FDNY Chaplain Doubts Official Story

FDNY Chaplain Doubts Official Story

http://www.ny911truth.org/articles/FDNY_chaplain.htm

Les Jamieson
Oct. 4, 2005

Skepticism of the official account of 9/11 reached a high level of exposure on Friday, Sept. 30th. New York Newsday ran an article by Carol Eisenbrenner describing an interview with a Muslim chaplain that had just been hired by the FDNY. See the following excerpts with commentary.

"In a telephone interview Thursday, Habib, 30, a native of Guyana who studied Islam in Saudi Arabia, said he questioned whether 19 hijackers were responsible for the Sept. 11 terror attacks, and suggested a broader conspiracy may have brought down the Twin Towers and killed more than 2,700 people.

He said he doubted the United States government's official story blaming 19 hijackers associated with al-Quaida and Osama bin Laden."

Here was a man who is aware of the glaring anomalies of the government's explanation, has honest doubts and had the audacity to voice them and the naivete to think his honesty wouldn't have any unwanted repercussions.

"I, as an individual, don't know who did the attacks," said Habib, 30, a soft-spoken man who immigrated to New York in July 2000 after spending six years in Saudi Arabia getting a degree in Islamic theology and law. "There are so many conflicting reports about it. I don't believe it was 19 ... hijackers who did those attacks."

Asked to elaborate on his reasons for doubting that story, he talked about video and news reports widely disseminated in the Muslim community.

"I've heard professionals say that nowhere ever in history did a steel building come down with fire alone," he said. "It takes two or three weeks to demolish a building like that. But it was pulled down in a couple of hours. Was it 19 hijackers who brought it down, or was it a conspiracy?"

The comments above should make it clear that a thinking individual who has seen the alternative research and heard from professionals who are talking about the tower collapses arrives at the logical conclusion that the official story doesn't add up.

"The Fire Department this morning received the resignation of Imam Intikab Habib from his position of FDNY Chaplain," said FDNY Commissioner Nicholas Scoppetta. "Based on comments he made to Newsday, Imam Intikab Habib would have been unable to effectively serve in the role he was appointed to."

Mayor Bloomberg said he welcomed Habib's resignation. "The remarks were offensive and the mayor is satisfied that the chaplain has resigned," mayoral spokesman Ed Skyler said.

"This is not a person who should be representing a department that was devastated on Sept. 11, answering their spiritual needs," [Bloomberg] said.

When pressed further about whether the hijackers' backgrounds -- 15 of whom were Saudi -- might make his training an issue for still-grieving firefighters, he went on to express his own doubts about the hijacker story.

Now this is serious and must be thoroughly understood by all. News came out within hours of this article that Imam Habib was basically forced to resign in a hurry. The clamp down on truth was immediate. The word came down from on high, Mayor Bloomberg's office and Fire Commissioner Scoppetta issued edicts of intolerance. There would be no public display of questioning the Big Lie.

As in a fascist dictatorship you either stay in step with state doctrine and policy or pay the price. Furthermore, it must be recognized that the propaganda technique they're using is to capitalize on the "grief factor". In other words, the emotional suffering of victim's family members is being used to erect an inpenetrable wall through which none can look through. It's more important to avoid any disturbance of those who lost so much than to address the true crimes that occurred on that day. Any attempts will be met with chastisement and ridicule. The psy-op is in place. The last thing the state apparatus wants is for the still grieving to be aware of who actually murdered their loved ones.

All truth seeking peoples around the world owe the Imam a great debt for his willingness to publicize what must be expressed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To download last Friday's "Mike Malloy Show" (which was broadcast nationwide and covered this topic extensively) from www.WhiteRoseSociety.org, at http://www.whiterosesociety.org/cont...0-09-2005).mp3

For more coverage, see articles at 911truth.org.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Few Letters to the Editor

We received these letters from New Yorkers who felt compelled to voice their opinions on this important matter. Their knowledge of the issue is evident. You'd think our media would have at least as much awareness of the discrepancies in the official story of 9/11. (Names are withheld for obvious reasons.)

To the Editor -

Newsday seems as alarmed as the NYFD muslim chaplain, Imam Intikab Habib, had doubts about the hijackers-did-it-conspiracy-myth associated with events of Sept. 11th, 2001. I hope this chaplain doesn't resign. He only voiced opinions held by about half of New Yorkers.

Perhaps someone at the NYFD should read "Fire Engineering" magazine, Jan. 4, 2002. It states: "Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure."

Or perhaps Newsday might note the so-called 'investigation' missed the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused steel-frame buildings to collapse. Never.

