happen"


(2) The videos are

(a) authentic
 
(b) faked

(i) flying what'sits at the North Tower

(ii) CGIs, compositing, or holograms at the South


(3) The "collapse" of the Twin Towers

(i) actually happened as the official account claims

(ii) represented a demolition under control

(a) using thermite and conventional explosives

(b) using unconventional methods, such as mini-nukes or some kind of directed-energy devices


(4) The collapse of Building 7

(a) was collateral damage from the destruction of the Twin Towers

(b) was arranged and brought down by a classic controlled demolition


(5) The Pentagon attack

(a) really took place with a Boeing 757 hitting the building

(b) involved a fly-over by a Boeing 757 which did not hit the building

(c) involved a second, smaller plane that may have fired a missile into the building


(6) The Shanksville crash

(a) occurred just as the government has claimed (into a mining shaft or whatever)

(b) did not occur at all and is just as phony as the rest of the official story


(7) What happened to the passengers?

(a) they were killed in the plane crashes

(b) they were kidnapped and are in undisclosed secret locations

(c) they were mostly fabricated, just as fake as the rest of the official account


Please us this as an outline in submitting your comments in the "Open Discussion" forum and, as others show up, take some time to think about what others have said and why you agree or disagree about their views on these crucial issues.  If you feel inclined, add a paragraph about where the movement should go from here.

Views: 101

Attachments:

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

"Category 3: if planes did hit the two towers, then it is plausible that the damaged buildings could have collapsed in the pancake method."

you need to read other posts here at 911.ning like Chuck Boldwyn's. He absolutely demolishes the latest attempt at a pancake collapse like Dave Thomas, from a physics point of view. Laws of physics do not get suspended just cause it's 911. Pancake collapse simply did not happen, that hypothesis has NULL (zero) probability of explaining the evidence. There is nothing "plausible" about it.

"And if lies are being told in one area of the Official Version, then we can not be sure that lies are not being told in other areas. Building Seven is the greatest single reason I do not accept the Official 9/11 Commission Report."

Exactly. Please hang around and read the posters here, you'll quickly come over to the truthers side if you are open minded like this, and keep learning. Well done.
Well, as I said, I am not aware that there is a "movement". I've been in movements. I was in the anti-Vietnam War movement after serving there (I will be elected one of the National Coordinators of Vietnam Veterans Against the War-- VVAW-- October 30, and we shall get a lot louder about the current conflicts).. I was one of those arrested at Seabrook in 1977 (Sun City Sitters Affinity Group), in the No-nukes movement.

I don't "do" science. On DebateBothSides.com, a discussion forum now closed with which you might be familiar, one of the moderators invited a slew of "debunkers" from a forum nominally overseen by James Randi, who blasted the DBS forum with a bunch of science, presumably to silence the "truthers", or "twoofers" that were regular posters at DBS. I did not take part in that discussion, because just as with photographic technology, you might as well be talking Chinese to me when you start in with physics, thermodynamics and the other scientific fields, the study of at least some of which must be required for anyone to render a substantive opinion about why, for instance, the Twin Towers toppled so straight, but it wasn't an alleged controlled demolition (Building Seven, as I said, is easier. Nothing heavier than conceivably a fuel tank hit it).

I AM on the "truther" side already. If one cannot believe the OV, one can either believe alternative explanations are possible, or shut one's mouth entirely and forever. I've almost done that. Thoth, I once possessed an unedited copy of the 8 mm Zapruder film, and I am quite sure from having watched an edited copy and my unedited copy that more than one shooter killed JFK. Oswald, in my opinion, was shooting, and scored a hit, probably his second shot. But he didn't blow the top of Kennedy's head off.

However, that is now 47 years ago. Most of the witnesses, primary and secondary, are dead, a disproportionate number under suspicious circumstances. I am no more confident that a smoking gun-- i.e., a credible confession of participation in some aspect of the events by some belated conscience-stricken conspirator-- will appear in the 9/11/01 case than I am that such a person will appear with, say, the missing forensic evidence in the JFK case. The Kennedy family already made a crucial withdrawal of evidence in this case, and unless someone can convince, say, Caroline, JFK's only survivor, to lift that withdrawal, no one is going to be able to cut throught the veil of CIA "plausible deniability." And of course, the Mafiosi allegedly involved in the plot-- Giancana, DeCavalcante, Trafficante, Marcello-- are all long dead. The probable shooters-- Watergate wheels Hunt and Sturgis, maybe Bernard Barker, all of them transplanted Cubans, and all CIA operatives simultaneously-- are all long dead.

For there to be a movement, there has to be a goal, and it has to be at least conceivably an achievable one. I am not convinced that "truth" about 9/11/01 is discernible, not without a helluva lot more money than anyone is likely to pony up. I don't number myself among those who may be afraid that if they go digging, somebody's going to drive by and whack them. I'm old, and when I dig into a sensitive case, I'm armed. However, I am pessimistic that mere grassroots citizen unrest is going to prompt or force those with murderous secrets to divulge them.

Good luck!

Thoth II said:
"Category 3: if planes did hit the two towers, then it is plausible that the damaged buildings could have collapsed in the pancake method."

you need to read other posts here at 911.ning like Chuck Boldwyn's. He absolutely demolishes the latest attempt at a pancake collapse like Dave Thomas, from a physics point of view. Laws of physics do not get suspended just cause it's 911. Pancake collapse simply did not happen, that hypothesis has NULL (zero) probability of explaining the evidence. There is nothing "plausible" about it.

