Was 911 an inside job?

[inhisdebt]

And those who understand among the people shall teach many; yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by exile, and spoil, for days.
(Dan 11:33)

Under Fire! U.S. Army Intelligence Analyst Targeted For Suggesting New Independent 9/11 Investigation
The Lone Star Iconoclast, Monday, August 21, 2006

http://www.lonestaricon.com/absolutenm/articlefiles/426-buswell-use.jpg

Army: Doubting Official 9/11 Story Is ‘Disloyal To The United States’

FT. SAM HOUSTON, Texas — Forty-one-year-old Sergeant First Class Donald Buswell is a hero. Having served over 19 years in the United States Army, Buswell has seen a lot of terrain. On April 15, 2004, he was injured in a rocket attack while serving a tour in Iraq. For this, SFC Buswell was given a Purple Heart. And until recently, Buswell was an Intelligence Analyst stationed at Ft. Sam Houston, Texas.

But if one were to ask Buswell’s Commanding Officer what he thinks of the Sergeant, the response would likely sound a little bit more like, "No comment."

Such were the words given to The Iconoclast by Lieutenant Colonel Jane Crichton after inquiring why SFC Buswell is the focus of an investigation initiated by Colonel Luke S. Green, Chief of Staff at Fifth Army in Ft. Sam Houston.

According to unnamed military sources contacted by The Iconoclast, SFC Buswell "used his Government issued email account to send messages disloyal to the United States …" Because of these statements, SFC Buswell could soon find himself dishonorably discharged, court marshaled, or worse.

It all started as a simple response to a common, unsolicited mass email, sent to 38 individuals at Ft. Sam Houston on Aug. 2, 2006. The message, as well as Buswell’s response, is among documents obtained by The Iconoclast. The sender of the first message is identified as "Anderson, Larry Mr JMC". It reads:

Quote:This is being sent more as assurance for what happens when a plane hits a nuclear site more so than in response to that German website alleging a government conspiracy related to the 9/11 Pentagon plane crash (though the website does present an interesting perspective) – LarrySubject: F-4 vs. Concrete Wall

Take a look at this clip [not included] and you’ll get a good feel for what happens to an airplane when it hits a concrete wall. Many of you have seen the produced (but not factual), Michael Moore-esque website that asks the question; "If it’s true that a Boeing airliner hit the Pentagon, what happened to all the parts of it? Why do we not find more pieces of it?

Where did all that mass GO???" (Therefore, the paranoid loony liberal reasoning, 9-11 must have been a US gov’t conspiracy!) Well, for those who question what happened to "all the mass of that airplane".......watch this clip.

It’s the old Air Force engineering tests of the concrete barrier that surrounds nuclear reactor domes —tests to see if it will indeed survive an aerial attack. With the hi-speed cameras rolling, they accelerated an F-4 Phantom to 500mph and.........

Recall: "What happens when an ‘Unstoppable Force’ meets an ‘Immovable Object’???" (Remember, as you watch in slow motion as the F-4 turns to vapor, the Phantom was one of the toughest airplanes ever built).

SFC Buswell responded later that day, saying:

Quote:Subject: F-4 vs. Concrete Wall Hello,

I receive many unsolicited e-mails daily, this one I chose to respond to. The below mentioned premise that an F4 Phantom fighter jet hitting that hardened concrete barrier is akin to the alleged 757 hitting the Pentagon is like oil and water; they don’t mix, and they serve to muddy the issue. The issue is 911 was filled with errors in the ‘official report’ and ‘official story’ of that day, and, what happened that day. We all know and saw 2 planes hitting the WTC buildings, we didn’t see the 757 hit the Pentagon, nor did we see the plane crash in Shanksville PA. Both the PA and Pentagon ‘crashes’ don’t have clues and tell-tale signs of a jumbo-jet impacting those zones!

The Pentagon would have huge wing impacts in the side of the building; it didn’t. Shanksville PA would have had debris, and a large debris field; it didn’t.

