Email
Password
Remember meForgot password?
    Log in with Twitter

article imageWhy is Super Bowl Seahawks Coach Pete Carroll a 9/11 Truther?

By Ralph Lopez     Jan 29, 2014 in World
As the 2014 Super Bowl approaches, the sports world is abuzz with the news that Seattle Seahawks coach Pete Carroll is a skeptic of the official 9/11 story, who is particularly aggressive in speaking his mind.
The gifted field general for the Hawks gave a four-star Army general a grilling over 9/11, sparking a dialogue in forums previously no more political than a quarterback's shoulder injury.
But what were the questions? Reports are muddled. SBNation.com wrote last week of the possible public relations ploy by the military which backfired:
"The sit-down between Chiarelli and Carroll started off normally enough. They talked about the team, and then about head trauma. Chiarelli, who commanded the American forces in Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom II, talked about the brain injuries he had seen there. But Chiarelli's mention of Iraq sent Carroll in another direction: He wanted to know if the September 11 attacks had been planned or faked by the United States government.
In particular, Carroll wanted to know whether the attack on the Pentagon had really happened. Chiarelli—who was the top-ranking Army official inside the Pentagon when American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into its western side—explained that it had. He said he had lost many colleagues. But Carroll didn't stop there. He ran through the whole 9/11 truther litany.
"Whether the attack on the Pentagon had really happened?" Is this guy kidding? Does he really think that the Pentagon is still standing there undamaged in its pristine state before 9/11? That 125 people didn't die?
Since nowhere in the literature of the 9/11 Truth Movement is there any serious question as to whether the attack "had really happened," Carroll was likely echoing the movement's contention that the attack could not have "happened" as the official narrative states. This would be the report released by FEMA and entitled the "Pentagon Building Performance Report".
Even more interesting, sources within 2,000 Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth say that Carroll was a recipient of an information packet put out by the organization, whose founder and Carroll both grew up in the Bay area.
So what did Carroll say? With respect to the Pentagon, 911Research.org, which acts as a depository of the record on 9/11, begins:
"While officials in New York City went about the systematic destruction of the vast amounts of evidence comprising the remains of the World Trade Center, official handlers of the Pentagon strike undertook the much smaller task of erasing physical evidence that a jetliner crashed into the Pentagon. The resulting evidence vacuum created the conditions for a protracted controversy about what hit the Pentagon. "
On the question of "what hit the Pentagon," former Commanding General of U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, Major General Albert Stubblebine, says on a website which lists hundreds of US military officers and intelligence professionals for 9/11 Truth:
"for one thing, if you look at the hole that was made in the Pentagon, the nose penetrated far enough so that there should have been wing marks on the walls of the Pentagon. I have been unable to find those wing marks. So where were they? Did this vessel -- vehicle, or whatever it was -- have wings? Apparently not, because if it had had wings, they would have made marks on the side of the Pentagon.
One person counteracted my theory, and said, "Oh, you've got it all wrong. And the reason that it's wrong is that as the airplane came across, one wing tipped down and hit the ground and broke off." I said, "Fine, that's possible, one wing could have broken off." But if I understand airplanes correctly, most airplanes have two wings. "
US Army Major General Albert Stubblebine
US Army Major General Albert Stubblebine
http://patriotsquestion911.com/
As well, military and commercial pilots represented at Pilots for 9/11 Truth express disbelief that Hani Hanjour, who was denied further flight school lessons for his inability to handle a Cessna, performed a feat of aerial acrobatics they say was worthy of a Top Gun.
An excerpt from Pilots for 9/11 Truth reads:
"So lets take an avg speed throughout the dive of 430 knots (7 miles/min). We know a standard rate turn is 2 mins for 360 degrees. So lets say he completed the turn in just under 2 minutes. Since we don't know bank angles or speed. That means he was descending at better than 2500 fpm dropping almost 5000 feet only gaining 30 knots. No problem for guys like you and me, but for Hani? We'll get to him later...