"And if lies are being told in one area of the Official Version, then we can not be sure that lies are not being told in other areas. Building Seven is the greatest single reason I do not accept the Official 9/11 Commission Report."

Exactly. Please hang around and read the posters here, you'll quickly come over to the truthers side if you are open minded like this, and keep learning. Well done.
"For there to be a movement, there has to be a goal, and it has to be at least conceivably an achievable one. I am not convinced that "truth" about 9/11/01 is discernible, not without a helluva lot more money than anyone is likely to pony up. I don't number myself among those who may be afraid that if they go digging, somebody's going to drive by and whack them. I'm old, and when I dig into a sensitive case, I'm armed. However, I am pessimistic that mere grassroots citizen unrest is going to prompt or force those with murderous secrets to divulge them."

My guess is I'm probably within 10 years of your age, and my eyes too are growing weary after living through 50 years of the JFK lies. I remember Jesse Ventura relating a sick joke that Allan Dulles meets JFK in heaven and says "but we only just killed you , Mr. President". Jesse's point is similar to yours, "life just went on", and just a president was removed but nothing else changed, the power brokers won and Vietnam happened. I guess 911 truthers are just hoping that by educating a critical mass of people in the truth, they will get so ticked off that the elites won't be able to stop reforms. We can hope anyway.


I
hello, Mr. Homans,
thank you for your response, it was really interesting to hear what you
have to say....as it would be to hear what EVERYone has to say.
when i saw you were opposed to the Vietnam war you had my vote, i'm
now 54 and was a teen/pre-teen during that horror, when i first realized i
was anti-war. what a waste. of blood, energy, people, etc.

this is what i (we) want/need more of, is peoples' opinions and thoughts.
and of course we will never agree on everything, and that shouldn't be the
goal, but sharing info and opinions is of great value, i think.
glad to have you aboard, and to have reminded you that you joined
this group, as i'm sure a bunch of others have lost track of also.
as for the 9/11 truth movement, yes, it is here.....we may seem like
the who's down in Whoville i think it was, saying "we are here! we are here!"
and of course the mainstream media will never acknowledge us or give us
any air time, since they were and are part of all the horror, but yes, we are
here, and it seems you are one of us!
(the media was greatly involved in pulling off 9/11, so of course they
will bend over backwards to avoid even our existance)..

this is what i, for one, want to know. what people think. and why they
think it. and everyone will have their own opinion about every part of it, and
that is to be expected.
but we need to keep the talks going and current, so whatever your point
of view is, we are interested in hearing it.
i have a couple of more comments to make about things you said, don't
have the time now, but thanks for your input and i hope you will stick with us,
good to have you check in, don't be a stranger, peace out. sandy
In response to Sandy Rose's poll:
1) For 9/11 to have been pulled off the way it was, with absolutely no interference from our multi-trillion dollar defense dept
is a little impossible to believe. The administration must have had at least some culpability in the crime of 9/11. Mr
Cheney, I believe, was in the control loop in the basement of the White House. There was a full radar-equipped command
center at his disposal to assure things went as planned. All Bush had to do all day was act stupid ..... not too difficult.
2) I believe the videos of the planes hitting the buildings were very sloppy fakes. The second plane accidentally going all the
way through the South tower without any resistance is a dead giveaway. One video fake makes one automatically think
there might be more. Of course computers nowadays can easily insert or delete any object one desires. While I think
the hologram idea could explain a few witness testimonies of actual planes, I personally think there must be another
explanation. The Naudet film of the first hit appears to be a hoax. Aluminum planes can't just dissolve into massive
steel buildings ..... therefore, definitely fake videos were used in the plot to cover for explosive demolition.
3) Since non-ignited nano-thermite chips were found in most dust samples, I would say it was used at least to cut some
of the connecting plates on the core columns. Many of the beams in the rubble have factory ends still on them. I think
the 30ft column pieces were connected with plates that were bolted together and welded . The instant "dustification" of much of the steel and the weird spire dissolving into dust makes me think nuclear-demolition charges were placed under the towers somewhere along the way. To obtain a building permit before construction required some credible plan
for their demolition. Since the nuke zero-boxes would have been somewhere over 100ft deep, drilling holes after construction seems hard to imagine. Somewhere in the original building permit should be plans for dismantling them,
required by law I believe. For information on nuclear-demolition, read Dimitri Khalezov's description of how it's all done.
4) Building 7 looks about as classic as it gets. Molten steel several months after 9/11 suggests possibly another
nuke, or thermite which burns underwater by providing its own oxygen.
5) It looks like the Pentagon attack was a flyover which did not hit the building. The perfect hole in the inner ring and no
debris on the lawn suggests one of the Pentagon's own cruise missiles finding its way back home. It's rather odd it hit the part of the building being renovated and housing the accountants and records of a 2.3 trillion dollar loss of funds, mentioned by Rumsfeld one day before the attack ..... strange coincidence.
6) The Shanksville trash-pit caper is another joke pulled on the public probably for distraction purposes.
7) I believe the passengers were mostly fabricated, as was the rest of the events of 9/11.
8) For links to my sources: any browser ...... birdrop ....... thanks for everyone's interest in finding the truth of 9/11.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2021   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service