Getting back to the F4...The Pentagon isn’t a nuclear hardened structure, so I can’t follow your weak logic that since an F4 vaporized itself in a test impact on a nuclear hardened structure that the alleged 757 hitting the Pentagon should have exhibited the same characteristics!

I say Occums razor is the best way to deduce this ‘day of infamy’; if you weigh all options, do some simple studying you will see 911 was clearly not executed by some arabs in caves with cell phones and 3 day old newspapers! I mean how are Arabs benefiting from pulling off 911? They have more war, more death and dismal conditions, so, how did 911 benefit them? Answer: It didn’t. So, who benefited from 9-11? The answer is sad, but simple; The Military Industial [sic] Complex.

It’s not a paranoid conspiracy to think there are conspiracies out there...and, it’s not Liberal Lunacy either, nor is it Conservative Kookiness! People, fellow citizens we’ve been had! We must demand a new independent investigation into 911 and look at all options of that day, and all plausabilities [sic], even the most incredulous theories must be examined.

Upon returning to his office the next day, Buswell discovered the locks had been changed, his security clearance was revoked, and an investigation had been launched. Buswell’s commanding officer, Colonel Luke Green, drafted a letter assigning Major Edwin Escobar to the investigation. According to sources, Colonel Green has asserted that SFC Buswell failed to obey Army regulations when he used his government issued email account to send what have been termed as messages disloyal to the United States with the intent of stirring up disloyalty, in a manner that brings discredit upon the United States Army.

It has been reported that Colonel Green also wrote that SFC Buswell claims to have information proving a conspiracy on the part of the United States Military Industrial Complex to attack targets within the United States, e.g., The Pentagon. Officials have suggested that the email response sent by SFC Buswell may be in violation of CFR 2635.705(a ), DoD-R 5500.7, and Joint Ethics Regulation paragraph 2-301b. These rules SFC Buswell is said to have perhaps violated regulate how soldiers utilize government resources, how they use their off-duty time, and how they use their official time.

The Iconoclast attempted to establish a dialogue with Colonel Green and Major Escobar, but calls were not returned as of press time. SFC Buswell declined to comment on the investigation, but noted that he spoke with his parents about the matter for a period of two days before he was ordered to not disclose any further information.

"My son spoke with me about [the investigation]," said Winthrop Buswell, SFC Buswell’s father. "There was an unsolicited email. My son, without divulging anything, without usurping anything, without doing anything to discredit anyone in any way, simply responded to that saying ‘Yes, there are what if’s. And maybe there is something that is being covered up.’ That’s all that I know. He responded to it, but it was unsolicited. I think – of course, I’m dad, being very much in love with his son and wanting to praise him – because he is a low man on the totem pole, of course he’s of pretty high rank but not quite an officer, that maybe … Maybe an investigation might be the scapegoat for whomever."

"That is so ridiculous," said Winthrop Buswell. "[To say he is disloyal to the United States] is totally ridiculous. And the discourtesy was, ah, very apparent at that particular time. … I’ve always thought the American way is this: to disagree is important. To dissent is important. And my son simply said, without any fanfare, ‘Look, let’s take a look at the whole picture. If you want to take a look at that, maybe there are a few paragraphs that a Michael Moore might want to emphasize.’ That is all that my son has said. Never, however, to at all disparage the country and the patriotism that is so necessary for all of us. But, patriotism, as suggested by FOX News’ [Bill O’Reilly], is following the line of George W. Bush and cohorts completely! All my son is saying is, ‘Hey, maybe there’s a what if.’ Never, though, did he get sidetracked from the fact that [he loves his] country."

"What disturbed him more than anything else, I think, was the fact that the Iraqi citizens suffered so much and are suffering so much now," said Winthrop Buswell. "The time that he was injured, there were several Iraqis burning to death in front of him. He tried to put out the fire. It was a traumatic experience for him. … He spoke about that a number of times, and how terrible that was to see the citizenry being killed and suffering so much."