Once this maneuver was completed, without going into a graveyard spiral, he started to pull out of the descent at 2200 feet and accelerated only 30 knots more at full power to 460 knots in a descent from 2200 feet to the pentagon in about a minute (Whats Vmo at sea level for a 757? Flap speed? Since it looks like he may have found the flap handle only accelerating 60 knots from 7000 feet, the from 2200 feet at full power). AA77 crossed the highways, knocking down light poles, entered ground effect, didn't touch the lawn and got a 44 foot high target (Tail height of 757) into a 77 foot target completely, without overshooting or bouncing off the lawn, or spreading any wreckage at 460 knots. With a 33 foot margin for error. Wow, impressive. Takes a real steady hand to pull that off. I know it would take me a few tries to get it so precise, especially entering ground effect at those speeds. Any slight movement will put you off 50 feet very quickly. I'm sure we all would agree.
So, who pulled off this stunt? Hani Hanjour."
Not least, "9/11 Truthers" question the role that Vice President Dick Cheney played in apparently allowing an aircraft or projectile coming at the Pentagon to hit it when the radar in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center had a lock on it, and a junior officer was asking Cheney if he should shoot it down. The evidence, they say, is in the 9/11 Commission Report, in the testimony of former Secretary of Transportation Norman Minetta. As questioned by Commission Chairman Lee Hamilton, Minetta said for the record:
MR. HAMILTON: We thank you for that. I wanted to focus just a moment on the Presidential Emergency Operating Center. You were there for a good part of the day. I think you were there with the vice president. And when you had that order given, I think it was by the president, that authorized the shooting down of commercial aircraft that were suspected to be controlled by terrorists, were you there when that order was given?
MR. MINETA: No, I was not. I was made aware of it during the time that the airplane coming into the Pentagon. There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"
Since the incoming aircraft was locked on as a target by radar and it did not get shot down, 9/11 truth advocates point out that the standing order referred to by the junior officer, and upheld by Cheney, was a stand-down order to not shoot it down. Since the aircraft or projectile indeed hit the Pentagon, there can be no other conclusion.
We do not know what the SBNation.com report on Carroll's hard questioning of General Chiarelli meant when it states that Carroll "ran through the whole 9/11 truther litany," but sources inside the 2,000 Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911) say that the organization had mailed coach Carroll a "VIP pack," which it has delivered to all current members of Congress and many notable public figures. Thus a first approximation of the questions still widely asked by skeptics of the official narrative can be found in a letter delivered by Richard Gage, founder ofAE911, to former Congressman Robert Wexler. An excerpted version of the letter Gage wrote follows:
"Just over a year ago, I heard on a radio program new facts and compelling arguments regarding the terrible events at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. I was stunned. After completing some investigation, I realized that we had not been told the truth about the events of that day.
The explanations of the destruction of the iconic Twin Towers and WTC Building 7(3) offered by FEMA and NIST defy laws of physics. This is easy to prove and has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt....
• Why did more than 100 FDNY first responders describe, in great detail, the sounds of explosions and flashes of light that they saw and heard at the onset, and during, the collapse? Why did we not know about these 10,000 pages of FDNY "oral history" evidence until August, 2005 – and only then after a court order for their release? FDNY's own Chief of Safety, Albert Turi, and FDNY's nationally recognized Chief, Ray Downey, the "premiere collapse expert in the country" according to a fellow chief, both spoke of the presence of explosives in the Towers prior to their failures. More than 100 testimonies referring to multiple, violent explosions were ignored by the 9/11 Commission, NIST and FEMA.
• What was the energy source, and through what mechanism was it applied, that pulverized 400,000 cubic yards of concrete into a fine powder that blanketed Manhattan? Calculations show that the energy requirement for this was greater than the available gravitational potential energy of the structures...
• How were massive structural steel members hurled from the Twin Towers at 70 mph – some of them landing 600 feet away?
• Why were most windows within 400 feet of each tower blown out?
• Why were virtually no floors found at the base of either Twin Tower? There were originally 110 floors – each of them one acre in size. What explains the disappearance of 220 acres of four-inch thick concrete and steel decking?
• Why were there explosive ejections of dust & gases(squibs) 20, 40 and 60 stories below the rapidly descending "collapse" in each tower?...
• How did the elevated building mass destroy 80,000 tons of structural steel at near free-fall speed, and with such radial symmetry? Given the asymmetrical structural and fire damage and the tendency of any disorder to grow over time (as described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics), the falling building sections should have "rolled off" of the intact sections below, resulting in only partial collapses.
