<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16643" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT><BR> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT><BR><FONT size=2><FONT color=#000000
size=2><STRONG>STARTLING 9/11 REALIZATIONS</STRONG></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><STRONG>A plane melts into a building instead of crashing; the
surprise attacks carefully avoid U.S.military and political leaders; and
vehicles' engine blocks <EM>melt</EM> <EM>from fire</EM> far from the
scene, while their gas tanks are never affected.</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><STRONG></STRONG></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>from Connie Cook Smith</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Thanks to Dan Sutton for getting superb 9/11 Truth speakers in
Peoria!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>- - -</DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>
<DIV><STRONG>Jim Fetzer is a delightful professor with a military, science, and
philosophy background</STRONG>, resulting in a well-rounded and highly
informative presentation. Sometimes his voice passionately
slides up several octaves as he highlights the number of absurdities
present in the official story, several of which will be noted here.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>A new perspective for myself was the simple physics of what happened -- or
what didn't happen -- regarding something the nation has been
shown over and over. Looking at still photos<STRONG> </STRONG>from
the rear view of the second plane diving into the tower, Prof. Fetzer has the
temerity to ask the obvious question that most of us never think
of<STRONG>: </STRONG></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>How is it the airliner is literally absorbed into
the building with no resistance? (There wasn't a fireball until
afterwards.)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>As a knife goes into soft butter, the plane went into the tower.
But we must realize -- that building wasn't butter. It was steel
and concrete. And the plane was aluminum and heavy and going very
fast. Where is the CRASH of a heavy airliner smacking into a steel and
concrete skyscraper? </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>No pieces of anything flew off, no shattered debris went scattering,
no "unstoppable object hitting an unmoveable object" <EM>impact</EM> is
observed. There is only a smooth, physics-defying, almost
dream-like blending of solid matter, as the plane and the building become
one. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Or as I recall seeing elsewhere<STRONG>:</STRONG> South Tower "swallows"
Flight 175 -- and, airliner "disappears into" skyscraper.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I cared nothing for any speculation on this all these years. But
frankly, folks, it is freaking me out now! </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I'm reminded of Nafeez Ahmed's pioneering work soon after 9/11 -- his
book, "The War on Freedom." There he skillfully identified the horrors of
that day as "psy-ops" -- sophisticated and deadly psychological operations --
which are especially well-developed on this planet by U.S. military
and intelligence agencies -- designing events and imagery to
traumatize people into doing whatever they're told to do afterwards.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Certainly for me, the idea and the images of an
airliner-with-passengers crashing into an office-tower-with-people is so
shocking that I, like most other human beings, simply suspend logic, go
into shock, and accept that a mystical blending of huge separate
objects is "just what happens" when a large plane crashes into a
gigantic building. They just merge, apparently. There is no
resistance, apparently -- UNLIKE all other crashes when metal hits
metal -- and concrete. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Related to this is Prof. Fetzer's commentaries elsewhere on the
17-second delay in TV broadcasting. He had noticed, with family listening
to a ballgame on radio because they liked the announcer but placed
it next to the TV to watch the action, the TV action was coming
in significantly behind the radio reality. This delay allows for
deletions or even quick changes in information when
television broadcasters -- or their owners and masters -- feel it
serves their interests. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I myself remember some of the strange black-outs during Election 2000, as
results were apparently changed and even anchor-persons looked
quite startled.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>On September 11th, when the second plane struck on live TV, the nose of the
plane was shown emerging out the other side of the tower, in perfect shape,
having passed through 200 feet of concrete and steel. (If you think about
it, this is an impossibility for an aluminum airplane nose cone.) And then
came the fireball. Suddenly, both CNN and Fox flashed a visible
signal<STRONG>. </STRONG> "Fade to black!" Those words
are prominent on both stations. Black-out the broadcast!
And they did. Were they trying to protect us from the horror?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Well, no. When CNN repeated the footage 6 minutes
later, the fireball was shown (again and again) in all its
death-dealing destruction. But their bottom-of-the-screen banner had been
placed over and blocked the amazing image of the plane
nose coming out through the tower, undamaged. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>It is alarming that both Fox and CNN tried to stop us from seeing
the impossibly un-damaged nose cone in the first place, and that CNN only
re-showed the strike with the
perfect-shaped-plane-nose completely blocked. They obviously did
not want us to see something that could not be. Which implies that at
least SOME aspects of Flight 175 had to be video fakery, and the fakery had
a boo-boo that then had to be covered up.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>And on You Tube's September Clues Video 4, an eyewitness to the
<EM>first</EM> <EM>tower strike</EM> -- and he worked for Fox, even!
