"To tell the truth": Sac News & Review on 9/11 Truth

This week's cover story--by R.V. Scheide--in the Sac News & Review is on the local 9/11 Truth Commission. It starts out looking like he's going to try to "de-bunk" the idea that there's more to the story than meets the eye, but as the article goes on, it becomes clear that he thinks there's something to it:

To tell the truth

On September 11, 2001, terrorists hijacked four jetliners, crashing two planes into the twin towers of the World Trade Center and one into the Pentagon. The fourth jet smashed into the ground in Pennsylvania after passengers overpowered the hijackers and the plane plunged out of control. By the end of the day, the twin towers, along with one other building in the WTC complex, had collapsed, the Pentagon was in flames, and more than 3,000 Americans had been killed in the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history.

Three days later, the FBI released the names and photographs of 19 Middle Eastern men, the alleged perpetrators of the attack. They were said to belong to Al Qaeda, a terrorist organization headed by Osama bin Laden that also has been accused of bombing two U.S. embassies in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen.

That at least was the government’s official version of events, what most Americans have accepted as 9/11’s official story. However, an increasing number of skeptics now challenge the official story, including a group of 50 Sacramento activists who meet monthly to compare notes on the topic. They’re part of what’s become known as the 9/11 Truth movement, a nationwide collection of concerned citizens who, provoked by the government’s failure to mount any sort of meaningful investigation, have begun investigating on their own.The movement’s theories about what really happened range from alleged criminal incompetence on behalf of the Bush administration to the virtually unthinkable notion that rogue elements of the U.S. government planned and executed the attack, including blowing up the World Trade Center. Could it really be possible that a small cadre of neoconservatives conspired to murder more than 3,000 Americans in order to create a “new Pearl Harbor”?

That depends on how far you’re willing to go.

Fortunately I had time to read the whole thing today.....

Let me jump into the fray with just one comment (I usually refrain)

I cannot buy the controlled demolition of the twin towers....from what I know about demolition, the process necessary to do a complete controlled demolition without damaging surrounding buildings is very, very intensive and not as easy as just planting thermite charges...but the buildings DID collapse in an orderly fashion, just as if it was controlled demolition. I have to think that event will be known as one of the greatest coincidences in the historty of the world.

Building 7?

I'm baffled. Absolutely baffled. I remember some confusion and disbelief from the commentators on TV that day when Building 7 collapsed....

The plane hitting the pentagon? I think there are a lot of witnesses to it.

Flight 93? In my opinion it was shot down...absolutely 100% shot down. Some great fiction written by DUer Robb...provides a great scenario....read it here
http://members.fortunecity.com/seismicevent/chapter1.html

That makes the fact in-and-of-itself that three buildings, not one, collapsed at near free-fall speed into their own footprint the Greatest Coincidence in the History of the World.

You know what the odds of that happening are?

Astronomical is the appropriate word, I think.

One of these days somebody will force the issue and we will get answers. I am afraid of what we might find. This one single issue is the biggest cloud, in my mind, over the BFEE and the one I just can't let go of. I am not convinced, but that doubt makes me stop and go hmmm...a few times a day.

I like that it emphasized the totally unexplainable fact that WTC7 came down with no resistance and barely a fire. But I kept waiting for the point that Standard Operating Procedures were not followed that day by NORAD and the DOD and that has never been explained. An intelligence failure? Even if that were true it does not explain what actually happened on that day. How is it that after 1 plane hit a tower the other highjacked planes (all known to have been highjacked by that point) were not shot down? The real question is why did the plane hit the Pentagon at all? Why did they let people go back up in the towers? Why did Bush continue with his photo op when he knew one plane had hit the WTC? Once one hit he should have known instantly that we were under attack because he had warnings in the PDB.

These are the questions. The attack took place over hours and nothing was done to stop it during it. How can any thinking person not be suspicious?

Good point.

Most of us who heard about the first plane assumed it was an idiot Cessna pilot.
Those who learned about it after the second hit knew it was an attack as soon as
they heard.

But Bush's first thought when he heard "WTC hit by an airplane" should have been
"Oh Shit, it's Osama!" Instead he pretended he didn't know.

Others to try to reframe it, giving excuses why the Pentagon does not know a plane is hostile because it's near an airport and other garbage, but bottom line is why was SOP not followed, especially after they knew they were "under attack" and had plenty of lead time and there was a plane headed toward Washington!!! Arguments like the o.p. show the deceptiveness of the official line givers.