A Republican Geggy can vote for!

[mburbank]

GOP Candidate Says 9/11 Attacks Were a Hoax
By Albert McKeon
The Nashua Telegraph

Thursday 24 August 2006

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.

[El Blanco]

Why did you open this door again?

[mburbank]

I thought it had a wee new twist.

[El Blanco]

Does she actually have the nod of the GOP? Is this some kind of major seat? I'm assuming this is Mass. so who gives a fying fuck what the Republicans there say?

It doesn't take much to run for an office. I can go register with either party and say I am the candidate for Senate. Once the primary rolls around, thats another story.

[Miss Modular]

Maybe she's one of these people who are registered as Republican to Subvert the party. I think Billy Jack ran against the President (obviously unsuccessfully) in 2004 for the same reason.

[ScruU2wice]

Originally Posted by mburbank

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.

Not saying that she's not crazy, but there is evidence that the Lusitania was sunk by an accidental explosion caused by the gathering of coal dust in the hull of the ship. Right? I'm pretty sure I saw a History channel thing on it. I don't know

[Sethomas]

I believe you're thinking of the USS Maine, an ironclad that exploded from a fuel malfunction off the coast of Havana. That ended up triggering the Spanish-American War, hence "Remember the Maine, Hell to Spain". As for the Lusitania, I don't think there's any good reason to believe that it wasn't a German submarine sinking it with a German torpedo, but the issue lies in the British violating war agreements about what is acceptable as a civilian boat and where they were safe to sail. The British willfully sailed the Lusitania through hot waters, and the Germans were led to believe (correctly, I think) that the ship had a sizable cache of arms along with its passengers, thus disqualifying it from immunity anyways.

It also wouldn't surprise me if the Zimmerman message was a British hoax, but I'm not convinced either way.

[El Blanco]

I'm pretty sure the Germans were open about the fact that they sank the Lusitania.

But, ya, I've also been a little wary of the Zimmerman note.

[Geggy]

Who cares about who did 9/11? Did you hear about Jonbenet's real killer coming forward?

For once I agree with Blanco, who cares which party she's running for...9/11 is a non-paristan issue. Lately, conversative media outlets on TV and educational channels colluding with the US government such as history channel and national geographics are fighting us hard by showing several documentries of Osama bin Laden. The only opportunity we have to expose US govt's hand in 9/11 is local cable access channel.

False flag terrorism in order to galanvize support for invasion or inciting wars is the oldest trick in the book dating way back to roman times, japan did it in 1931 when they blew up the tracks of it's railway and blamed it on the chineses as pretext to invade and take over manchuria, there's the reichstag fire in which communists were blamed, countless MOSSAD's false flag operations (they're able to pull it off cuz they're damn clever like that), pearl harbour, gulf tonkin, etc, etc.

[Geggy]

I want to add that I strongly dont believe Bush was involved with the planning, he at least knew what was being planned and allowed it to happen. I've come to a conclusion that it was Dick Cheney who is the real culprit, which shouldn't come to surprise to anyone since he's evil and a genius bastard. In may of 2001, Bush gave cheney direct orders to operate and schedule wargame exercies. He took over as the acting commander in chief on the morning of 9/11 when bush was stranded in florida. Wargame exercises timeline here...

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/t...itaryExercises

If you believe the bush administration had been warned and did nothing to stop it based on acts of incompetence, here are couple of real, actual quotes...

"I was sitting there thinking about it. It was a clear day, there was no weather problem-how in hell could a plane hit the World Trade Center?" -Dick Cheney's alleged reaction to first impact in NYC.

"What a horrible accident!" -W. Bush, who then later suggested the pilot may have had a heart attack.

Bullshit. I'd laugh if it wasn't so sad.

[El Blanco]

So, you are atleast abandoning the retarded "controled demolition" idea?

Baby steps towards reality.