Maybe Newsday will look at a film of the collapse of WTC1 & 2 with a stop watch and note the amount of time it takes the buildings to fall. It works out to the speed of gravity. This indicates the use of explosives or other demolition tool, not architechtual failure. Nothing was impacted on the descent of the many floors, there was no so-called pancaking of floors. That would add measurable seconds onto the descent time. I can tell you the NIST* didn't.

Or maybe Newsday will visit the Museum of Natural History and ask a chemist or geologist the temperature it takes to melt steel and the temperature jet fuel burns at. The fuel generates about 1/3rd the needed heat. The fuel burned quickly too. And in photos** of the burned upper floors, living people are photographed peering out after the fire burned out. Even an unburned book is photographed in the fire damaged area and fans of Ray Bradbury all know paper burns at 451o farenheight.

There are literally thousands of holes in the "official" explaination for the events of Sept. 11, 2001 and the chaplain is not at all unusual or unworthy of his position for mentioning them.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Editors:

I applaud your recent coverage of an issue that's been resoundingly ignored by the media elsewhere -- responsible skepticism in regard to the official version of what came down on 9/11.

You've shown us how a religious leader's opinion on this issue disqualifies him from employment among "New York's finest." Talk about political correctness.

Obviously, when one has anything at stake careerwise, it takes courage to think and speak independently on this topic. Yet the case for skepticism is compelling, as by now has been amply documented for those who care to know the truth.

When more people -- and media outlets like yours -- are willing to put themselves on the line by examining facts and asking hard questions, perhaps we'll have a shot at rescuing our country from its present, catastrophic and tyrannical misrule.

Hats off to you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You should be commended for breaking the 911 story. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Americans recognize that the official line is out of line, and that 911 happened quite differently than the official story. E.g., 7 WTC was brought down on 9/11 by controlled demolition, that had to have been planned in advance; the Pentagon was attacked by a missile or drone, not an airplane with wings larger than the hole found in the Pentagon.

It would be interesting if Newsday could explore some dissenting points of view in an article giving both sides of the issue. The outcome, I can assure you (as someone only several months into awareness) is a forgone conclusion. I do heavy commercial litigation and trial work, and understand what is and is not evidence, and I see a substantial amount of evidence that indicates 911 is not what the official story claims it to have been.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wanted to say thank you for covering what the Chaplain had to say. There are many of us who feel the official story does not stand up to scrutiny. We need a complete and thorough accounting of the events of 9/11. It was the catalyst for everything that has come since, and we owe it to ourselves to know exactly how everything occurred. Otherwise, it will continue to happen, and this country will be forever lost.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Editor,

In response to today's story "Imam resigns as incoming FDNY chaplain after report," written by Carol Eisenberg, I would just like to say that I support Imam Intikab Habib, and I think he should not have left the fire department because of his questioning of 9/11. Many Americans are not satisfied that the government's account of September 11 is accurate, and much of the "evidence" put forth by our leaders has been inconsistent with other evidence they have put forth.

I am not a conspiracy theorist, in fact, I often criticize conspiracy theorists. I live in New York City and I have spent a lot of time on Long Island, in grassroots politics. I am a citizen who is concerned about the safety and security of our country, and I fear that we are not safe, and not able to improve our security, if we do not question what happened on 9/11 so that we can ensure that it never happens again. We need more information, not less. And the best way to get more information is to begin asking the tough questions, as Mr. Habib did.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN PRAISE OF MADMEN

Dear Newsday -

Your friends over at the Post made a roast of Mr. Habib the day after you printed his remarks concerning 9/11, calling him a "MADMAN MULLAH" and applauding his dismissal for the crime of being a Muslim who honestly answered a reporter's questions on the phone.

Funny, the Post never mentioned the dozens of firefighters, cops, TV reporters and escaping tenants who confirm Mr. Habib's story. (See below.) Shouldn't they too be fired and/or deprived of their pensions?

Funny, the Post never mentioned that Mr. Habib is 100% correct when he says, "No steel building has ever been destroyed by fire." That's exactly what Fire Engineering Magazine says, and it's the undisputed Bible of hi-rise fire data.

Funny, the Post never mentioned that WTC leaseholder Larry Silverstein made a 233,333,333.33% profit (that's TWO HUNDRED THIRTY-THREE MILLION, THREE HUNDRED THIRTY-THREE THOUSAND, THREE HUNDRED THIRTY-THREE POINT THIRTY-THREE PERCENT PROFIT) from his $15 million downpayment on the WTC. Not bad for an investment held for about a month. Nothing suspicious about that, is there?