"One of his heroes is Abraham Lincoln," Winthrop Buswell continued. "And Abraham Lincoln said many things, but one of the things he said - and I’m paraphrasing - was, ‘I may disagree with the fellow who’s speaking, but I will stand and defend his right to speak.’ That’s my son’s position. He does look at the what if’s. But that doesn’t take away from his dedication and his patriotism. I don’t know a fellow who gets more chills running up and down his spine when he sees the flag flying."

"As a boy, [Donald was] always a very curious fellow," he added. "Very daring, but never risking anything or stepping over the line. He loved motorcycles, but was always very cautious about it, always wearing proper clothing, always wearing a helmet. Also, he was very active in little model racing cars. He was in Cub Scouts. I remember walking to the gymnasium with him and having wonderful conversations with him years ago. His mother and I went through a divorce, and that is never easy for anyone. My son was also very close to his grandfather on his mother’s side, and also his grandfather and grandmother on my side. Donald loves railroading, and my father has the best job that anyone could ever have. He’s a locomotive engineer, and my son related to that. My son also has a strong belief in a power greater than ourselves."

"But one of the things that stands out … is his love and his caring," said Winthrop, choking back tears. "He loves children. He’s just the greatest guy, as far as I am concerned. He walks into a room with a big smile on his face. … He’s like my dad – he makes you feel like, you know … I … I care for you. Ah, he’s … He’s my son …"

The Iconoclast will continue reporting on this story as new details become available.

Dan 9v31 is in referance to the destruction of the jews in 70 AD.after the AoD When you join the military you submit all your rights, and an inteligence anilist requires a security clearance, the revoking of wich would be a normal response to such crasy ideas, only unstable peaple buy into this nonsence and we dont give security clearances to unstable peaple, well not normally anyway. Mr buswell was well aware of the risk he was taking.

 

[gwynedd1]

Yes, we all know money makes things happen in this world but support GW Bush at that time would have been like a fart in the car, it would not have been well recieved, particularly in something illegal, your suppositions simply lack merit, evidence and reason.

What does this mean? You don't say anything here?. Just type this:
ofdjoiivnnvijfnfnvnjnnn vm&$^$$$#T

Same result.

I point out that 3 buildings FAILED in their designs and that is poor reasoning? People died in a fire because of stair well locks in Chicago and that was a big deal. This is either an inside job OR a sky scraper scandal. So what are you talking about telling me about reasoning?

 

[Driver]

Army: Doubting Official 9/11 Story Is ‘Disloyal To The United States’

Sergeant Buswell is not alone, according to Colonel Donn de Grand-Pre, who (back in 2004) estimated it was 70% of the military, during an interview with Alex Jones:

AJ: We are talking to Col. Donn de Grand-Pre and he worked in many of the levels of the U.S. military and has put out some really important information. Two years ago, he put out a report in a meeting in a 72-hour deliberation, a group of military and civilian U.S. pilots under the chairmanship of Col. Donn de Grand-Pre. After deliberating non-stop for 72-hours has concluded that the flight crews of the four passenger airliners involved in the September 11th tragedy had no control over the aircraft. And they get into how the military industrial complex clearly, that is elements of it, were in control of this. Colonel, we are going to go to some calls here in a minutes after you cover some other issues with us. But, understand this, my question of what percentage of the officers, period, in the military do you think have finally woken up to the true magnitude of what's going on?

DGP: Well, I'm in personal contact at least on a weekly basis with the Joint Chiefs and other select people. My computation is that 70% of us are with us. That's the higher ranking military, field grade officers, etc. and even the first three grades of the enlisted ' 70% are with us.

AJ: Well, they've had questionnaires, you know, a decade ago, will you fire on U.S. citizens under UN control if the president says so ' and, you know, 74% say no to that. Okay, then how are the globalists getting away with this?