[ItalianStereotype]

geggy, are you honestly suggesting that pearl harbor was ANYTHING other than a japanese provocation?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by Geggy

The only opportunity we have to expose US govt's hand in 9/11 is local cable access channel.

[Geggy]

Oops I think I meant that the approach by us govt on the pearl harbor attack was that it failed based on incompetent decisions, yet it gave them an entry into ww2 in which they most desired for. Similiar kind of approach by the us govt had on 9/11 claiming the security failed in preventing the attacks, yet it gave them an opportunity to invade the middle east to further their agenda.

Blanco I still stand by the retarded controlled demolition idea. I'm no structural engineer but it was the anamolies and the coverups surrounding the collapsing of the three buildings that lead me to believe that it came down by controlled demolition. I rarely ever talk about it anymore because it would require observing photographic and video images and I got sick of it. But even if it was true that the buildings came down by plane impacts and building falling next to it (WTC7), how does it not make it an inside job?

[Dr. Boogie]

Would it be out of line if I said that I was personally involved in the 9/11 coverup?

[Preechr]

And I'm the Juggernaut, bitch.

[El Blanco]

Originally Posted by Geggy

Blanco I still stand by the retarded controlled demolition idea.

No matter what those pesky laws of physics say.

I'm no structural engineer

Strangley, neither are any of your sources.

but it was the anamolies

So, because not every mundane detail can be explained the rest of the mountains of evidence need to be ignored.

and the coverups surrounding the collapsing of the three buildings that lead me to believe that it came down by controlled demolition.

How odd that people who actually work in fields like demolitions and civil engineering disagree with you.

I rarely ever talk about it anymore because it would require observing photographic and video images and I got sick of it.

Or maybe because you know its bullshit and are sick of getting called on it.

But even if it was true that the buildings came down by plane impacts and building falling next to it (WTC7), how does it not make it an inside job?

How the hell am I supposed to prove a negative? Where is your proof it was?

Where is the the testimony of any of the THOUSANDS (and yes, there had to be thousands) of people involved before during and after the fact?

[Geggy]

http://www.arcticbeacon.com/19-Jul-2005.html

NY Fireman Lou Cacchioli Upset That 9/11 Commission 'Tried To Twist My Words;' A True Hero, He Vows To Stick To The Truth, Something Lacking In The 9/11 Investigation

Former veteran fireman recalls hearing three distinct 'huge explosions' while rescuing people in north tower between 23rd and 24th floors, testimony ignored in the 9/11 Commission's final report. Brave fireman recalls how he almost called it quits after losing his buddies, his job and his health. Now, four years later, he's finally on the rebound, making an emotional and physical recovery, adding he keeps active with the fire department and enjoys his life as a new grandfather.

19 Jul 2005

By Greg Szymanski

[Geggy]

CREDIBLE SOURCES SUCH AS NEW YORK FIREFIGHTERS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS

Firefighters, law enforcement officers, and other extremely credible witnesses have also discredited the Administration's version of why the world trade center buildings collapsed on 9/11:

Reporter for USA Today stated that the FBI believed that bombs in the buildings brought the buildings down

NY Fire Department Chief of Safety stated there were "bombs" and "secondary devices", which caused the explosions in the buildings (video); or high-quality audio here

NYC firefighters who witnessed attacks stated that it looked like there were bombs in the buildings

NYC firefighter stated "On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building"

NYC firefighter stated there was a "bomb in the building ... start clearing out"

MSNBC reporter stated that police had found a suspicious device "and they fear it could be something that might lead to another explosion" and the police officials believe "that one of the explosions at the world trade center . . . may have been caused by a van that was parked in the building that may have had some kind of explosive device in it, so their fear is that there may have been explosive devices planted either in the building or in the adjacent area"

NYC firefighter stated "the south tower . . . exploded . . . At that point a debate began to rage because the perception was that the building looked like it had been taken out with charges . . . many people had felt that possibly explosives had taken out 2 World Trade" (pages 6 & 7)

All sources of videos and articles here: http://911proof.com/11.html

[El Blanco]