• Given that open-air jet fuel fires and normal office fires both burn at a maximum of around 1,500° F., and the melting point of steel is around 2,700° F., what thermal energy source produced the tons of molten metal observed flowing out of the South Tower shortly before its collapse – and also seen for weeks after 9/11/01 in the basements of the Twin Towers and Building 7 by numerous witnesses, including the WTC structural engineer, Leslie Robertson.
• What explains the chemical evidence of thermite, an incendiary material found on the ends of steel beams? In Appendix C of its BPAT Report, FEMA documented that "evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure." This is clearly not a feature of gravitational collapse, or jet fuel or office fires.
...
• Why did Building 7 start its sudden and uniform collapse at an acceleration rate nearly that of a body in free fall? Video analysis shows the upper portion of the structure accelerating at the maximum rate gravity allows. This can only mean that the structure below offered no resistance. What mechanism can account for the simultaneous failure of the critical number and distribution of columns required to produce this rate of acceleration?..."
Windows Blown Out of Buildings Adjacent to WTC
Windows blown out from concussive force in buildings adjacent to World Trade Center.
Windows blown out from concussive force in buildings adjacent to World Trade Center.
911Research.org
The last point, regarding "Building 7," refers to the 47-story skyscraper which also disappeared from the skyline in a matter of seconds on 9/11, which housed the Mayor's Office of Emergency Management Command Center. "An acceleration rate nearly that of a body in free fall" refers to the speed at which any streamlined object accelerates to the ground, regardless of weight. Although the official narrative contends that the weight of floors piling onto previously collapsed floors provided a mechanism for the floors to collapse faster and faster, skeptics point out that Galileo's Laws prove that such a mechanism is not possible.
Since all streamlined objects fall to Earth at the same acceleration, and that acceleration can only be attained through thin air, the building frames could only have been getting cut to pieces in an accelerating downward sequence, as in a demolition. Since mass does not accelerate as it accumulates, say skeptics. Furthermore, it is argued, the evidence and pattern of destruction in all three buildings, WTC 1, WTC 2, and Building 7, is consistent with known demolition techniques.
In 2012, 2,000 Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth produced a feature-length documentary, sponsored by families of 9/11 victims, which debuted on Colorado's PBS network.
Demonstration of Galileo's Law
Sound of Explosions
Carroll turned the discussion to 9/11 after he and the general touched on Iraq, the invasion of which was justified by 9/11. Aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln during his "Mission Accomplished" speech, three months after the invasion began, President George W. Bush said:
"We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th, the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States, and war is what they got."
2,000 Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Building 7 Expose
One article on the Carroll controversy noted that Carroll seems to have a fondness for soldiers. He once, when still a coach at USC, was called upon to speak to the US Army's Conference on Small Unit Excellence. Held in Alexandria, VA, the USC News wrote that Carroll inspired his military audience, and earned high praise for his famous theme "Win Forever." One participant told the USC News after Carroll left: ““We’re going to make sure that the engagement Coach has in the future is very high-impact...We’ll carry on his philosophy in various forms without his physical presence, but we may call him in the future to be physically here.” Carroll replied : “I’ll do anything they want me to...and I’ll give everything I’ve got to serve.”
Rethink911.org billboard in Dallas.
Rethink911.org billboard in Dallas.
http://rethink911.org
The difficult questions posed by Carroll to the four-star general, as the story reverberates across America and dinner table conversations prior to the Super Bowl, seem reminiscent of what one soldier-participant in the Alexandria conference had to say about Carroll. The officer told a reporter:
“Much like the rock that you drop in calm water, the effects of Coach’s presence and what he had to say is still rippling through the body of communities here...The ripples are still reverberating through our communities.”
Although the questions still surrounding 9/11, according to skeptics, are almost too numerous to count - WTC leaseholder Larry Silverstein's "pull it" remark, the scheduling of multiple war games which had the effect of confusing the NORAD air defenses, the coincidence that a member of the Bush family holding the security contract for the World Trade Center Complex on the day of the attacks, and other "anomalies" as skeptics are fond of saying - Carroll, revered by many, placed questions on 9/11 firmly within bounds..
Firefighter John Schroeder, skeptic of official narrative
More about Pete carroll, Superbowl, Super bowl, Seahawks, 911
 
Latest News
Top News