DGP: Sheer [Garbled] bluff and we can thank many of the neocons who are now in power in the Defense Dept. particularly. They get away with it because they try it out and see if anybody will salute the flag and that's the way it goes.

AJ: So basically, they wrap their un-American agenda in a flag and the general public buys it so the military has to sit there and take it.

DGP: They do, yes, and I think those days are coming to an end. The military ain't going to take it any longer.

​

http://www.prisonplanet.com/022904degrand.html




​

 

[inhisdebt]

What does this mean? You don't say anything here?. Just type this:
ofdjoiivnnvijfnfnvnjnnn vm&$^$$$#T

Same result.

I point out that 3 buildings FAILED in their designs and that is poor reasoning? People died in a fire because of stair well locks in Chicago and that was a big deal. This is either an inside job OR a sky scraper scandal. So what are you talking about telling me about reasoning?

You ignored my previose statements, buildings falling to meet an engineers expectations is not unusual remember the big dig, it happens all the time, what do you think, there going to do take it back down because it doesnt meet some hypethetical scenario, or could they even test it to prove wether it would work or not, in the end the buildings durability under differant scenarios is dependant on the engeneers design, and the builders putting the building together to appropriate specifications and with proper materials, both of wich typically are not meet as the cost of production rises corners get cut. Quality is the first victim of soaring budget costs. In the end the liklyhood that the buildings were not actually up to the original design expectations is greater than not. And no engineer in the world is going to admit it. And no one could be held accountable for the buildings failing under those circumstances, so scandal is not happening. You seem to forget the person responsable for flying the airplaines into the buildings is the person responsible for the building falling down. Not some engineer with poor calculations or a builing contractor on a budget

 

[gwynedd1]

You ignored my previose statements, buildings falling to meet an engineers expectations is not unusual remember the big dig, it happens all the time, what do you think, there going to do take it back down because it doesnt meet some hypethetical scenario, or could they even test it to prove wether it would work or not, in the end the buildings durability under differant scenarios is dependant on the engeneers design, and the builders putting the building together to appropriate specifications and with proper materials, both of wich typically are not meet as the cost of production rises corners get cut. Quality is the first victim of soaring budget costs. In the end the liklyhood that the buildings were not actually up to the original design expectations is greater than not. And no engineer in the world is going to admit it. And no one could be held accountable for the buildings failing under those circumstances, so scandal is not happening. You seem to forget the person responsable for flying the airplaines into the buildings is the person responsible for the building falling down. Not some engineer with poor calculations or a builing contractor on a budget

and you ignore building 7 again budump bum

 

[Driver]

September 11th Revisited

0:47 "It looks like one of those scenes of an old building being, you know, purposely dynamited and blown up"-Dan Rather

 

[NumberOneSon]

I do not know which part about designed for an impact from a commercial jet you do not understand. It will include fuel, impact , fires and gravity. It was either a flawed design where the engineering did not meet its goal or something else brought them down. END OF STORY.

Here’s your answer:

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_707_impact.html

<snip>

“To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.”
http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument

“Potentially challenging other statements by Port Authority engineers, Dr. Sunder said it was now uncertain whether the authority fully considered the fuel and its effects when it studied the towers' safety during the design phase.”

"Whether the fuel was taken into account or not is an open question," Dr. Sunder said”
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/03/nyregion/03TOWE.html?ei=5007&en=a2c62eb2b42cf30c&ex=1385874000&adxnnl=1
And of course this matters, because the towers did withstand the impact: it’s claimed that the combination of that damage and the resulting fires is what brought them down.