Funny, Silverstein's Building 7, the 47-story hi-rise across the street from the WTC, also collapsed on 9/11 - without being hit by a plane, and with only minor fires on two floors. Like the Twin Towers, it collapsed inward at the speed of free fall (6.5 seconds), which can only be achieved by controlled demolition. Nothing suspicious about that, is there?

Funny, Silverstein shared in a $450 million profit on Building 7 on top of the 233,333,333.33% profit he walked away with on the rest of the WTC. Nothing suspicious about that, is there?

Funny, the WTC leasehold was awarded by the Port Authority to the LOWEST bidder. That would be -- you guessed it -- Lawrence Silverstein, Esq. Nothing suspicious about that, is there?

Funny, according to an article in the London Financial Times that appeared days after 9/11, Silverstein had a clause written into the leasehold providing that, in the event of a terrorist attack on the WTC, he would no longer be liable for ground lease payments. He could -- and did -- walk away with a $3.5 billion insurance settlement without the inconvenience of having to make further payments to Port Authority. Nothing suspicious about that, is there?

Funny, Silverstein's attorneys refused to turn over the World Trade Center blueprints to Congressional investigators. Nothing suspicious about that, is there?

Funny, by order of the City of New York, the Towers' charred steel beams were removed from Ground Zero immediately -- before they could be forensically examined for traces of explosives. They were sold as scrap metal and shipped lickety-split to Asia. But, really, how could former federal prosecutor Rudolph Giuliani have known it's illegal to remove evidence from the scene of a crime, much less the scene of the nation's largest crime? Nothing suspicious about that, is there?

Funny, after Pearl Harbor, the JFK assassination, and the Gulf of Tonkin incident, federal investigations were commenced no later than two weeks after the crime. But President Bush and Vice President Cheney held up the 9/11 investigation for a YEAR AND A HALF. Nothing suspicious about that, is there?

Funny, according to CNN and other reports, the President and the Vice President each made personal phone calls to Senate leader Tom Daschle, asking him to LIMIT THE SCOPE OF THE 9/11 INVESTIGATION. What's more, they refused to testify under oath. Nothing suspicious about that, is there?

Funny, insider traders made millions of dollars by betting that American and United Airlines stock prices would crash on 9/11. The government knows who they are, but won't release the names of those who profited from foreknowledge of 9/11. Nothing suspicious about that, is there?

Funny, at each 9/11 airport, security camera films showed every passenger who boarded all four flights. But the government refuses to let us see exactly who was -- and who wasn't -- on those planes. Nothing suspicious about that, is there?

Funny, there are multiple air-to-ground tapes from 9/11, but the government will let us hear only one of them. Nothing suspicious about that, is there?

Funny, the FBI produced pictures of 19 Arab hi-jackers within 24 hours of the attack. But a few months later, the BBC and the London Telegraph discovered at least 6 of the "hi-jackers" were still alive, living in Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations. Nothing suspicious about that, is there?

Funny, from 1995 on, there were 11 high-level warnings to the CIA from foreign intelligence agencies, specifying a terrorist attack in lower Manhattan. No preventive measures were taken. Nothing suspicious about that, is there?

Funny, the year before 9/11, air force jets successfully intercepted planes that strayed off-course 67 times -- usually within 15-20 minutes. On 9/11, they couldn't intercept a single plane -- and they were looking for them. Nothing suspicious about that, is there?

Funny, the 60-ton Boeing 757 which crashed into the Pentagon entered through a hole about the size of a car, as shown by the first photo taken minutes after the crash. And amazingly, after being slammed into by a 60-ton jet traveling at 400 mph, the Pentagon wall did not collapse; it waited a half hour to fall down. Nothing suspicious about that, is there?

Funny, there were three security cameras opposite the Pentagon, and all three captured the Pentagon crash from start to finish. But the government will let us see ONLY FIVE FRAMES of one of the films, and none of the other two. Nothing suspicious about that, is there?

Funny, 9/11 expert David Ray Griffin combed through the 9/11 Commission's Final Report and came up with no fewer than 115 omissions, distortions and outright lies ... such as not mentioning a word of published eyewitness testimony that massive underground explosions were heard at Ground Zero immediately before the Towers collapsed straight down, inwardly, at the speed of free fall -- exhibiting all the signs of a controlled demolition. Nothing suspicious about that, is there?

No, there are no reasonable grounds for further investigation of 9/11. Nothing the public would be interested in learning more about . . . nothing that would outrage them. Why, you'd have to be a madman or a mullah -- or both -- to think so.