Now that the 911 government account is PROVABLY FALSE - Why are the BASTARDS here QUIET ???

[thermate]

911 government account is now PROVABLY FALSE - Why are the BASTARDS
QUIET ?

We know, the mass murder was done by YANK and ZIONIST Bastards
together, and blamed on OBL to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. Now, they
are back to square 1, on China's Back after Hainan, to increase the
currency value. Did anyone see those desperate pictures of Bush in
INDIA, sucking up to Manmohan Singh? Leaning extra six inches in the
photos towards Manmohan to FLATTER the Indian people. Certainly, there
is some BOOT-STRAPPING of Indian Image and economy to scare China after
having exploited their country for decades as a vast SLAVE LABOR camp
and then blaming them for running it !!! Remember, how Bush was unhappy
at the Death of Kalpana Chawala, cherry picked to create the MYTH of
US-India friendship? But the shuttle blew up - a divine act against the
ANTI-CHRIST. Now they have cherry picked another Indian girl. Yet
others are some Zionist Neocon advisors helping specific Indian
industries to make image making rise, eg Mettal. The idea is to
purposely sabotage China's global rise and steady progress. The Bush
and Neocon principle of politics is by deception, spying, scaring and
myth-making. It has been very successful in the PAST. The creation of
Israel on the land of Palestine was thru the false myth as the Rabbi's
of Neturei Karta have explained to us. The free book on the internet,
Min Ha Mitzer, From the Depths or "Holocaust Victims Accuse" [the
zionists] is available as a pdf for download. Its written wy Rabbi
Wasserman who was himself in the Aushwitz. Similarly, 911 was a fake
myth.Its best described in the words of Philosophy Professor James
Fetzer.

footnote: Bush's pretense of RELOGISITY is a MYTH. He screwed numerous
girls in his drinking years.

www.st911.org

he Science of 9/11: What's Controversial, What's Not

Propaganda by the government and the corporate media would have us
believe that the 9/11 "inside job" hypothesis is not merely
controversial but unsupported by proof. That is wrong. Academics,
experts, and scholars who have examined the physical evidence and
considered this event within its historical context tend to converge in
agreement that the inside-job hypothesis is, in fact, strongly
supported by the available evidence, while the version advanced in The
9/11 Commission Report is not only false but provably false and in
crucial respects physically impossible. That the official account of
9/11 is a lie and that 9/11 appears to have been an inside job is no
longer a matter of serious scientific debate.

Even though the broad outlines of what happened are no longer
controversial--for example, we know that The World Trade Center was
intentionally demolished by a high-energy causal process physically
unrelated to plane crashes and resulting fires--the precise details of
how the perpetrators carried out the attack remains the subject of
intense controversy. From a political point of view, this controversy
may be insignificant. What we know with relative certainty about 9/11
is already the story of the century: it demands re-thinking our
history, our politics, perhaps even our way of life. But from a
scientific rather than political standpoint, controversial questions
about what may have happened on 9/11 are fascinating and
challenging--not least of all because they could lead to a better
understanding of 9/11 with respect to its social and political
significance.

In an attempt to clarify these matters, Scholars for 9/11 Truth will be
hosting a conference entitled "The Science of 9/11: What's
Controversial, What's Not", to be held in mid- to late-July in Madison,
WI. I think we can all agree that the most important dimension of our
efforts is explaining why the "official account" that the government
has advanced cannot be sustained. Since there can be disagreements even
here about what we should or should not emphasize and what has or has
not been proven to an extent that is sufficient to emphasize them as
"refutations" of the government's account, I am inviting Barrie Zwicker
to organize the opening session, a panel discussion on "disproofs" of
the government's account.

Following the opening session, there will be a keynote speaker and five
major sessions devoted to the issues that have tended to divide us. As
the program chair, I am inviting Steve Jones to organize a panel
discussion of the use of conventional means for destroying the Twin
Towers. [Editor's note: I regret to report that Steve Jones has
declined.] I am inviting Judy Wood to organize a panel discussion on
non-conventional means, including high-tech directed energy weaponry,
that might have been used to destroy the World Trade Center. I am
inviting Morgan Reynolds to organize a panel on planes/no planes at the
WTC and George Nelson on the Pentagon and Shanksville. Each of these
sessions would be of 2 1/2 to 3 hours duration. I anticipate there will
be a registration fee of $100 for the week-end long conference, which
will include a keynote address on Saturday evening.

While the program is at its tentative and preliminary stage, I am open
to suggestions for possible participants and additional topics. There
may be changes in the individuals responsible for some of these panels,
but my expectation would be that their focus will remain the same.
Anyone who has ideas they would like to share with me is welcome to
forward them to me at jfetzer@d.umn.edu at their earliest convenience.
This conference should provide an opportunity for experts on complex
and technical scientific questions to explain their research and its
significance. My hope is that by "agreeing to disagree," and by
subjecting each others' research to rigorous but collegial criticism,
the attention-getting controversial aspects of 9/11 research may be
turned into a benefit, rather than a distraction, in the larger process
of seeking and exposing the truth about 9/11.


James H. Fetzer
Founder
Scholars for 9/11 Truth