What is clear from Robertson, at least, is that he believes the "robustness of the towers was exemplary", and that "the fact that the structures stood long enough for tens of thousands to escape is a tribute to the many talented men and women who spent endless hours toiling over the design and construction of the project". That is, he appears to be saying the towers performed better than expected, not worse.”
In Christ,

Acts6:5

 

[Driver]

Debunking 911myths.com

http://911physics.atspace.com/Pages/Debunking911Myths.htm

 

[NumberOneSon]

Debunking 911myths.com

http://911physics.atspace.com/Pages/Debunking911Myths.htm

That's a pretty lame attempt to "debunk". He pastes large portions from the Myth site, but most of his "refutations" consists of a couple sentences, at most a small paragraph or two per quote. Nice try attempting to discredit the site though.

In Christ,

Acts6:5

 

[icedtea]

I think we should just quit speculating on this and go on with Jesus.

 

[NumberOneSon]

I think we should just quit speculating on this and go on with Jesus.

I would love for that to happen.

In Christ,

Acts6:5

 

[gwynedd1]

That's a pretty lame attempt to "debunk". He pastes large portions from the Myth site, but most of his "refutations" consists of a couple sentences, at most a small paragraph or two per quote. Nice try attempting to discredit the site though.

In Christ,

Acts6:5

And the shrinking engines?

http://www.erichufschmid.net/ForBollynsSpeech23Oct2004.wmv

 

[NumberOneSon]

And the shrinking engines?

http://www.erichufschmid.net/ForBollynsSpeech23Oct2004.wmv

That's an easy one. If you read the following link it will clearly show you that the "shrinking" engine piece is in fact from a 757. My friend, you are being mislead: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

In Christ,

Acts6:5

 

[Driver]

That's an easy one. If you read the following link it will clearly show you that the "shrinking" engine piece is in fact from a 757. My friend, you are being mislead: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

In Christ,

Acts6:5

The part could be from the Auxillary Power Unit used in a Boeing 757 with a Rolls Royce RB211 engine. The mystery of what hit the Pentagon could be easily cleared up if they were to release more video footage. Many believe that the "plane/no plane" contoversy is part of a campaign of "disinformation" that Rumsfeld started (Rumsfeld had said in an October 2001 interview with Parade magazine that a "missile" had hit the Pentagon). Such hoaxes are seen as "brilliant tactics to discredit the real evidence":

see http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon-truth.html

http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/index.html

That's a pretty lame attempt to "debunk". He pastes large portions from the Myth site, but most of his "refutations" consists of a couple sentences, at most a small paragraph or two per quote. Nice try attempting to discredit the site though.

Any web site that offers an honest challenge is welcome by those that are trying to get to the truth. Do you think the "Myths" guy will join "Scholars for 911 Truth"? That refutation of "Myths" comes from a student member of that group, and I'm sure it's just a work-in-progress.

I believe it's great that some of the claims of Loose Change are being critically reviewed within the community, such as:

Sifting Through Loose Change

 

[inhisdebt]

and you ignore building 7 again budump bum

Again your ignoring my answers, Then again ignoring the obviose seems to be typical of those who hold to these conspiracy theories. building 7 was heavily damaged from the fall of other buildings that damage can be seen on films Though most of the films dwell on the three sides not damaged. Pull it would be instructions to pull the firemen out of the building, not pull the building down. Given the losses the firemen sustained that day its unlikely they felt they could defeat the fire why take additional risks.

 

[gwynedd1]

That's an easy one. If you read the following link it will clearly show you that the "shrinking" engine piece is in fact from a 757. My friend, you are being mislead: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

In Christ,

Acts6:5

OK I will accept that for now.

 

[gwynedd1]

Again your ignoring my answers, Then again ignoring the obviose seems to be typical of those who hold to these conspiracy theories. building 7 was heavily damaged from the fall of other buildings that damage can be seen on films Though most of the films dwell on the three sides not damaged. Pull it would be instructions to pull the firemen out of the building, not pull the building down. Given the losses the firemen sustained that day its unlikely they felt they could defeat the fire why take additional risks.

Not even remotely convinced on building 7 .