Originally Posted by Geggy

http://www.arcticbeacon.com/19-Jul-2005.html

NY Fireman Lou Cacchioli Upset That 9/11 Commission 'Tried To Twist My Words;' A True Hero, He Vows To Stick To The Truth, Something Lacking In The 9/11 Investigation

Former veteran fireman recalls hearing three distinct 'huge explosions' while rescuing people in north tower between 23rd and 24th floors, testimony ignored in the 9/11 Commission's final report. Brave fireman recalls how he almost called it quits after losing his buddies, his job and his health. Now, four years later, he's finally on the rebound, making an emotional and physical recovery, adding he keeps active with the fire department and enjoys his life as a new grandfather.

19 Jul 2005

By Greg Szymanski

No, douchebag. Read the article.

Furthermore, Cacchioli was upset that People Magazine misquoted him, saying "there were bombs" in the building when all he said was he heard "what sounded like bombs" without having definitive proof bombs were actually detonated

[El Blanco]

I'm at work, so I can't view most of that stuff. But did you actually read what they were sourcing? Or did you just take what they cut out?

NYC firefighter stated "the south tower . . . exploded . . . At that point a debate began to rage because the perception was that the building looked like it had been taken out with charges . . . many people had felt that possibly explosives had taken out 2 World Trade" (pages 6 & 7)

From their perspective, it looked like the tower exploded about midway down. If they were at the bottom on the other side, they wouldn't have seen the second plane coming in. He was just refering to his first impression.

And phrases like "sounded like" "as if" "reminded me of" tell you that the speaker is about to use a simile. Go back to fourth grade and learn what that is.

[Geggy]

So where do you think what sounded like an explosion was coming from? Is what you think it was that exploded an evidence of what you think it was that exploded? Why didn't FEMA, NIST, 9/11 commission report, structural engineers, etc clarify that these sounds of explosions were not coming from explosives? Could they have at least gathered all witnesses statements, videos/audios and analyze these sounds just to reassure that it wasn't coming from explosives instead of covering it up and reject the notion that buildings were brought down with explosives because the idea is 'retarded'? You seem to have all the answers in the world, I'd like to hear them, please. Thanks.

[El Blanco]

Originally Posted by Geggy

So where do you think what sounded like an explosion was coming from?

You mean a loud banging noise in a building that was just struck by a plane and was collapsing?

Is what you think it was that exploded an evidence of what you think it was that exploded?

No, but that fact that there is no evidence of explosives.....oh fuck it, I am not going to run in this crcle with you.

Why didn't FEMA, NIST, 9/11 commission report, structural engineers, etc clarify that these sounds of explosions were not coming from explosives?

Why should they? Reports like that are onyl supposed to refer to what did most likely happen happen, not what deffinatly didn't happen. It all comes back to that proving a negative thing.

And besides, like you wouldn't find it wierd that there was a sentence in any of the official reports saying "And it wasn't a bomb".

Could they have at least gathered all witnesses statements, videos/audios and analyze these sounds just to reassure that it wasn't coming from explosives

they did go through evidence. They didn't find anything that said demolitions.

instead of covering it up and reject the notion that buildings were brought down with explosives because the idea is 'retarded'?

You can't cover up something that didn't happen.

You seem to have all the answers in the world, I'd like to hear them, please. Thanks.

If I put it on a blog or set it to shitty technomusic in a crappy flash video, would you be willing to listen?

[Geggy]

Originally Posted by El Blanco

.....oh fuck it, I am not going to run in this crcle with you.

I know the feeling.

If I put it on a blog or set it to shitty technomusic in a crappy flash video, would you be willing to listen?

Are you refering to loose change 2? There are a lot of things i didnt agree with in this film but i would recommend "september 11 revisited", http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWgSaBT9hNU

[El Blanco]

I would recommend a therapist.

Can you post what you think happened? I mean the players, the timeline, the set up, the execution etc etc?