-- stated: "It definitely did not look like a commercial plane, I didn't
see any windows on the side."</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Many more details on these disturbing facts are at the links at
bottom.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>Also discussed</STRONG> was "the missile that hit the
Pentagon" -- that is what Donald Rumsfeld called it -- and how that
strike went out of its way to avoid hitting our military leaders on
the other side of the complex. Awfully nice terrorists that day, to murder
only civilians and allow all of our leaders to remain perfectly safe --
including Bush at the school in Florida. The Secret Service didn't even
bother to hustle him to safety, even though it had been made clear, "America is
under attack." How did they know the President of the United
States absolutely was not a target?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Back to the Pentagon. As Prof. Fetzer points out, who and what
WAS hit there were the auditors and accountants tracking
down the missing $2.3 trillion dollars announced by Rumsfeld the
previous day. They and all their records were at the point of impact at
the Pentagon, and were destroyed. Just as SEC files on
Enron and other criminal records were destroyed in New York
-- when the building known as WTC 7 collapsed for no reason later in the
day.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Regarding WTC 7, building-owner Larry Silverstein is on
record saying that, with a few small fires in it, he decided to "pull
it," which means deliberately collapse it. He said this in apparent
forgetfulness that a lot of people know in order to do that,
demolition charges had to be placed there days or even weeks in
advance. And indeed, that must have happened, for the building went
down perfectly like the old casinos in Las Vegas. So -- how long had
this been planned? Silverstein bought "terrorism insurance" for the World
Trade Center complex 6 weeks before September 11th. The 9/11 Commission
Report refuses to even mention the destruction of WTC 7 -- because
it broaches the subject of the towers being rigged to fall as well.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>And by now, everyone who cares <EM>knows</EM> that low-temp
airliner-fuel-fires, which the firemen had said were already pretty much knocked
down anyway, could never bring down even a small steel-core building. As
has been pointed out, "In 1975, fires burned 6 floors of WTC1 for <U>180
minutes</U> (lower-down floors, 9-14), with <U>no</U> sprinklers." Nothing
collapsed. Nothing even sagged. "In 2001, fires burned 5-6 floors of
WTC1 for less time, <U>102 minutes</U> (upper floors, 94-98), <U>with</U>
sprinklers." But somehow, with much less fire in a shorter
time in 2001, everything including people suddenly turned to dust
-- except for papers. They didn't even burn.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>This brings us to what I think could be THE BIGGEST SMOKING GUN OF
9/11 TRUTH.</STRONG> Prof. Fetzer showed a few slides from a collection of
shocking photos that I myself have been boggled by for the last several
years. Prof. Judy Wood calls them Toasted Cars.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>They are pictures from September 11th that the media never
showed you<STRONG>: </STRONG> The incomprehensible disintegration
of the towers <U>suddenly caused 1400 emergency vehicles and cars and
trucks -- some as far as half a mile away -- to ignite in extremely strange
fires</U>. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Burning engine blocks <EM>melted</EM> the fronts of cars, while the rear
ends (with oh-so-flammable gas tanks) remained shiny new.
Interiors were incinerated, while parts of exteriors were unaffected by
flames. Front grills popped out, windows blew from the inside, many
tires turned to puddles of goo, yet other parts of the same
vehicles remained pristine. Even when a few vehicles were fully
engulfed in flames, none of the surrounding paper debris had
caught fire.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Why would the towers' collapse ignite fires in so many vehicles
-- but not in nearby buildings, etc. -- and why as far
as half a mile away? And why were the fires so highly selective in
what and how they burned, seemingly "going for" relatively ungrounded
vehicle electrical systems and "ignoring" the gas tanks -- and paper?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I'm thinking even a few teams of Junior High science project
students -- Teachers, are you listening? -- could demonstrate that this
phenomenon means that some uncommon energy source was at work. It seems
likely that whatever pulverized the towers to microns of dust -- in
itself an unprecedented happening in history -- also set off fires
peculiar to the electrical systems of vehicles. What is it? Where
did it come from? Who did that?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Oh, right -- Osama bin Laden in a cave, I forgot. Even the FBI makes
it clear there is no evidence bin Laden was connected to 9/11. In a
Pakistani newspaper not long after, bin Laden himself explained he
didn't do it, and who probably did. (You'd think he'd want to take credit
for it). </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Only weird videos purporting to be him -- talk about fakery! -- later
claimed responsibility. No messy Lee Harvey Oswald situation this time --
where the public heard the "communist guy" <EM>deny the triumph</EM>
of bringing down the leader of the free world -- then had to be shot to
shut him up. The Bin Laden patsy was allowed to just disappear, and
his denials never made the American press.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Below is the link to the numerous photos of Toasted Cars. I defy
anyone to look at them and not understand that a new and terrible force,
advanced weaponry, was perpetrated on the people of New York. And then to
figure out that this was done in order to frame Muslims for the
purpose of invading the Middle East. It was even done to make sure
the criminally-connected owner of the obsolete and asbestos-laden towers didn't
have to pay for impossibly expensive demolition -- while even getting paid
himself, via his timely "terrorist insurance." </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Well, I hope at least some car buffs are motivated to dig
into "what the hell happened to all those cars???!" (And to
some drivers, no doubt!) Better yet -- this needs to be pounced
on by numerous reputable scientists from all over the world, who aren't paid off
or coerced by global political and military agendas.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Please forward this and let your friends and family know some of the things
that really happened on 9/11. </DIV>
<DIV>- - -</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV></FONT></FONT><FONT size=2>To get your take on the plane coming
out THROUGH the building and then CNN covering it up, go to minute 4:20 on
the below link, and continue on out for about 5 minutes</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> </FONT><FONT size=2><A
href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ga89OCTf0jE">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ga89OCTf0jE</A></FONT></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Here you can read Prof. Fetzer's comments on what seems to be
faked that day and how</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><A
href="http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_james_fe_070726_mounting_evidience_o.htm">http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_james_fe_070726_mounting_evidience_o.htm</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>THIS COULD BE THE SMOKING GUN OF 9/11. Whatever turned
the towers (and people) to micro-particles of dust also melted vehicles in ways
that have never been seen before. Scroll on down past the Diane
Sawyer interview and look at those photos!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><A
href="http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam5.html#toasted">http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam5.html#toasted</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Besides Fetzer's own website, linked to Steven Jones --
</FONT><A href=""><FONT size=2>http://st911.org/</FONT></A><FONT
size=2> -- he highly recommends Alan Miller's Patriots
Question 9/11, a thorough compendium of professionals and experts in aviation,
academia, engineering, military, law enforcement and more who have good
reasons to believe the government's account of 9/11 is not true.
</FONT><A href=""><FONT
size=2>http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/</FONT></A><FONT size=2>
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>As always, if links aren't <EM>live</EM>, please copy and
paste into your browser.</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>