 

[gwynedd1]

The part could be from the Auxillary Power Unit used in a Boeing 757 with a Rolls Royce RB211 engine. The mystery of what hit the Pentagon could be easily cleared up if they were to release more video footage. Many believe that the "plane/no plane" contoversy is part of a campaign of "disinformation" that Rumsfeld started (Rumsfeld had said in an October 2001 interview with Parade magazine that a "missile" had hit the Pentagon). Such hoaxes are seen as "brilliant tactics to discredit the real evidence":

see http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon-truth.html

http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/index.html


Any web site that offers an honest challenge is welcome by those that are trying to get to the truth. Do you think the "Myths" guy will join "Scholars for 911 Truth"? That refutation of "Myths" comes from a student member of that group, and I'm sure it's just a work-in-progress.

I believe it's great that some of the claims of Loose Change are being critically reviewed within the community, such as:

Sifting Through Loose Change

Thanks. Sifting is quite good. I got here once I researched the Fed so I am a little behind on 9/11.

 

[capnator]

I think kennedys magic bullet musta brought down Tower 7 as well.

....About as much chance as the official story.

 

[Micahyah]

GOP candidate says 9/11 attacks were a hoax
By ALBERT McKEON, Telegraph Staff
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060824/NEWS01/108240131/-1/business


A Republican candidate for this area’s congressional seat said Wednesday that the U.S. government was complicit in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

In an editorial board interview with The Telegraph on Wednesday, the candidate, Mary Maxwell, said the U.S. government had a role in killing nearly 3,000 people at the World Trade Center and Pentagon, so it could make Americans hate Arabs and allow the military to bomb Muslim nations such as Iraq.

Maxwell, 59, seeks the 2nd District congressional seat. The Concord resident opposes the incumbent, Charles Bass of Peterborough, and Berlin Mayor Bob Danderson in the Republican primary Sept. 12.

Maxwell would not specify if she holds the opinion that the government stood by while terrorists hijacked four domestic airliners and used them as weapons, or if it had a larger role by sanctioning and carrying out the attacks.

But she implicated the government by saying the Sept. 11 attacks were meant “to soften us up . . . to make us more willing to have more stringent laws here, which are totally against the Bill of Rights . . . to make us particularly focus on Arabs and Muslims . . . and those strange persons who spend all their time creating little bombs,” giving Americans a reason “to hate them and fear them and, therefore, bomb them in Iraq for other reasons.”

She said this strategy “would be normal” for governments, citing her belief that the British government – and not the Germany military – sank the Lusitania ocean liner in 1915. The deaths of Americans on the cruise liner helped galvanize U.S. support to enter World War I, and benefited England, she said.

In turn, the Sept. 11 attacks “made the ground fertile” for more stringent laws, such as the Patriot Act, and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, Maxwell said.

Near the end of the interview, Maxwell pounded her fist on the table and asked editors of The Telegraph why they weren’t publishing more stories about the government’s role in the terrorist attacks or proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Maxwell has no political experience. She lived abroad for the past quarter-century with her husband, George, a pediatrician, and only recently returned to the U.S., she said.

In the hour-long interview, Maxwell spoke at length about Constitutional law, U.S. law, nuclear weapons proliferation, and other domestic and foreign policy issues.

Maxwell said the U.S. should withdraw from Iraq. She also questioned whether Congress authorized the war and said its members can’t explain that 2002 vote. (Congress authorized the use of force to defend this country’s security and enforce United Nations resolutions on Iraq.)

“Legally, we shouldn’t have gone to Iraq if Congress can’t explain why,” she said.

Maxwell described herself as a strict Constitutionalist, a candidate who wants to bring the country “back to basics.” The Constitution grants more power to the legislative branch than the other two branches, but Congress has allowed the executive and judicial branches to diminish its influence, she said.

She also said the U.S. shouldn’t immerse itself in the international community by signing trade and security pacts. These agreements have weakened national sovereignty, she said.